BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration

Subject: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 05:56 PM

I would like to start this new thread by inviting anyone who feels disappointed about the election of President-elect Obama to think about his statements: there is not a blue America and a red America--we are one nation, and we all have work to do and responsibility to take in making the future better.

With that sentiment in mind, what needs to be done? WHo, how and where should the Obama administration place its priorities to turn around the divisions and bitternesses that have poisoned our nation for the last many years, and start healing its Union, and its economy, and its repute, and its political framework. And, above all, its hopeful future?

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: jimmyt
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 06:00 PM

Amos, my friend, I hope you are right. I will support the president as I have always done, and I know I get criticised for this, but I have real fears for the economy because I simply do not think the numbers make any sense. I hope I have made a serious mistake and there are brighter days ahead soon, but in my heart of hearts, I am fearful. Having said that, I do feel that there will be a better sense of togethernessin the nation and this can only be good for the nation.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 06:03 PM

I think this should be moved to BS.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 06:07 PM

Jimmy:

We have all lived with fear for many years now.

We have feared mythical weapons and non-existant missiles. We have feared imaginary threats to the fabric of democracy. We have been taught to fear each other, the "others" of different persuasion, religion, sexual flavor, gender, color, nation of birth.

It is time for us all to throw off fear and speak from our common humanity about what is clearly right, what is plainly good, what is possible if we throw off fear and instead choose to generate energy toward the possible.

Thanks for your thoughtful words.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 06:12 PM

You'd think that after all these years of political thread, Amos would know where to find the BS button.
Below, below, below....
And the politickers lie down below.

-Joe O-

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: artbrooks
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 06:26 PM

Have you seen today's Doonesbury? Let's not forget that priority!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 06:38 PM

Art:

Surely the deepest and best gift we can give our troops is to build a nation of which they can be proud.

That is something every American can believe in.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 06:49 PM

I think bringing 'em safely home to honor and promises KEPT would be a damned fine start.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Arkie
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 06:54 PM

America has seen several campaigns exploiting fears and special interests and while both parties may have been guilty to a degree the Republicans in the last decade have cultivated the exploitation of cultural division to a level that I cannot remember having seen before. The fact that so many prominent conservatives and Republicans have endorsed Obama at least gives hope that those who truly care about the country whatever party will be willing to work together to create some unity in this country. I do believe that Obama will attempt to lead in this direction. Since he has demonstrated a remarkable self-control when confronted with personal slurs, lies, and misinformation, my hope is that he will set a standard for his own party as well. I do not think we will ever see a time when all Americans agree on every issue and I do not think it would healthy if they did. But we all do have some common interest and we need a leader with the vision to bring about responsible government that serves everyone in the country and who can bring together people of varying interests, help them find the common ground and work out responsible decisions. I would seriously doubt that we will see a quick solutions to the economic problems but we need to start instead of resorting to denial, more borrowing, and printing more script.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 07:38 PM

Well, I have given this more thought than I should have... Yeah, I should have bought into this Democrtaic paranoi (Florida, 2000; Ohio 2004) but I think that Barack Obama will win this and I think that will be fortunate for the country because...

...he is a cool customer and that5's what America needs at this time... Wheather or not he becomes a 2nd FDR we'll see... What whe have seen is a guy who absolutely won't make decisions based on hunch or emotion... That's a good thing...

But, yeah, as my buddy JimmyT has pointed out, the economy is #1, #2 and #3... I know that Obama has very close ties to Warren Buffet but I think that he'll work well with current Fed chairman, Ben Bernacke... But he needs to also create some good feeling so look for Robert Gates to be kept at Defense... Look for Colin Powell to return to State... And Richard Lugar will also be pulled in... Not sure where but this will show, unlike what Bush did in 2000, that Obama means to govern all the people....

Now back to the economy... Obama is going to have to accept McCain's proposal to buy up forclosure loans where the homeowner can reasonably pay at 6% fixed for 30 years... This will stabilize the housing market and is exactly what FDR did in 1933 with his Home Loan Corp.... But Obama is going to have to take this one step further and sell the American people on a perminent Home Loan Corp. and use the principle tyo repay the4 taxpayers initial outlay and the interest to go into shoring up Social Security....


Most of these things I feel strongly he will do...

Now we just gotta go and stand in the luines to make it happen because...

a McCain administration will be like a human pinball with no cohesive narrative and no real plan...

B~

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 07:50 PM

Well, I certainly agree.

I would like to hear from DougR, Sawz, and BB what they think an Obama administration should do as a first set of priorities for the net good of the nation.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 08:04 PM

Whoever wins with inherit a lot of problems. There 'could' be even be MORE problems by Jan. 20.

I think the world in general will relax with Obama as president, and that should make his work a bit easier.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Charley Noble
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 08:33 PM

Well, Obama will basically be stepping aboard a trainwreck. Our economy is in shambles. We are overextended overseas in terms of our military commitments. The energy crisis has eased but only because our economic woes have significantly reduced our demand for oil. The national debt has doubled during the last 8 years and just paying the interest will take a large portion of our tax dollars, and send them overseas to China and the Middle East.

But I certainly expect that Obama will do his best to deal with this challenge. That's why I've been supporting him, and the best I can do on my own is play banjo and set old poems to music.

One of Obama's strongest points is his understanding of the importance of organizing for change, and it is the major reason his campaign has overwhelmed the McCain campaign while confounding the pundits. He will have his chance to demonstrate his skills with a new Democratically controlled Congress.

Even if Obama doesn't succeed in implementing his major policy initiatives in the first hundred days (which I don't necessarily expect to happen), a whole lot of people, here and abroad, will still take satisfaction that a person of his character and experience can be elected President.

Think about that!

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 08:39 PM

Should, or will??


"I think the world in general will relax with Obama as president"

Is an opinion. I might hope so, but do not see this as likely.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Joe_F
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 08:45 PM

This company may recall that during the primary campaign I wished for something that was not going to happen &, sure enough, didn't. Likewise, at this juncture, I wish the new president, whichever he is, would say in his inaugural address: "This government does not have, does not need, and does not claim the power to turn the USA into a police state".

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,pattyClink
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 04:58 PM

First thing, cut off the corporate bullies who have been steering our ship of state. Make them persona non grata and their money too.

Second thing, take a wrench to Congress' idiotic rules before they mindlessly re-instate them in January unchanged. Ditch the committees, the seniority, the omnibus bills, the phony Record, all the crap.

Third thing, triple the budgets of every regulatory agency, give them their teeth back, and turn them loose in behalf of the general welfare: FDA, FCC, FTC, USDA, whatever.

Then take a little break.

Fourth, get the economy away from the cliff, by public works projects, and by incentivizing job creation and non-outsourcing, even if it takes tariffs, before our industrial engine is completely gone.

Fifth, dismantle the big investment banks bit by bit and lets start over with little bitty banks.

That'll be a good start.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 05:25 PM

A fine program, ma'a'm!!!


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 05:28 PM

As a complete package, I can go along with that.



But I suspect the second point will be overlooked, as soon as the party in power realizes that they can run roughshod over the rest of us.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 07:30 PM

Amos:

I don't feel disappointed at all but I point out Obama's dirty deal to get support from the Unions to get elected is an impeachable offense.

The "Employee Free Choice Act" takes away the right to a secret ballot.

It is unconstitutional ans Obama needs to be impeached immediately.

The Constitution of the United States of America

The foundation of our American Government, its purpose and form and structure are found in the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution, written in 1787, is the "supreme law of the land" because no law may be passed that contradicts its principles. No person or government is exempt from following it.

The Constitution establishes a federal democratic republic form of government. That is, we have an indivisible union of 50 sovereign States. It is a democracy because people govern themselves. It is representative because people choose elected officials by free and secret ballot. It is a republic because the Government derives its power from the people.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 07:51 PM

Ahhhhhh, Sawz.... I don't know where you are getting your info but it certainly ain't correct... The act provides for secret ballots without management oversight...

This bill is intended to strengthen unions so that we can end a 30 years slide in real wages paid to the working class...

You have a problem with that???

B~

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 01:02 AM

The people of the United States tonight have elected Barack Obama as their voice and theor representative, and their President Elect.

This is an incredible moment. In it, we are seeing the beginning of a new generation of American possibility and hope.

I am amazed and grateful that I could be here to see this happen.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: frogprince
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 01:05 AM

Oh, listen; the lovely sound of the yellow-bellied guest peckerwood!

Nope. In the BS section, Guests who don't sign-in get deleted.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 01:07 AM

They are part of America.

They hold out for a vision of what is right, and what will be good.

The confusions of their voices will clarify and the hardness of their hearts, I can hope, will open, and soften.

This a large night for all Americans.



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 01:34 AM

I like it. That's my popular view of the Obama administration. :-D

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Barry Finn
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 02:38 AM

BB
What you just heard was the world breathing a huge sigh of relief, they are dancing in the streets of Everywhere.

Barry

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 11:13 AM

"There are tens of millions of white Americans who are part of ethnic groups that have never produced a president," Boaz writes. "The fact is, all 42 of our presidents have been of British, Irish, or Germanic descent. We've never had a president of southern or eastern European ancestry. Despite the millions of Americans who came to the New World from France, Italy, Poland, Spain, Scandinavia, Russia, and other parts of Europe–not to mention Asia and the Arab world and Latin America–we've never had a president who traced his ancestry to those parts of the world." Boaz later adds:

As Philip Q. Yang put it in his book Ethnic Studies: Issues and Approaches, "There have been no presidents of southern and eastern European descent; and none of Jewish, African, Latino, Asian, or Indian descent." We've had 37 presidents of British (English, Scottish, or Welsh) or Irish descent; three of Dutch descent (Van Buren and the two Roosevelts); and two of Swiss/German descent (Hoover and Eisenhower). Of course, these categories usually refer to the president's paternal line; Reagan, for instance, was Irish on his father's side but not on his mother's. But that doesn't change the overall picture.

In this light, Obama's achievement is even more remarkable. He has achieved something that no American politician even of southern or eastern European heritage has managed. But I think we can assume that from now on there won't be any perceived disadvantage to candidates of Italian, French, Asian, or other previous genealogies not previously seen in the White House. For that, congratulations to Barack Obama." (NYT)
         
Comments:

---

We made a decision tonight, we decided against self-interest and for the greater good. I can't wait to help.

— Anne V

2. November 5, 2008
1:28 am

---

I really doubt that there was "any perceived disadvantage to candidates of Italian, French" or any other white ethnicity to gaining the White House. What Obama already has accomplished is far more historic.

— Miande

3. November 5, 2008
2:30 am

---

While Barack Obama may not be from Southern or Eastern ancestry he does represent the melting pot that the Statue of Liberty embraces. A white woman from Kansas and a black man from Kenya at a time where miscegenation was still against the law in at least one state in America. He does represent in a very real and anthropological sense all of us, I volunteered for Obama and I believe that his campaign and the melding of people with technology will be a paradigm for all future political campaigns. That being said does it really matter where he is from we will always see color but we should also learn to see beyond that and recognize that genetically we are more alike than we are different and thereby recognize that we have to make decisions that are for the greater good rather than individual self-interest.

— Lawrence W

4. November 5, 2008
2:37 am

---

My hope is this man, Barack Obama, will be the real "uniter", reach across the aisles, appoint people who are competent in their jobs. I hope this is the man who will be for everyone regardless of color, creed, origin, because this is America. I have a really good feeling about him. He has an enormous task ahead of him, but I think people will help him any way they can.

— miria s

5. November 5, 2008
6:00 am

---

This is a great achievement for all. The younger generation, which I am part of, has as well. I am so proud of what we have done with this election. I am currently studying in England at an American campus and the amount that we have watched the election is substantial. Many of us stayed up to watch debates, gone to lectures and most importantly, voted. We stood up for something we believed in, whatever it is, from thousands of miles away.

— Sandahl Masson

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 04:35 PM

The following article from the Washington Post expresses a number of my opinions and concerns- and I will express MY hopes that Obama will be held to the same standards that Bush was.






Hail to the Chief

By Michael Gerson
Wednesday, November 5, 2008; Page A26

I come to this moment of national decision with deep concerns about the next president. His victory is likely to unleash an ideological and vengeful Democratic Congress. In the testing of a long campaign, Barack Obama has seemed thoughtful but sometimes hesitant and unsure of his bearings. He promises outreach and healing but holds to a liberalism that sees no need for innovation. And as the result of a financial panic that unfairly undermined all Republicans, Obama has stumbled into the most dangerous kind of victory. A mandate for change but not for ideas. A mandate without clear meaning.

But a presidential election is more than a political choice; it is a moral dividing line. It involves not just the triumph of a majority but a transfer of legitimacy that binds the minority as well. This is a largely undiscussed topic in modern political debate: legitimacy. It is a kind of democratic magic that turns votes into authority. It does not require political agreement. It does imply a patriotic respect for the processes of government and a determination to honor the president for the sake of the office he holds.

In the past few decades, the magic of legitimacy has seemed to fade. Opponents of President Bill Clinton turned their disagreements (and Clinton's human failures) into an assault on his power. Some turned to insane conspiracy theories, including accusations of politically motivated murder. After President Bush's reelection, elements of the left began their own attack on his legitimacy, talking of impeachment while repeating lunatic theories about deception and criminality.

After a deserved honeymoon, the new president is likely to find that the intensity of this bitterness has only gathered. Because of the ideological polarization of cable television news, talk radio and the Internet, Americans can now get their information from entirely partisan sources. They can live, if they choose to, in an ideological world of their own creation, viewing anyone outside that world as an idiot or criminal, and finding many who will cheer their intemperance. Liberals have perfected this machinery of disdain over the past few years. Given the provocation, the same approach is likely to be turned against the new president by the right as well.

Barack Obama's first years may well be dominated by a recession and a swiftly arming Iran. Some conservatives will be tempted to take joy from his inevitable struggles; others to spin conspiracy theories from his background and associations. It will be easy to blame every emerging challenge on the faults and failures of an inexperienced young president. But it will be more difficult for me.

I remember the vivid days of possibility that follow a presidential victory. I happened to be in the Roosevelt Room in January 2001 just as the portrait of Teddy Roosevelt, heroic on horseback, was moved over the fireplace, where it hangs during Republican administrations. And I know that someone, feeling the same hope and burden that I felt, will be watching when Franklin Roosevelt is moved back to the place of honor.

There is a tremendous sense of history and responsibility that comes with serving in the White House. You gain an appreciation for the conflicted choices others have faced -- and for the untamed role of history in frustrating the best of plans. It becomes easier to understand a president's challenges and harder to question his motives. Ultimately, I believe that every president, and the staff he hires, feels the duty to serve a single national interest. And, ultimately, we need our presidents to succeed, not to fail for our own satisfaction or vindication.

This presidency in particular should be a source of pride even for those who do not share its priorities. An African American will take the oath of office blocks from where slaves were once housed in pens and sold for profit. He will sleep in a house built in part by slave labor, near the room where Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation with firm hand. He will host dinners where Teddy Roosevelt in 1901 entertained the first African American to be a formal dinner guest in the White House; command a military that was not officially integrated until 1948. Every event, every act, will complete a cycle of history. It will be the most dramatic possible demonstration that the promise of America -- so long deferred -- is not a lie.

I suspect I will have many substantive criticisms of the new administration, beginning soon enough. Today I have only one message for Barack Obama, who will be our president, my president: Hail to the chief.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 05:14 PM

Stocks plunge as anxious investors ponder impact of Obama presidency on business, economy

Wednesday November 5
NEW YORK (AP) -- A case of postelection nerves sent Wall Street plunging Wednesday as investors absorbing a stream of bad economic news wondered how a Barack Obama presidency will help the country weather a possibly severe recession. Volatility returned to the market, with the Dow Jones industrials falling nearly 500 points and all the major indexes tumbling more than 5 percent.

The market was expected to give back some gains after a six-day runup that lifted the Standard & Poor's 500 index more than 18 percent. But investors lost some of their recent confidence about the economy and began dumping stocks again; light volume helped exaggerate the price swings....

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Gervase
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 05:55 PM

Stocks plunge when there's a rumour that a sparrow has farted, for heaven's sake. Anyone who adjusts their jib according to the markets is a fool led by bigger imbeciles.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 05:56 PM

a liberalism that sees no need for innovation. By definition that would have to mean "a conservative liberalism".

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 06:00 PM

They soared yesterday as he was winning, Sawz.

Get bent, pal.

Climb out of your grimy trench of blame and shame, and walk out into some sunshine; you will feel better.



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 06:14 PM

"and no real plan" "Obama is going to have to accept McCain's proposal to buy up forclosure loans"

Bobert:

Not to be antagonistic or derogatory or anything but I think you need to have the left and right lobes of your brain connected together. You contradict yourself every few sentences or words. It looks like you are trying to be gracious to Mac but then you claim he had no plan.

Now as to the "Employee Free Choice Act", did you check it out at all before you made the statement? That is how you get in the position of having to defend the indefensible with bluster, threats and namecalling.

Why does George McGovern claim ii will take away the secret ballot?

I know the name sounds ducky but the name belies the actual contents of the bill.

Remember Phil Gramm and Mac's GLBA bill that unleashed the subprime debacle? It was called the Financial Services Modernization Act and it was supposed to keep banks from sharing your personal information.

One of labor's top agenda items for at least the last two years has been the Employee Free Choice Act, which would strip employees from the secret ballot in deciding whether to form a union. The measure was defeated earlier, but will doubtlessly get a second hearing with an Obama administration.

I know this is going to break down into a Business vs Union battle but a line needs to be drawn somewhere.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 06:36 PM

Amos really likes to read his own rhetorical flourishes. All kinds of stuff about one eyed snakes and people in the sunlight. A real wordsmith.

The stock market was going up until he won.

Or in Amos speak, The equities trading market was on an upward incline until such time as it was made clear the the Democratic candidate would be in control of the financial destiny of the citizens of the United States of America. Whereupon they took the President Elect's campaign promise to increase the rate of the capital gains tax which would therefore and thereby reduce the net profits arising from any scant profits that could be realized at this time, and therefore decided to pull the plug on a quantity of their investments thereby causing the equities trading market to redirect itself on a downward incline which, by the end of the trading day following the election, resulted in a 5.05 percentage point reduction of the Dow Jones Industrial average price of equities.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 06:50 PM

"The "Employee Free Choice Act" will not repeal "Right to Work" regulations, as established under the Taft-Hartley Act. "Right to Work" states establish that membership in an organized labor union can not be compulsory for employment.

"On March 1, 2007, the House of Representatives passed the act by a vote of 241 to 185. The Senate on June 26, 2007 voted 51 to 48 on a motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to consider the bill. The bill is unlikely to pass during the 110th United States Congress because 60 votes were needed to invoke cloture." Wikipedia

I hope Big Mick comes strolling by. I'd like to hear his views. In the video, McGovern doesn't detail in what way(s) a vote would not be private.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Barry Finn
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 07:03 PM

BB
Bush hasn't held himself up to any standards nor has he set any standards. He has been throughout his whole "occupancy" way below par & has lowered the bar to rock bottom.
Obama already has surpassed Bush, did you listen to his speech. Not one grammatical error, not one umm, huh, his ideas came across clear & concise; there was no confusion as to what he said. I was thrilled to finally hear a leader of ours that could talk on an intelligent level for the 1st time in 8 yrs.
So, he has so far surpassed the standards that Bush was held to & we are not even at day one, so don't fear there'll be far more important issues than standards to care about.

Barry

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 07:47 PM

Jeeze, Sawz, lookit you go, talking up a blue streak.   I gotta say, I yam most impressed at your loqucious polysyllabic circumlocutions.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 09:47 PM

And I suppose you think that is a virtue? I think it is obfuscation. As an example, Amos cannot offer a reason for why the stock market went down today.

He prefers to sit back and say someone else is wrong with wordy superfluous personal attacks like "Climb out of your grimy trench of blame and shame, and walk out into some sunshine; you will feel better."

Hey Amos, what kind of a trench are you in that keeps you from addressing the issue instead of attacking someone?

Can Ebbie read the bill and make up her own mind or does she a man to figure things out and do the heavy lifting?

Hey Mick, Ebbie here needs a big strong man help with her thinking and protect her.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 09:50 PM

Amos: "Sawz, and BB what they think an Obama administration should do as a first set of priorities for the net good of the nation"

Get rid of the Employee Free Choice Act.

Do not raise taxes on capital gains.

Drill Drill Drill

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 11:34 PM

Well, nasty-boy, I think the market went up and down for the same reasons it has been rollercoastering like a rabid badger with the flue for the last six months. I seriously doubt the drop of one day, a drop completely consistent with the generall trend, was severely influenced by Obama vs. McCain. Nor have you produced any reason for thinking so, or any evidence it was a causative coupling.

Tell me what it is you think the Employee Free Choice Act does? The AFLCIO seems to like it. Wikipedia's article says:

he Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is legislation in the United States which aims to "amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes."[1] Under current labor law, the U.S. National Labor Relations Board will certify a union as the exclusive representative of employees if it is elected by either a majority signature drive, the card check process, or by secret ballot NLRB election, which is held if more than 30% of employees in a bargaining unit sign statements asking for representation by a union. Pursuant to the bill, a union can demand that an employer begin bargaining with it 10 days after the union is certified as the exclusive bargaining representative for an appropriate unit of employees via the card check. [2] In addition, if the union and employer cannot agree upon the terms of a first collective bargaining contract within 90 days, either party can request federal mediation, which could lead to binding arbitration if an agreement still cannot be reached after 30 days of mediation. [3] Where government arbitration determines terms of the agreement, employees would lose their current right to ratify the terms of the agreement. [4] Finally, the Act would provide for liquidated damages of three times back pay if employers were found to have unlawfully terminated pro-union employees. [5] The EFCA also would impose a $20,000.00 penalty upon employers for each employer violation of the proposed legislation if the NLRB and/or a court deems the violation willful or repetitive. [6] [7]

What's the deal from your point of view, then?


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Nov 08 - 06:33 PM

How I see it: Reactions to the Obama victory

"I wish God speed to the man who was my former opponent and will be my president. I call on all Americans... to not despair of our present difficulties but to believe in the promise and greatness of America."

John McCain

"I am especially proud because this is a country that's been through a long journey inovercoming wounds, and making race not the factor in our lives. That work is not done, but yesterday was obviously an extra-ordinary step forward."

Condoleezza Rice

"Your victory has demonstrated that no personanywhere in the world should not dare to dream of wanting to change the world for a better place."

Nelson Mandela

"I congratulate President-elect Obama on his historic victory. Now it's time to begin unifying the country so we can take on the extraordinary challenges that this generation faces."

George Clooney

"It feels like hope won. It feels like it's not just victory for Barack Obama. It feels like America did the right thing. It feels like anything is now possible."

Oprah Winfrey

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Nov 08 - 07:05 PM

"Can Ebbie read the bill and make up her own mind or does she a man to figure things out and do the heavy lifting?

"Hey Mick, Ebbie here needs a big strong man help with her thinking and protect her."

sheeit. Thou art a bitter, ineffectual, defeated person. Were I a man I would be embarrassed for you. As it is, I can pour a little magnamity in your direction, recognizing that you have suffered a nasty blow. Give it up, man. lol

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Nov 08 - 08:18 PM

C'mon, Sawz. Your horse is dead! You can put down the whip now. Go have yourself a good cry.

Here's a Kleenex. Wipe your nose.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 10:11 AM

An interesting piece in the Times urges the vitalization of Obama's Volunteers--the unprecedented network of energetic youth who carried the water for his unprecedented campaign--toward starting now on social fabric issues such as poverty, using the same compelling network technology that succeeded int he campaign.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 11:39 AM

Comments from a political science professor:

"Many are urging President-elect Barack Obama to govern from the center, claiming that "middle-of-the-road" policies better suit a nation that remains "center-right." This advice carries particular weight coming from moderate Southern Democrats, whose states remained mostly red on Tuesday. But this is exactly the wrong advice because it mistakenly presumes that American politics is driven by labels. Americans are fed up with government by slogans. They hunger for workable solutions to their pressing problems.

Democrats have listened to this kind of conventional wisdom in the past, and failed. The centrist Georgia Democratic Party had exhausted its middle ground approach by 2000 and lacked new ideas tailored to the rapidly changing times. Moderate Democrats tried to stave off surging Republican realignment by running on Reaganesque rhetoric and governing with "Republican-lite" policies, but the voters preferred Republican government administered by genuine Republicans.

Former Gov. Roy Barnes joked that his educational reform was 90 percent Republican, but the joke was on him when Georgia's teachers, the core of any viable Democratic coalition in the state, led the tidal wave of rejection that sank state Democrats in 2002. And Bill Clinton, no matter how refreshing a breather during the Reagan-Bush era, was merely an interlude before the rightward lurch of the second President Bush.

We don't need a one-and-a-half party system, with the Democrats playing second fiddle to a hegemonic Republican Party. Instead, Democrats should look to North Carolina, where Obama and Senate victories showed what Democrats can accomplish when they strongly contest elections. In light of the surprising muscle flexed by Georgia Democrats on Tuesday, imagine the result if significant resources had been invested early and consistently in a forthright campaign to turn the state blue.

Americans are ideological "conservatives" —- in the abstract, they believe in less government. But in practice, they are "liberals" —- they want active government programs to help solve their problems, and they respond enthusiastically to proposals such as Obama's plans to restore middle-class tax cuts, extend health care, explore alternative energy sources, and reconfigure the war on terror. In other words, Americans don't want big government, but they do want effective government.

Ronald Reagan was actually only moderately successful in repealing government programs. George W. Bush took office determined to push the Reagan revolution to its logical extreme and finally translate taglines such as laissez faire, market solutions and individual responsibility into policies of deregulation and inaction (expansive foreign policy and military overcommitment aside). The result, we now see, was an economic, fiscal, environmental, energy, social and international train wreck.

Americans have real problems that aren't caused by their personal irresponsibility. It's not individual failure when your company ships your job to Taiwan, your employer doesn't provide health insurance or your policy doesn't cover what's actually making you sick, or your kids receive a third-rate education because your taxes are being squandered on neoconservative pipe dreams of dominating oil-rich regions abroad. Millions of hardworking Americans have played by the rules but, despite their diligence and responsibility, find themselves holding jobs that don't pay a living wage, discover that their pensions are worthless and awaken to the tanking values of their homes and savings, manipulated by unscrupulous and unregulated big investors. Laissez-faire government can't solve these problems; it simply enables the large transnational corporations and the small class of super-rich who, coddled and cajoled by the Republicans, have been breaking, or rewriting, the rules.

The way to effective 21st-century governance and a political realignment lies not through empty sloganeering about being centrist and in the middle of the road, but through developing an innovative public philosophy and matching policies that will build a stronger America. Obama, like Franklin Roosevelt, has impressive rhetorical skills, and clearly people need inspiration in times like the Depression (or now). But FDR didn't just give cozy fireside chats and soaring inaugural speeches; he brought the New Deal to a country desperate for a new departure.

..."

---

In these opening days of Obamerica, the guiding orientation of first steps can make all the difference.

I think the writer of the above piece has some valuable insights into the difference between too much government, and too ineffective a government. We should shun both and streive for a government that is just large enough to effectively provide the best playing field for the destiny of the individuals who make up America, their states, and their nation to be won.




A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 01:21 PM

Part of a discussion between the president of the American Council of Germany, William Drozdiak, and der SPiegel staff:

"...Drozdiak: Former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer called me and said it was amazing how America can reinvent itself. I get many such calls from Europe. But they are right: Who would have thought we can go straight from George W. Bush to a president like Obama?

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But won't Europeans be disillusioned when they realize Obama is just the President of the United States and not the world?

Drozdiak: I am expecting the opposite. Europeans are happy about the promise of an Obama administration. But relations should improve even more when they see the US is actually serious about ending unilateralism -- and shows for instance leadership on climate change.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But American voters elected Obama to deal with the economic crisis -- not to save the global climate.

Drozdiak: The financial crisis will be a top priority. His team already has people in the Treasury working on this. But I also expect Obama to sign an Executive Order on the day of his inauguration for a complete ban on torture. I expect him to do something about Guantanamo quickly. Congress might sign up to the International Criminal Court. All this would help trans-Atlantic relations a lot -- and I am sure a major climate change initiative would come very early, too.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: How quickly would Obama ask for more German troops in the south of Afghanistan?

Drozdiak: The mission needs more troops there. However, Obama is also aware it is difficult for German politicians to commit soldiers in an election year. But I believe he would tell German Chancellor Angela Merkel and (German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier a leader sometimes needs to do the right thing -- even if only 20 percent of the population supports it.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is more European help in Iraq such a thing, too?

Drozdiak: It would be difficult to ask the Europeans for more troops there. Obama could convene a regional conference which might lead to UN peacekeeping and more European military involvement. But the US focus will be Afghanistan.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Other foreign policy challenges might come soon. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev threatened to place short-term missiles near Poland in reaction to US missile plans.

Drozdiak: That was an incredibly stupid thing to do. It is pushing Obama into a corner. He is working on a smarter relationship with Russia which might include a revaluation of the missile plans or more cooperation on disarmament and nonproliferation -- but such remarks make it much harder for him because he could be portrayed as "weak" by Republicans for just thinking about it.

Drozdiak: The trip was a success. One should not underestimate the power of an image: So many Europeans listening to his speech. It drove home the message that Europeans are not anti-American -- they were anti-Bush.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Does that mean President Obama will return to Berlin soon? To speak at the Brandenburg Gate this time?

Drozdiak: His first Europe visit will probably be the NATO summit in Baden-Baden in April 2009. But, sure, he could come back to Berlin soon. And, given his popularity, he could speak right at the Gate - he would not have to go into hiding like President Bush.

..."

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 09:28 AM

A NY Times editorial; observer:

Democratic Pressure on Obama to Restore the Rule of Law
               E-Mail
Print
Save
Share
Linkedin
Digg
Facebook
Mixx
Yahoo! Buzz
Permalink


By ADAM COHEN
Published: November 14, 2008
In a Senate hearing room in September, weeks before Barack Obama won the election, a series of law professors, lawyers and civil libertarians outlined one of the biggest challenges that will be facing the next president: bringing the United States government back under the rule of law.

Over the past eight years, they testified, American legal traditions have been degraded in areas ranging from domestic spying to government secrecy. The damage that has been done by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and others is so grave that just assessing it will be an enormous task. Repairing it will be even more enormous.

This was not a new complaint. Civil liberties advocates have been sounding the alarm for years. The difference now is that a Democrat is about to assume the presidency, and one of the most ardent defenders of civil liberties in his party — Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin — is dedicated to putting the restoration of the rule of law on the agenda of the incoming government, with the support of the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups.

Mr. Feingold, who is chairman the Senate Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the Constitution, already has left his imprint on campaign finance, with the McCain-Feingold law, and has been a leading critic of pork-barrel spending and corporate welfare.

Now he has a new cause. Before the election, Mr. Feingold argued that whoever won should make a priority of rolling back Bush administration policies that eroded constitutional rights and disrupted the careful system of checks and balances. Now that Mr. Obama — a onetime constitutional law professor who made this issue a cause early in the campaign — has won the election, there is both reason for optimism and increased pressure on the president-elect to keep his promises.

Mr. Feingold has been compiling a list of areas for the next president to focus on, which he intends to present to Mr. Obama. It includes amending the Patriot Act, giving detainees greater legal protections and banning torture, cruelty and degrading treatment. He wants to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to restore limits on domestic spying. And he wants to roll back the Bush administration's dedication to classifying government documents.

Many reforms could be implemented directly by the next president. Mr. Obama could renounce Mr. Bush's extreme views of executive power, including the notion that in many areas, the president can act as he wants without restraint by Congress or the judiciary. Mr. Obama also could declare his intention not to use presidential signing statements as Mr. Bush did in record numbers to reject parts of bills signed into law.

Congress also has work to do. Many of the excesses of the last eight years have been the result of Mr. Feingold's colleagues' capitulation as much as presidential overreaching. He expects Congress to do more than just fix laws like the Patriot Act. He wants the Senate to question presidential nominees closely at their confirmation hearings about their commitment to the rule of law. And he hopes Congress will do its duty to impose the rigorous supervision it rarely imposed in the Bush years.

Restoring the rule of law will not be easy, Mr. Feingold concedes. Part of the problem is that it is hard to know how much damage has been done. Many programs, like domestic spying and extraordinary rendition — the secret transfer of detainees to foreign countries where they are harshly interrogated — have operated in the shadows.
..."

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 09:57 PM

Mr. Feingold? I thought he and John McCain had recently gone into business together selling jewelry--on QVC.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 10:13 PM

Heck, he ain't even President yet so he ain't got no "Administration" yet.

But I'm hopeful. A new beginning is always a time for hope.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Nov 08 - 12:04 PM

High Hopes
By ANDREW KOHUT
Andrew Kohut is the president of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (NYT)

Barack Obama won only 53 percent of the vote on Election Day, but he is getting a landslide greeting from the American public. Indeed, recent polls by Gallup and the Pew Research Center find the public exuberant about Mr. Obama and optimistic that he will solve the nation's problems.

A Pew post-election poll taken last weekend finds the voters giving Mr. Obama better grades for his conduct during the campaign than any presidential candidate since 1988. Seventy-five percent of the sample gave Mr. Obama a grade of A or B grade for his performance, while 24 percent gave him a C, D or F.


Source: Pew Research Center
The Gallup Poll also showed Mr. Obama getting a higher post-election favorable rating (68 percent) than either George W. Bush in 2000 (56 percent) or Bill Clinton in 1992 (60 percent).

Looking ahead, Pew found 67 percent of its national sample of voters saying they thought that Mr. Obama would have a successful first term, as many as 39 percent of those voters supported John McCain. The Gallup Poll asked a broader question about the state of the country four years from now, but found a similar result: 65 percent said the country will be better off. In comparison, only 50 percent thought the country would be better off following George W. Bush's victory in 2000, and about the same number (51 percent) thought the country would be better off following Bill Clinton's success in 1992.

When Gallup asked about specific problems confronting the new administration, it found majorities saying they expected the new administration to succeed in dealing with 13 of 16 problem areas they tested. Notably large numbers expected that Mr. Obama will increase respect for the United States abroad; improve education, the environment and conditions for minorities and the poor; create a strong economic recovery; and succeed in getting troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan in a way that is "not harmful" to the United States.

The polls also showed the public anticipating a better political environment as well. The Pew survey showed somewhat more voters thinking relations between Republicans and Democrats in Washington would improve under Mr. Obama compared with a survey following the 2006 mid-term election (37 percent versus 29 percent). And Gallup found as many as 80 percent of its respondents thinking that Mr. Obama will make a sincere effort to work with Republicans to find solutions.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Nov 08 - 11:43 AM

""BB
What you just heard was the world breathing a huge sigh of relief, they are dancing in the streets of Everywhere.""

AMEN TO THAT!!


I know it's not what you asked Amos, and I freely apologise for the drift, but where better to express an outsiders viewpoint?

Barack Obama is the first politician I have seen in decades, in whom I would put my trust. Not just the first US politico, THE FIRST!


My impression of the man is that his thinking revolves around putting the best interests of the American people (ALL of them) ahead of any political agenda or corporate loyalty.

IMHO the United States is fortunate indeed, and I just wish WE had one like him.

The only thing that could detract from his achieving success, would be the obstructive, blinkered and biased attitude so ably displayed by brainwashed republican fanatics who want the WHOLE cake for themselves. I won't give names, as we, and they, know who they are.

As I have said elsewhere, America was built on the pioneers' good neighbour philosophy, which drove the growth of the so called "Wild West". It makes me sad to think that the Republican Movement has forgotten this, and established a "ME FIRST, LAST, AND ALL THE TIME" philosophy in its place.

GO OBAMA!! And make AMERICA what it once was......GREAT.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Nov 08 - 11:51 AM

HEar, hear, Don!!! Your post captures the best of our hopes and intentions for the future of the country, if we can get there!!!


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 08 - 02:46 PM

Don T-

Trust, but VERIFY.


Where is the problem in stating that one should hold Barack Obama to the same critical level of observation that one has held George Bush in?

Are we supposed to accept behaviour from Obama that we would not accept from Bush?



I have heard the speeches- as I heard the ones by Bush in 2000.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Nov 08 - 03:07 PM

Seeing as how we as a nation have not held Bush to any standards whatever, I would hope that we as a nation would hold Obama to higher standards than we held Bush. And I trust that we will.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Barry Finn
Date: 16 Nov 08 - 05:57 PM

Bush had no standards at all & wasn't held to anything that would be considered a standard, fact is he lowered the bar across the board.

On the other hand it appears that Obama has rised the bar & therefore has rised the standards himself, something that hasn't been seen for quite some time.

Barry

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Nov 08 - 06:52 PM

I would like to hear from DougR, Sawz, and BB...

Jaysus, be careful what you wish for!

Let sleeping imbeciles lie, will ya?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Nov 08 - 11:53 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/17/campbell.brown.lobbyists/index.html

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Nov 08 - 08:54 PM

I notice she did not address what he actually said--that lobbyists would no longer set the agenda in his Administration. I notice she did not mention the fact the the Obama's rule-set for anyone who was a lobbyist prohibits them from having any direct connection with any field in which they lobbied. Seems to me that's a mess of data to leave out if you are trying to be "without Bias". "Maybe struggling to keep..." is a pretty broad and un-detailed and speculative assertion for someone dedicated to cutting through BS, wouldn't you think?


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 02:57 AM

Cardinal Stafford criticizes Obama as 'aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic'

Washington DC, Nov 17, 2008 / 02:27 pm (CNA).- Cardinal James Francis Stafford, head of the Apostolic Penitentiary of the Holy See, delivered a lecture on Thursday saying that the future under President-elect Obama will echo Jesus' agony in Gethsemane. Criticizing Obama as "aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic," he went on to speak about a decline in respect for human life and the need for Catholics to return to the values of marriage and human dignity.

Delivered at the Catholic University of America, the cardinal's lecture was titled "Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II: Being True in Body and Soul," the student university paper The Tower reports. Hosted by the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family, his words focused upon Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae, whose fortieth anniversary is marked this year.

Commenting on the results of the recent presidential election, Cardinal Stafford said on Election Day "America suffered a cultural earthquake." The cardinal argued that President-elect Obama had campaigned on an "extremist anti-life platform" and predicted that the near future would be a time of trial.

"If 1968 was the year of America's 'suicide attempt,' 2008 is the year of America's exhaustion," he said, contrasting the year of Humane Vitae's promulgation with this election year.

"For the next few years, Gethsemane will not be marginal. We will know that garden," Cardinal Stafford told his audience. Catholics who weep the "hot, angry tears of betrayal" should try to identify with Jesus, who during his agony in the garden was "sick because of love."

The cardinal attributed America's decline to the Supreme Court's decisions such as the 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, which imposed permissive abortion laws nationwide.

"Its scrupulous meanness has had catastrophic effects upon the unity and integrity of the American republic," Cardinal Stafford commented, according to The Tower.

His theological remarks centered upon man's relationship with God and man's place in society.

"Man is a sacred element of secular life," he said, arguing that therefore "man should not be held to a supreme power of state, and a person's life cannot ultimately be controlled by government."

Cardinal Stafford also touched on the state of the family, saying that the truest reflection of the relationship between the believer and God is the relationship between husband and wife, and that contraceptive use does not fit within that relationship.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 08:48 AM

WHat a lot of hot air!! Never heard a cardinal whistle so loud since Stan Msuial struck out last in the ninth.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 02:18 PM

Barack Obama is showing a level of political genius that I had not expected. His outreach to Hillary Clinton as his possible secretary of state is a stunning move that will redound to his benefit -- even if she turns him down. By moving toward her with the highest offer he can make, the president-elect has recreated the Dream Team. He has drawn Hillary, the second most important Democrat in the country, into his intimate power circle. Despite a few anti-Hillary voices in the party, he has re-cemented the Democratic Party's internal glue.

Even if Clinton stays in the US Senate -- which might be a lot more useful to Obama than having her as secretary of state -- she could become the new president's chief partner in reshaping the country. She may not be president, and she might not become secretary of state. But, thanks to Obama, she has been anointed co-leader of the Democratic renaissance, the coming Obama resurrection.

Clinton has to love it. This where she always wanted to be. She is a combination of high idealism and raw political realism. Her ideals are undiminished, but her realistic influence was eroded in her primary losses to Obama. Now Barack has given her realism back. He has enhanced her effectiveness in the political arena. (Der SPiegel)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 21 Nov 08 - 08:35 AM

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 07:50 PM

Well, I certainly agree.

I would like to hear from DougR, Sawz, and BB what they think an Obama administration should do as a first set of priorities for the net good of the nation.

A

Out law labor unions.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 21 Nov 08 - 08:41 AM

This truly will be an administration that looks like America, or at least that slice of America that got double 800s on their SATs. Even more than past administrations, this will be a valedictocracy — rule by those who graduate first in their high school classes. If a foreign enemy attacks the United States during the Harvard-Yale game any time over the next four years, we're screwed.

Already the culture of the Obama administration is coming into focus. Its members are twice as smart as the poor reporters who have to cover them, three times if you include the columnists. They typically served in the Clinton administration and then, like Cincinnatus, retreated to the comforts of private life — that is, if Cincinnatus had worked at Goldman Sachs, Williams & Connolly or the Brookings Institution. So many of them send their kids to Georgetown Day School, the posh leftish private school in D.C. that they'll be able to hold White House staff meetings in the carpool line.

And yet as much as I want to resent these overeducated Achievatrons (not to mention the incursion of a French-style government dominated by highly trained Enarchs), I find myself tremendously impressed by the Obama transition.

The fact that they can already leak one big appointee per day is testimony to an awful lot of expert staff work. Unlike past Democratic administrations, they are not just handing out jobs to the hacks approved by the favored interest groups. They're thinking holistically — there's a nice balance of policy wonks, governors and legislators. They're also thinking strategically. As Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute notes, it was smart to name Tom Daschle both the head of Health and Human Services and the health czar. Splitting those duties up, as Bill Clinton did, leads to all sorts of conflicts.

Most of all, they are picking Washington insiders. Or to be more precise, they are picking the best of the Washington insiders.

Obama seems to have dispensed with the romantic and failed notion that you need inexperienced "fresh faces" to change things. After all, it was L.B.J. who passed the Civil Rights Act. Moreover, because he is so young, Obama is not bringing along an insular coterie of lifelong aides who depend upon him for their well-being.

As a result, the team he has announced so far is more impressive than any other in recent memory. One may not agree with them on everything or even most things, but a few things are indisputably true.

First, these are open-minded individuals who are persuadable by evidence. Orszag, who will probably be budget director, is trusted by Republicans and Democrats for his honest presentation of the facts.

Second, they are admired professionals. Conservative legal experts have a high regard for the probable attorney general, Eric Holder, despite the business over the Marc Rich pardon.

Third, they are not excessively partisan. Obama signaled that he means to live up to his postpartisan rhetoric by letting Joe Lieberman keep his committee chairmanship.

Fourth, they are not ideological. The economic advisers, Furman and Goolsbee, are moderate and thoughtful Democrats. Hillary Clinton at State is problematic, mostly because nobody has a role for her husband. But, as she has demonstrated in the Senate, her foreign-policy views are hardheaded and pragmatic. (It would be great to see her set of interests complemented by Samantha Power's set of interests at the U.N.)

Finally, there are many people on this team with practical creativity. Any think tanker can come up with broad doctrines, but it is rare to find people who can give the president a list of concrete steps he can do day by day to advance American interests. Dennis Ross, who advised Obama during the campaign, is the best I've ever seen at this, but Rahm Emanuel also has this capacity, as does Craig and legislative liaison Phil Schiliro.

Believe me, I'm trying not to join in the vast, heaving O-phoria now sweeping the coastal haut-bourgeoisie. But the personnel decisions have been superb. The events of the past two weeks should be reassuring to anybody who feared that Obama would veer to the left or would suffer self-inflicted wounds because of his inexperience. He's off to a start that nearly justifies the hype.
(NYT)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 21 Nov 08 - 05:27 PM

Sawzaw:"I would like to hear from DougR, Sawz, and BB what they think an Obama administration should do as a first set of priorities for the net good of the nation." Well, I don't know about Sawz and BB, but I believe Obama should refrain from raising taxes of any sort on anybody or anything, and put a freeze on establishing any NEW government programs until our economy has recovered. That should be the number 1 priority.

Amos: "this truly will be an administration that looks like America."
It looks like a third Clinton administration to me.

DougR

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Nov 08 - 05:32 PM

DougR;

Revisit your thinking if the differences aren't very, very obvious.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 21 Nov 08 - 05:50 PM

Amos: They are not. Looks like the same old Washington insiders to me.

DougR

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Nov 08 - 06:17 PM

No new programs, Dougie???

How so you feel about the $700B bailout??? That one is one yer guy's watch...

B!~)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Nov 08 - 06:19 PM

It would be a really big surprise to me if it didn't turn out that way, Doug, for two reasons:

1. That's what usually happens, regardless who wins the election.
2. Obama is probably wise to do it that way, rather than bringing in some inexperienced new faces.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Nov 08 - 06:45 PM

"Orszag" - touch wood, that sounds like an Orc name to me...

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Jack The Sailor
Date: 21 Nov 08 - 08:00 PM

Obama is not going to raise any taxes at all. He is simply going to allow Bush's little experiment in reverse socialism come to an end and let the tax cuts for those who never needed them expire. The tax system will become like it was under Reagan until such time as The Democratic Congress can give fools like Joe the Plumber and Sawzaw tax breaks they were too shortsighted to ask for on their own. Hell, even dour Doug might pay a few pennies less.

The economy needs economic stimulus. There needs to be money in the hands of those who will spend it. Obama understands that. So called conservatives unfortunately haven't realized that the religious mantras that they think of as economics are as bankrupt as the "Masters of the Universe" that Bush's ignorance allowed to put us in this mess.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Nov 08 - 08:23 PM

Receive mediabistro.com's Daily FishbowlDC Feed via email

Friday, Nov 21
Woodward Knocks Clinton SoS Choice

Now that it's considered a foregone conclusion that Sen. Hillary Clinton will be the next secretary of State, the chattering class is weighing in, including legendary reporter Bob Woodward. FishbowlDC has obtained an advanced transcript of this weekend's "The Chris Matthews Show", in which the famed Washington Post reporter had this to say about Clinton's nomination as SoS:


Being president is about control, and tell me who ever controlled Bill or Hillary Clinton. They can't control each other. ... I think it's because Warren Buffett and Paul Volcker and others have convinced Obama, 'You're going to have to focus like a laser on the economy. That's issue Number One. And give Hillary and Bill the world.' ... I think people are fantasizing or smoking something if they think Joe Biden's going to call Hillary Clinton up and say, 'This is what we want you to do.'

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 21 Nov 08 - 09:26 PM

Bobert:The 700 Billion Dollar bailout is a stupid thing to do.

L.H.: But Obama's whole campaign was built on "change." Not the same old, same old.

JTS: If you REALLY believe Obama is not going to raise taxes, I know some oceanfront property here in Arizona for sale and can get you a very good price.

DougR

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Nov 08 - 10:04 PM

Yes, Doug, it was about "change". Well, you know as well as I do that politicians say all kinds of stuff during an election for but one purpose: to win it. McCain was also promising change, remember? He and Palin were both saying that they were "mavericks" and were going to initiate change and be very different from George Bush...only the public was not so well convinced of that. ;-)

Obama will be a change...to some extent...and in ways we probably haven't forseen yet. He'll have to figure it out as he goes along. Might as well wait and see what it is before complaining about it too much, I'd say.

Elections are 95% hoopla, spin, sensation, and BS, Doug. You know that. I know that. If anyone doesn't know it then they probably still believe in Santa Claus.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Nov 08 - 10:39 PM

Obama's got a couple of choices with regard to Hillary, both of which have the potential to create problems. He can leave her where she is, where she can be much more independent of Obama's agenda, and where she could be even more of an impediment to his ability to accomplish what he wants to get done, or he could give her a job that she would probably be pretty good at, and in which she would be expected to toe the line for the administration.

I don't know which of those two choices would be worse for him, and I don't envy his having to decide. But it looks like he thinks having her as his Secretary of State would be better for helping him do what he wants to do, and in this particular case, I don't think I would try to second guess his decision.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 03:20 AM

Change?????? or MORE OF THE SAME???? Looks to me he was more into just getting elected, than what he could really do if he was...so he got the same old hacks that we had before!..you know, the Bush/Clinton bozos that messed up everything before!..but good luck anyway....and say your prayers, folks...oh, I forgot, God is 'politically incorrect'....

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 04:20 AM

YAp yap yap. You guys are really insightful--accusing Barack Obamaof not changing things when he isn't in office yet, just because you don't like the staff. Get real here. You have no idea what change is going to occur.

Let me add that he emphasized change from the last eight years of disasters. Some of the CLinton era folks were prety competent, for one thing, and will be even more so under a more disciplined President.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 05:42 AM

Change?....Oh i'm sorry, I have to be "Bi-partisan" now, with all my ex- Pub advisers and "Hillary the Hawk" running State. Oh i'm so sorry voters my hands are tied"...:0(

Alice, Amos,Don et al......Did you really think that any kind of meaningful change could be be achieved without you yourselves getting your hands dirty?

This is fuckin' politics and you have just been screwed, just as we were screwed by Mr Blair.
You voted for Disneyland and in all probability you will be treated to the Hammer house of Horrors.

As US finances continue to deteriorate and the lives of millions of ordinary folk with them, you have passed up the chance to break with the failed systems of the past,

Peter T seems a bit of a favourite here, and I hope he doesn't mind if I quote him. "This guy Obama sure rolls quick".....Ake

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 07:02 AM

Well, like Amos said... The guy ain't even in office and folks are allready tryin' to drum him out...

I will say this, however... With the mess the current crooks are leaving there's gonna be one heck of alot of cleaning up before thinking about throwing another party... That is reality...

But to place blame where blame is due it isn't just the current crop but every administration going back to the beginning of this mess which mean Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and now Bush II when the fox was placed in charge of guarding the hen house...

So I predict that it will take a good portion of Obama's first term just to create some stability in the markets and find that right amount of regulation that doesn't smoother business yet doesn't let it run wide open... On a truck that is called a "governor"... What a novel concept...

As fir the criticism that Obama is surrounding himself with veterans, I don't think that is fair... I mean, lets get real... Would he surround himself with mere idealogues like Bush II has done??? You want folks who at least understand how these departments work/don't work... Then you change the mission incrimentally until they reflect yer ideals... There is no other practical way of governing...

B~

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 07:21 AM

As Amos, Bobert and I, among others, have been saying, it's just slightly premature to condemn the Obama admininistration as being "no change" before he even takes office.

Actually I think Obama should have picked Lugar as Secretary of State. Now that would have been real change--really reaching across the aisle--and splitting the Republicans even more than they are now. But something tells me that that change would have been not what the complainers here are looking for.

It's like I said on another thread. Some folks on Mudcat are not happy unless they can whine about something.   Maybe it's essential so they can sleep.

But the rest of us, who actually are pretty happy with the way things turned out politically, can sleep just fine.

And I suspect we have lower blood pressure than the whiners too.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 07:23 AM

Lugar or Hagel. Both have recognized what a disastrous idea the Iraq war was--and both want to end it soon--without insisting on the chimera of "victory".

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 09:50 AM

I was amazed to see Obama pick Janet Napolitano for Homeland Security. I thought it was a brilliant choice, and it went a long way to restore my faith in Obama. I think all of his cabinet picks have been very, very good.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 10:30 AM

Check Rig's last post. The "End Times" must indeed be here.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Arkie
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 11:12 AM

Change obviously means different things to different folks. Obama's agenda is different than what we have seen. The past administration took office with the idea they would force their agenda on the rest of the country and that agenda was to invade Iraq, relax environmental laws, remove controls over business, and open the American treasury to the wealthy elite and big business. Obama's agenda, as far as we have seen, is to clean up the economic mess, provide some health care relief for private citzens and business, to restore the rest of the world's eroding respect of this country, and to restore hope in this country in its own future. To do this he has appointed advisers, not on the basis of blind partisanship and agreement, but who represent a diverse cross section of ideology and also have experience in their respective areas.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 11:17 AM

Lor' bless the Rig- it appears that he is able to see past his prejudices. Unlike some others- I can't imagine how anyone can complain so bitterly about the conditions that we have around us today - and blame it on Obama.

I would like these same 'gentlemen' to go on record to say with a straight face:

#1: We are in great shape.
#2: Therefore, if anything goes wrong, it will be because the Obama Administration screwed it up.

Let me say, for the record, that in my opinion most of our current problems stem from the shortsighted, benighted efforts of President George W. Bush, who, with like mind, surrounded himself with staff and cabinet who wanted a chance to put their own 'aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic' notions in action; they had almost literally no idea of what would happen next.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 12:37 PM

You're right about Bush, Ebbie. Maybe I just got acclimatized to that mode of thinking. I was expecting a bunch of Jesse Jackson/Rev. Wright type of appointments.
             I'm very pleasantly surprised, and encouraged.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 01:11 PM

:)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Charley Noble
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 01:38 PM

I do hope Obama finds an appropriate position for Colin Powell. I suppose Ambassador to the United Nations is still available.

I also wonder who he's gonna pick for Secretary of Energy and Secretary of Transportation.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 01:48 PM

I suspect he will choose people competent for the work, but more important is that he will steer that work with the brand of considered, measured, balanced optimism and rational progress that define his candidacy.

I have a lot of hope for his Administration, but I am also aware that they are not inheriting a whole country from their predecessors, but a broken and gasping one, despite its many great strengths. THis is not going to be an easy job. I hope to see a lot of reach being made to fire up those who supported him in waves of enthusiasm during the campaign.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 04:22 PM

"bunch of Jesse Jackson/ Rev. Wright appointments."

1) Huge difference between just those two.

2) Obama said he would strive to have a post-racial, post-partisan administration.

I suppose the shock is in finding out that he appears to be a politician who intends to follow through on a campaign approach.

It just proves, yet again, that he is a very smart guy.   With the votes of Lieberman, who is now indebted to Obama for saving him from the wolves of the Left, and the votes of a few moderate Republicans, (e.g. Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins), he will have enough votes--on some issues, not all--to beat a planned filibuster. It's not the supposed 60 Senate votes for a filibuster-proof majority--which never would have been enough anyway, with some conservative Democrats in that 60--but enough for an issue by issue possibility of beating a filibuster. Key will be just how conservative those conservative Democrats (e.g. Tester) will be.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 06:04 PM

A politician following through on a campaign promise is so rare, I can't recall the last time I've seen it materialize.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Nov 08 - 05:57 AM

Hi Martin.....If it is Martin....There's turnin' out to be more wriggling on this thread than there was on the "Anti-abortion priest" thread..... and that's sure sayin' sumphin'.....Ake

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Nov 08 - 01:21 PM

IT sounds like the original; typically filtering blind anger through an acid tongue. How flattering he remembered me.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 26 Nov 08 - 12:28 AM

So, how do you "catters" react to Obama asking Secretary Gates (Secretary of Defense) to stay on board for another year or so?

DougR

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Nov 08 - 03:47 AM

I dunno, DougR. Seems to me the SECDEF takes orders from the Prez, no? I don't think Gates has been part of the problem to any great degree.   

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Nov 08 - 06:59 AM

I was as surprised that Gates agreed to do it, as I was that Obama asked. Obviously they both think there needs to be some continuity in that cabinet post.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Nov 08 - 09:49 AM

Actually there are some taxes he may raise. Capital gains taxes, levied on profits made from investment in other people's work, might go up--they are presently lower than the income taxes paid by those who do the work. High-income (>250,000/yr) income taxes may also go up.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 26 Nov 08 - 12:02 PM

Right, Amos, an increase in Capital gains taxes should encourage those same folks to continue making those investments do you think?

So far, there doesn't seem to be much change attached to the Obama agenda.

DougR

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Nov 08 - 02:06 PM

Capital gains add to revenue for the individual or corporation. The rationale for treating it as special-class income seems obscure, especially when considering how much less effort is often involved in acquiring it. The difference, of course, is the taking of risk, in theory. But it is arguable that it should be treated in the same manner as oridnary income from any source.

As for the difference between Obama's administration and the last eight years, why not suspend judgement for the next 160 days?




A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Nov 08 - 02:12 PM

We could have done without Paul Volker!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Nov 08 - 02:31 PM

POssibly. I find it difficult to second-guess the situation as I have no qualifications on the ground.
\

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Nov 08 - 03:35 PM

The way I remember is, Paul Volker sat on interest rates until he ran Jimmy Carter out of office, and then Reagan kept him on to make certain things got even worse.

                Paul Krugman used to like to point this out, as I remember.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Nov 08 - 03:56 PM

Word on the street is that Powell will become Secretary of Education...

As fir capital gains taxes being raised??? Why not, Dougie... We haven't seen folks doing anyhting with the money but either lending it buying more stuff they don't need... I haven't seen where they are using the dough to create new jobs so that argument you can throw out the window...

As to Wall Street v. Main Street... Yeah, I'd have to say that I am more than a little concerned about many of Obama's picks because of their ties to Wall Street but I guess he is thinkin' that seein' as they have those close ties then maybe if he keeps a sharp eye on them that given the mess that we have now that they will be the best players to sell Wall Street on a new culure of thinking... But I will admit that, while it is bold, it is also risky...

B~

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 26 Nov 08 - 05:39 PM

Amos: your lack of experience has rarely prevented you from second-guessing in the past has it?

Bobert: Increase the taxes on Capital gains and watch the stock market plummet. Also watch how much money businesses spend on new equipment and infrastructure. It's a recipe for financial disaster.

DougR

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 26 Nov 08 - 05:41 PM

Oh, and another thing, I think Obama's appointing Paul Volker as his chief financial adviser, or whatever, may be the smartest appointment he has made yet. Volker and Reagan saved the economy from ruin in the 80's.

DougR

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Nov 08 - 05:52 PM

Volker and Reagan saved the economy from ruin in the 80's.

And thru their shenanigans- aptly styled "Voodoo Ecomnomiocs" by George Bush the First, laid the groundwork for & produced the collapse of the economy in 2008.

Great work, guys.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Nov 08 - 05:54 PM

First of all, Dougie... Like what has the stock market been doing??? And that is with Capital Gains at 15%... Secondly, I don't care about the stock market any more... It has become a joke... Its a bunch of rich people (and a few poor folks who thought that 401K was the Bible) who are too lazy to go out and invest in and manage businesses that create jobs... Like...

...boring!!!

No, if the Fat Cats ain't intersted in investing I don't care if the stock market looses a million points... No, make that a zillion points... Close the sumabich down until investors refigurate that if we ain't ptoducing decent paying jobs fir folks then it is a failed system and of rht elast 8 years its been all about profit taking and not about jobs... Screw 'um... Put a "Out of Business" sign out front... Put the crooks in jail... If they won't invest in jobs then maybe a socialistic system is better for the amsses... This system, clearly, has failed miserably... So don't feed the sumabich... Let ***it*** starve.... It is the beast... Not the governemnt!!!

B~

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Nov 08 - 07:29 PM

watch the stock market plummet

So "no change" there as well?
....................

Obama's supposed to have been echoing Lincoln when it comes to making apppointments, but I think he's also got in mind LBJ's famous quote about Herbert Hoover "Better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in." (Or "her".)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Nov 08 - 07:45 PM

LOL, McGee, and happy birthday, to boot...

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Nov 08 - 07:51 PM

"'And thru their shenanigans- aptly styled "Voodoo Ecomnomiocs" by George Bush the First, laid the groundwork for & produced the collapse of the economy in 2008.    Great work, guys.'"


                Exactly, Greg! That's exactly the way it played out. Anybody who can't see that now simply isn't paying attention. What the country needs now is somebody like Paul Krugman. He's been predicting this for over 25 years.
                The other people Obama picked are pretty straight thinkers, though, as far as I know. Maybe they just needed Volcker for some kind of a sounding-board.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Nov 08 - 07:59 PM

I agree, Rogs... Paul Krugman would be my choice, too... I reckon that Obama is gonna try the ol' Trojan Horse play??? I donno if it will work but it is ballsy...

Robert Reich would also tickle my fancy at Treasury...

B~

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Nov 08 - 09:30 PM

Well, I think his treasury pick was fine, but if he's looking for additional input, I would be surprised--given the choices he's already made--if he didn't consult Krugman. It seems to me like Krugman has been virtually proven to have been right all along.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Nov 08 - 10:04 PM

I've done a lot of things, DougR. From them, I form the basis of opinion for most of the things I second-guess. But high-level finance is not among them, and I believe if you go back and read every one of my posts, which I urge you to do, you will be unable to find any, or a very very few, that try to guess the workings of the macro economy.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Nov 08 - 04:36 AM

Same ol' same ol'

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 27 Nov 08 - 12:08 PM

Bobert:Your remarks about the stock market are insane. But then, what the hey.

Kevin:As you well know, the stock market fluctuates up and down. No one was spilling tears in their beer when it was at 14,000. And it will be there again.

GregF:I don't know where you were in the 1980's but it sure wasn't earth.

Bobert/Riginslinger: If you long to live in a country where economists like Paul Krugman are plentiful, may I recommend Russia. Their economy is super, right?

DougR

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Nov 08 - 12:46 PM

DougR:

Krugman in Russia? What on earth do you mean?

So you believe Reagonomics worked?

I am sorry to hear it.

Good luck with that belief.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Nov 08 - 01:35 PM

Hey, ya'll... You'll love this...

My brother is a life long Republican... He, like Dougie, believes that Dems are commies but like he called this morning to wish me a happy thnaksfiving and went out of his way to say, while he ceratinly didn't vote for Obama, that he is impressed with the way Obama has been putting together his team???

What next??? Dougie sayin' he thinks Obama is doing a good job??? I don't believe I could take that... Prolly put the ol' hillbilly right in the wacko ward... 'Er worse...

B~

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 27 Nov 08 - 02:13 PM

First rate people generally hire first rate people. Second rate people hire third rate people.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Nov 08 - 02:46 PM

"while he ceratinly didn't vote for Obama, he is impressed with the way Obama has been putting together his team???"
Well he would be wouldn't he? being a right wing Republican!

Come on Bobby ole pal....The big O's rollin' over......Ake

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Nov 08 - 02:55 PM

Ake, you are way off the beam on this call, I am quite sure.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Nov 08 - 03:26 PM

Arguing about who's going to win the presidential race made sense, as did arguing about who should win. But arguing about how the winner is going to perform in a job he doesn't even have for nearly two more months seems a bit premature.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Nov 08 - 03:43 PM

Part of "his job" McGrath, is forming a new administration. So it can be argued that he has already started "his job".
Now if we were to elect a nice socialist Prime minister on an agenda of CHANGE and he started filling his cabinet with old time centre right manipulators and ambitious warrior princesses, wouldn't you smell the fish?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Nov 08 - 03:58 PM

Well, yeah, Ake, he does appear to be rollin' over... That scares me a little but I'm hopin' that Obama thinks that he can change alll these folks minds before they change his... I know it's a crap shoot... But it beats the heck outta what McCain and Palin would be doing now had they been elected...

But, yeah, I am concerned... There are a lot of other folks I would rather have seen chosen... Robert Reich at Treasury, for one... Dennis Kucinich at State woul;d have been a nice fit... But doesn't look as if there is a true "liberal" in the bunch so far...

B~

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Nov 08 - 04:21 PM

Bob...if Mr O had chosen Kuninich for State I would have swum over there and kissed his "black" ass!!:0)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Nov 08 - 07:21 PM

The relevant thing will be what the people appointed actually do. The people appointed are in one sense tools, and we still have to find out how the man makes use of those tools.

Scepticism is a reasonable position to take in pretty well all political contexts, but it shouldn't be allowed to slide over into cynicism. By cynicism I mean when we find ourselves wanting to have our scepticism confirmed rather than hoping that it'll turn out that we were wrong.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Nov 08 - 07:36 PM

I am still a believer that Obama will use the tools correctly, McGee, but still kinda wonderin' why he chose a pair of channel-locks when the 18" pipr wrench would have been my tool of choice... I hope these folks will be motivated to do things that they haven't done in the past...

Like I say, it's a crap shoot and Obama is holdin' the dice...

B~

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Nov 08 - 07:54 PM

Yesterday Obama as asked about this very thing- with all these old familiar faces, where's this change he spoke of in the campaign?

He said, Change comes from the top. It is up to me to direct the change.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Nov 08 - 08:00 PM

One thing is Obama is in a very strong position to motivate people "to do things that they haven't done in the past" if he really wants to.

And in a good position to give the order of the boot to them if they don't comply and don't perform, which might be a very effective way to get the message across to the others...

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Nov 08 - 08:57 PM

He made no commitment to choose "nice" people or those that one or another group approved of. He's instinctively looking for the best balance of world experience and bright, well-intended minds.

What some sourpuss in some far corner of elsewhere thinks about his choices makes little difference in the record of what he accomplishes or fails to accomplish. Nattering about the cast of characters is relatively absurd considering we haven't seen the first scene of the first act yet.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Nov 08 - 04:44 AM

Leopards don't change their spots!!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Nov 08 - 02:59 PM

That doesn't leave much hope for you, huh! :)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Nov 08 - 03:54 PM

I love my "spots" Ebbie.........:0)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Nov 08 - 04:06 PM

I see- in denial too. :)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Nov 08 - 04:24 PM

:0)XXXX

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Nov 08 - 05:35 PM

Yeah, Ake... Don't go pokin' at Eb... She is sweet as can be but can put ya' in yer place in short order when you mess up...

As fir Obama, hey, I guess it's gonna be qwait an' see as to his courage to stand up to the Washington insiders with which he has surrounded himself... I'm not too sure which one is the most dangerous but Hillary comes to mind as a finalist in that category...
I mean, he is puttin' a lot of trust in her that she and Billary don't roll him under the bus, which I think they could do...

Heck, I trust Robert Gates more than I trust Hill 'n Bill...

B~

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Nov 08 - 07:03 PM

I think he is trusting his own instinctive talent for log-rolling when that comnes.

Meanwhile, they are handy with the hobnails when intelligently applied.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Nov 08 - 07:06 PM

There's a big difference between "calks" and "hobnails."

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Dec 08 - 03:45 PM

"Five good things Obama said today

By Barb Shelly, Kansas City Star editorial page columnist

Barack Obama pushed some really important buttons today in his remarks as he introduced the nominees for his security team.

What I most appreciated:

1)"I will be giving Secretary (Robert) Gates and our military a new mission as soon as I take office: responsibly ending the war in Iraq through a successful transition to Iraqi control."

Supporters of the current strategy will say that's the current mission. But Obama is putting some urgency behind it. He went on to say that a new focus will be placed on a strategy and resources to succeed in Afghanistan.

2)"Let me be clear: the Attorney General serves the American people. And I have every expectation that Eric (Holder) will protect our people, uphold the public trust, and adhere to our Constitution."

This is a pointed departure from the mindset that got Alberto Gonzales run out of the attorney general's post in George W. Bush's second term. Gonzales never made the transition from being a political operative to a guardians of the Constitution and the rights of U.S. citizens.

3)"She (Janet Napolitano, the Homeland Security secretary nominee) insists on competence and accountability."

There's a concept. It sounds like a rebuke of the good-old-boy hiring that led to the disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina.

4)"America must also be strong at home to be strong abroad. We need to provide education and opportunity for our citizens, so every American can compete with anyone, anywhere."

Education at the K-12 level is primarily a state responsibility. But Obama talks about it often, raising hopes that he'll use his stature to take on the culture of failure that hangs over too many school districts, schools and students.

5)"My dear friend, Hillary Clinton."

What a different a few months make."

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Dec 08 - 04:19 PM

Being black doesn't necessarily make you a good or trustworthy person, you goons see a change of colour equating to a change of political direction......just imagine the liberal euphoria if Mr Obama was "gay" as well as "black".........welcome to X Factor politics folks!!

I still think you can judge a man by the company he keeps and Mr Obama's company....or administration, will ensure no pesky change anytime soon.

I know you're partial to words Amos.....so how would you like 'em...fried or boiled?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Dec 08 - 06:44 PM

Well, looks as if Obama has been studying both Lincoln and FDR and using their successes as a roadmap... I've never been to wild about Lincoln and, let's get real, it was WW II that really broke "The Depression" so I don't know... I think both did good things and bad things and it really boils down to a crap shoot...

I do know that Obama is both blessed to be elected in such a screwed up times and cursed...

And, yes, I do have alot of concerns about the folks he has chosen... Not one pregressive in the bunch... Not one!!!

B~

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Dec 08 - 06:53 PM

Ake:

Exactly which words of mine are you proposing I will have to eat, hey?

Let the man roll and we'll see whether he makes things better or not.



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Dec 08 - 07:27 PM

Yes, he does seem to be following FDR's example...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802370.html

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Dec 08 - 07:44 PM

Kinda scares me, bb, seein' as it took a World War to break the US outta "The Depression"... Man, I'm hopion' this redession is more like the one in the 80's than the one in the 30's 'er you may be right about Obama havin' to use yet another war to get the economy on track...

"All we need is another good war" (Bob Martin)

B~

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Dec 08 - 08:10 PM

BB: Will's perspective is interesting, but I am not persuaded it is thorough. While it is possibly true FDR over compensated in the support of labor, it should be remembered he was also doing so after some egregious abuses on the part of corporate leaders, and manic exuberance on the part of financiers leading to the collapse.

He is also very much apparently ignoring the role of technology as the productivity-multiplier it is.

We do not need another good war; the reason the war was a blessing in the Depression is that it provided a hungry market which our labor force was able to fill. It was a no-brainer. Thinking through how to do the same kind of trick with peace-time demands and marketing is a much harder, and much more humane task.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Dec 08 - 02:52 PM

MARION, Ala. (AP) — In central Alabama's Perry County, government workers already get a day off for President's Day, Martin Luther King Day, and Veterans Day. In 2009, they'll get one more: "Barack Obama Day."

The rural county, which overwhelmingly supported Obama in last month's presidential election, has approved the second Monday in November as "The Barack Obama Day." Commissioners passed a measure that would close county offices for the new annual holiday and its roughly 40 workers will get a paid day off.

Sponsoring commissioner Albert Turner Jr. said the holiday is meant to highlight the Democratic president-elect's victory as a way to give people faith that difficult goals can be achieved.

Perry County has 12,000 residents, most of them black. Voters there backed Obama by over 70 percent in a state that gave 60 percent of the overall vote to Republican John McCain based largely on strong support from white voters.

At the state level, Alabama observes the standard federal holidays as well as a handful of its own that include Confederate Memorial Day in April and the June birthday of Confederate President Jefferson Davis. It observes Martin Luther King's birthday in January but the holiday is twinned with commemoration of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee on the same day.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Dec 08 - 06:09 PM

Wow! That's got to be classic; Martin Luther King/Robert E. Lee Day. I wonder if they argue over which name gets top billing.


            As far as FDR making The Great Depression worse, it would seem to make sense to remember that the country had just spent three-and-a-half years waiting for things to get better under Hoover, and nothing happened.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 03 Dec 08 - 08:17 PM

Rig-

"But people whose recipe for recovery today is another New Deal should remember that America's biggest industrial collapse occurred in 1937, eight years after the 1929 stock market crash and nearly five years into the New Deal. In 1939, after a decade of frantic federal spending -- President Herbert Hoover increased it more than 50 percent between 1929 and the inauguration of Franklin Roosevelt -- unemployment was 17.2 percent.

"I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started," lamented Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Treasury secretary. Unemployment declined when America began selling materials to nations engaged in a war America would soon join.


In "The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression," Amity Shlaes of the Council on Foreign Relations and Bloomberg News argues that government policies, beyond the Federal Reserve's tight money, deepened and prolonged the Depression. The policies included encouraging strong unions and higher wages than lagging productivity justified, on the theory that workers' spending would be stimulative. Instead, corporate profits -- prerequisites for job-creating investments -- were excessively drained into labor expenses that left many workers priced out of the market. "

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Dec 08 - 08:44 PM

It's my understanding--only from watching pundits on television; no formal research--that the deepening of the depression in 1937 was the result of FDR finally realizing that he couldn't continue to run deficits forever, and tried to balance the budget. I suspect this was through increased taxes, and not cuts in spending.

                   If that's the case, and that this is also the situation in which we find ourselves now, it doesn't seem like there is any actual way out of this, short of another world war.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: robomatic
Date: 03 Dec 08 - 09:25 PM

I learned about lunchtime today that the Obama administration was giving up the idea of a windfall profits tax on the oil companies. This was the right thing to do as there are no 'windfall' profits to tax and the idea was tantamount to class warfare. I hoped Obama was too smart to fall for this and apparently he is (too smart to fall for this).

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 03 Dec 08 - 09:51 PM

"If that's the case, and that this is also the situation in which we find ourselves now, it doesn't seem like there is any actual way out of this, short of another world war. "


As I said- WMD used by two sides by July, 09... 30% chance.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Dec 08 - 10:09 PM

Wonderful!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Dec 08 - 10:11 PM

Prediction:

On January 21 or 22, the Obama Administration will unroll an economic plan that will gain traction over the following 12 months and reverse the trend of the present decline gradually but certainly.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 02:25 AM

Amos, your record as a prognostigator is much better than da otter guy's.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 04:10 AM

Sources please?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 04:51 AM

That's mine, Ake. I trust that is an acceptable source.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 10:03 AM

I am amazed a wild-eyed Guesty posty was let stand.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Dec 08 - 05:08 PM

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/12/10/hillary_mumbai/

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 03:17 PM

Last update - 11:50 08/12/2008   


Iran rejects Barack Obama's 'failed' carrot and stick policy

By News Agencies

Iran rejected on Monday a suggestion by U.S. President-elect Barack Obama that a carrot and stick policy of economic incentives and additional sanctions might persuade the Iranian government to halt its nuclear program.

Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hasan Qashqavi, said Monday that Obama's proposed policy was unacceptable and had failed in the past.

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama said on Sunday he was prepared to offer Iran economic incentives to stop its nuclear program, which Washington says is aimed at making bombs. But he warned that sanctions could be toughened if it refused.
Advertisement

"When they stick to their past view regarding suspending uranium enrichment, our answer will be: Iran will never suspend uranium enrichment," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hassan Qashqavi told reporters.

Washington, which cut ties with Tehran after the 1979 revolution that ousted the U.S.-backed shah, has been pushing hard to isolate Iran over its nuclear plans.

Iran, the world's fourth largest oil producer, insists it wants to master nuclear technology to generate electricity so it can save more of its oil and gas reserves for exports.

Enrichment is the part of Iran's program that most worries the West because, if uranium is enriched much more, it can make warhead material as well as being used to make fuel for power plants.

"If their [Washington's] new stance is to remove concerns about Iran's nuclear activities, we are ready for that. But our new expectation is ... that they should recognize our right to nuclear technology," Qashqavi said.

"The old policy was carrot and stick. This needs to change and transform into an interactive policy," he said.

During a presidential debate with Republican rival John McCain in October, Obama said his administration would work to restrict gasoline imports to Iran, which cannot make enough refined fuel to meet all domestic needs and has to import some.

Speaking on Sunday, Obama told a U.S. broadcaster: "We are willing to talk to them directly and give them a clear choice and ultimately let them make a determination in terms of whether they want to do this the hard way or the easy way."

Obama takes office on Jan. 20.

"When they talk about change, everyone expects a changed policy to entail something very different to what President [George W.] Bush was following," Qashqavi said, adding everyone should "wait and see" what approach Obama would take in office.

Iran said last week it did not believe U.S. policy would change under Obama. Its refusal to stop enrichment, has drawn three rounds of U.N. sanctions since 2006, as well as separate U.S. measures.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 04:40 PM

Obama enjoys strong public support as president-elect
Nearly three-quarters of Americans polled are pleased with his election, even as many express doubts about how much he can accomplish in office.

By Mark Z. Barabak
December 10, 2008

Barack Obama approaches the White House with a deep well of public support, even though many doubt the president-elect can fulfill some key promises, according to a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll.

Less than six weeks before Obama's history-making ascent to the Oval Office, the country is torn between hope for the future and concern about the present. Nine in 10 of those surveyed say the economy is in poor shape, with a substantial majority believing things are very bad. That finding matches the assessment in an October poll, which was the gloomiest since a Times survey taken during the 1991 recession.

There are, however, signs of budding optimism.

Although nearly two-thirds of those surveyed believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, the figure represents an improvement from October, when 84% said the country was on the wrong track. Nearly three-quarters of those surveyed feel positive about Obama's election as president, a figure that includes not just an overwhelming majority of his fellow Democrats but a substantial majority of independents and nearly a third of Republicans.

Overall, nearly 8 in 10 approve of the way Obama has handled his transition to the White House and nearly three-quarters approve of his Cabinet picks. Strong majorities endorsed two of Obama's most prominent choices: Democratic New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of State and Republican Robert M. Gates, a holdover from the Bush administration, as secretary of Defense.


"I think he's intelligent and competent, and he's picking intelligent, competent people," said Ronald Griffey, 74, a retired meteorologist and political independent who lives in suburban Dallas.
..."

LA Times

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Dec 08 - 03:21 PM

Does Obama Want to Ground NASA's Next Moon Mission?
By Jeffrey Kluger Thursday, Dec. 11,

Getting into a shouting match with the HR rep is not exactly the best way to land a job. But according to the Orlando Sentinel, that's just what happened last week between NASA administrator Mike Griffin and Lori Garver, a member of Barack Obama's transition team who will help decide if Griffin keeps his post once the President-elect takes office. If the contretemps did occur, it could help doom not only the NASA chief's chances, but the space agency's ambitious plans to get Americans back to the moon.

The mere fact that the story is making the rounds reflects the very real friction between NASA and the transition team — which has sparked a groundswell of support among space agency employees to keep the boss. Within NASA, there is a real concern that while the Obama campaign rode the call for change to a thumping victory in November, change is precisely what the space agency does not need. (See photos of different countries' space programs here.)

The stagnant NASA of the past 20 years has been poised to become a very new NASA — thanks, in many respects, to the outgoing Bush Administration. In 2004, the President announced a new push to return astronauts to the moon and eventually get them to Mars. Many skeptics saw the hand of political whiz Karl Rove in that, suspecting that the whole idea was just a bag of election year goodies for space-happy states like Florida and Texas, as well as for voters nostalgic for the glory days of Apollo. But Bush, NASA and Congress did mean business, and eventually came up with a plan under which the space station would be completed and the shuttle would be retired by 2010. That would free up about $4 billion per year, which would be used to pay for a new generation of expendable boosters as well as a 21st century version of the Apollo orbiter and lunar lander for those rockets to carry. (Read about the space moon race here.)

"At the time, the shuttle had flown 290 people, and out of those 14 were dead — nearly one in 20," says Scott Horowitz, a four-time shuttle veteran who designed the Ares 1, one of the new boosters. "We needed something that was an order of magnitude safer."

NASA has moved with uncharacteristic nimbleness in the last five years and is already cutting metal on the new machines in the hope of having crews in Earth orbit by 2015 and on the moon by 2020. Schedules have slipped some — the original plan was to launch the orbital missions in 2014 — and costs have swollen, though so far not dramatically. (See the Top 50 space moments since Sputnik.)

"We've been moving in the right direction since the Columbia accident [in 2003]," says Chris Shank, NASA's chief of strategic communications. "The concern is that we'll lose that." Lately, that concern appears well-placed.

The Obama team picked Garver to run the NASA transition, in part because of her deep pedigree and long history at the space agency, which saw her climb to the rank of associate administrator. But Garver started as a PAO — NASA-speak for a public affairs officer — and never got involved in the nuts and bolts of building rockets. She is best known by most people as the person who in 2002 competed with boy-band singer Lance Bass for the chance to fly to the International Space Station aboard a Russian rocket. Neither of them ever left the ground.

Garver's lack of engineering cred is especially surprising in light of the eggheads with whom Obama has been surrounding himself — most recently, Nobel prize winning physicist Steven Chu, who has reportedly been tapped to be Secretary of Energy. Garver is also not thought to be much of a fan of Griffin — who is an engineer — nor to be sold on the plans for the new moon program. What she and others are said to be considering is to scrap the plans for the Ares 1 — which is designed exclusively to carry humans — and replace it with Atlas V and Delta IV boosters, which are currently used to launch satellites but could be redesigned, or "requalified," for humans. Griffin hates that idea, and firmly believes the Atlas and Delta are unsafe for people. One well-placed NASA source who asked not to be named reports that as much as Griffin wants to keep his job, he'll walk away from it if he's made to put his astronauts on top of those rockets.

NASA is right to be uneasy about just what Obama has planned for the agency since his position on space travel shifted — a lot — during the campaign. A year before the election he touted an $18 billion education program and explicitly targeted the new moon program as one he'd cut to pay for it. In January of 2008, he lined up much closer to the Bush moon plan — perhaps because Republicans were already on board and earning swing-state support as a result. Three months before the election, Obama fully endorsed the 2020 target for putting people on the moon. But that was a candidate talking and now he's president-elect, and his choice of Garver as his transition adviser may say more than his past campaign rhetoric.

The dust-up between Griffin and Garver is said to have occurred last week at a book launch party in Washington when, according to the Sentinel, a red-faced Griffin told Garver she was "not qualified" to make engineering decisions. Horowitz, who was not at the party but knows the NASA boss well, says he doubts that Griffin raised his voice.

"I think that's bulls---," he says. "I believe that anything he was asked he was very honest in answering because he's a systems engineer. And Lori Garver is not equipped to make technical judgments on the architecture of a space exploration system." The unnamed NASA source concedes that Griffin can be brutally honest and occasionally tactless, but insists that his shouting is simply improbable. The Obama transition office did not return an e-mail seeking comment from Garver.

For now, says the NASA source, both present and former astronauts as well as some NASA contractors are quietly — and sometimes not so quietly — lobbying for Griffin to stay. But the incoming administration is not saying anything so far. It was President John F. Kennedy who famously committed Americans to reaching the moon. Now it is Obama — who so often invokes the themes and style of JFK — who may decide if we go back.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Dec 08 - 06:39 PM

It will be interesting to see whether his dedication to science or his efforts to straighten out the deficit overrule. It is debatable whether going back to the Moon would be a highly meaningful stage, but if it meant the beginnings of a Moon station it would be wonderful indeed.



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Dec 08 - 11:27 PM

I've seen no evidence that Obama has any dedication to science. On the other hand, straightening out the deficit has become laughable.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Dec 08 - 11:31 PM

You still haven't read his platform OR his books, have you, Rig? How do you form any opinion without at least looking into these things? Here's a page on the AAAS web site for starters.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Dec 08 - 02:54 PM

Well, I'm probably never going to read his books.

          I guess I was working off the direction of his own education. Unlike Carter's, his was not science.

          However, his cabinet selections have given me some encouragement to pay attention to what he says, which is more that I will do for most politicians.

          Before Reagan I wasn't so cynical.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 17 Dec 08 - 05:45 PM

US official: Russians intend to test Obama on arms

Dec 17 03:35 PM US/Eastern
By ROBERT BURNS
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Russian government is likely to "test the mettle" of Barack Obama and his administration by taking a tougher stance against U.S. missile defenses, a senior State Department official said Wednesday.
John Rood, the department's top arms control official, told reporters he believes the Russians are waiting to size up the Obama administration before Moscow advances its position on disputed arms issues.

In discussing the state of Russian opposition to U.S. missile defense bases in Poland and the Czech Republic, Rood said it appears that Moscow has "paused" in anticipation of a new national security approach in Washington.

"My assessment is that the Russians intend to test the mettle of the new administration and the new president," he said. "The future will show how the new administration chooses to answer that challenge."

Asked to elaborate, he said, "I think missile defense and other subjects will be among those that the Russians intend to determine what the new administration's posture will be." He said he reached this conclusion on the basis of an impression gained during talks in Moscow on Monday rather than from explicit Russian statements.

He also said the Russians have been less flexible lately in talks on missile defense. In particular he cited their stance on U.S. proposals to give the Russians more assurance that a missile interceptor site in Poland and a missile-tracking radar in the Czech Republic would pose no security threat to Russia.

The U.S., with the support of the Polish and Czech governments, has proposed that Russian officials be given regular access to the interceptor and radar sites and that they be allowed to monitor activity at both sites through undisclosed technical means. Rood did not elaborate on the details in dispute.

"I don't want to spell out all the details because I think this is a high-priority dialogue for us in the United States, and I don't think that putting all the details out will facilitate a resolution to it," he said.

Rood led a U.S. government delegation in talks with senior Russian officials on a range of subjects, including efforts by both governments to negotiate a treaty to replace the 1991 START nuclear arms deal, which expires in December 2009. Rood said the talks were useful but did not achieve any breakthroughs.

In Moscow on Tuesday, Russian news agencies quoted Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov as saying Moscow hopes the Obama administration will agree that the weapons limitations under START "should be preserved and strengthened, rather than weakened."

Rood said the Russians want to expand the scope of a follow-on to the START treaty to include limitations on non-nuclear strategic weapons such as long-range conventional bombers and possibly submarines. The Bush administration has resisted that, saying the restrictions should be on nuclear warheads only.

The missile defense issue has been one of the most divisive over the past few years. The Bush administration has argued that extending its U.S.-based defense system to Europe is important in defending Europe and the United States from a possible long-range missile strike from Iran, while the Russians dispute the immediacy of an Iranian threat and worry about U.S. military expansion near Russian borders.

On Nov. 5, the day after Obama's election, President Dmitry Medvedev warned that Russia would move short-range missiles to NATO's borders to "neutralize" any U.S. missile defense system in Eastern Europe if necessary.

Medvedev has since backed off slightly. He stressed on Nov. 15 that Russia would not act unless the United States took the first step and expressed hope that the new U.S. administration will be open to negotiations.

Obama has not been explicit, at least in public, about whether he would proceed with the missile defense plan in Poland and the Czech Republic. More broadly he has said he supports missile defense but wants to ensure that it is proven to be a reliable system that does not detract from other security priorities.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Dec 08 - 06:59 AM

Frankly, it always looked to me like the Bush Administration was only going ahead with this in order to piss off the Russians. It didn't make sense not to try to accommodate the Russians in the first place, to my way of thinking.

          Obama's pick for Secretary of Education looks like another winner. I continue to be impressed.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Dec 08 - 09:25 AM

"Mr. Obama should consider proposals from groups like Human Rights Watch and the Brennan Center for Justice to appoint an independent panel to look into these and other egregious violations of the law. Like the 9/11 commission, it would examine in depth the decisions on prisoner treatment, as well as warrantless wiretapping, that eroded the rule of law and violated Americans' most basic rights. Unless the nation and its leaders know precisely what went wrong in the last seven years, it will be impossible to fix it and make sure those terrible mistakes are not repeated.

We expect Mr. Obama to keep the promise he made over and over in the campaign — to cheering crowds at campaign rallies and in other places, including our office in New York. He said one of his first acts as president would be to order a review of all of Mr. Bush's executive orders and reverse those that eroded civil liberties and the rule of law.

That job will fall to Eric Holder, a veteran prosecutor who has been chosen as attorney general, and Gregory Craig, a lawyer with extensive national security experience who has been selected as Mr. Obama's White House counsel.

A good place for them to start would be to reverse Mr. Bush's disastrous order of Feb. 7, 2002, declaring that the United States was no longer legally committed to comply with the Geneva Conventions.

..." NYT

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Dec 08 - 11:22 AM

Hopefully Obam will pay little attention to the New York Times, and will get about the business of dealing with the most important problems facing the country.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Dec 08 - 11:54 AM

I think it would be quite healthy for a panel to start digging for truth in the mangled immoral prevarications of the Bush years.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Dec 08 - 01:21 PM

While it wouldn't hurt to have somebody look into some of the Bush problems, I think Obama is right when he says he needs to look forward if he's going to correct the problems facing the nation now. I don't think it would be time well spent to have Congress form a committee to do the probing, however.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Dec 08 - 01:51 PM

He could appoint a panel in an hour, who could dig for months in relative obscurity, and take up little Executive time, well worth it if compared to the possible benefits to the national psyche.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 18 Dec 08 - 03:15 PM

Obama defends choice of evangelical pastor

Dec 18 02:00 PM US/Eastern
WASHINGTON (AP) - President-elect Barack Obama on Thursday defended his choice of a popular evangelical minister to deliver the invocation at his inauguration, rejecting criticism that it slights gays.
The selection of Pastor Rick Warren brought objections from gay rights advocates, who strongly supported Obama during the election campaign. The advocates are angry over Warren's backing of a California ballot initiative banning gay marriage. That measure was approved by voters last month.

But Obama told reporters in Chicago that America needs to "come together," even when there's disagreement on social issues. "That dialogue is part of what my campaign is all about," he said.

Obama also said he's known to be a "fierce advocate for equality" for gays and lesbians, and will remain so.

Warren, a best-selling author and leader of a Southern California megachurch, is one of a new breed of evangelicals who stress the need for action on social issues such as reducing poverty and protecting the environment, alongside traditional theological themes.

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights organization, said Warren's opposition to gay marriage is a sign of intolerance.

"We feel a deep level of disrespect when one of the architects and promoters of an anti-gay agenda is given the prominence and the pulpit of your historic nomination," the group said in a letter to Obama, asking him to reconsider.

Obama's selection of Warren is seen as a signal to religious conservatives that the president-elect will listen to their views. During the campaign, Warren interviewed Obama and Republican John McCain in a widely watched television program that focused on religious concerns.

Gay rights advocates say they are troubled that Obama would give Warren such a visible role at his swearing-in. "By inviting Rick Warren to your inauguration, you have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table," the letter said.

Obama, however, pointed out that a couple of years ago, he was invited to speak at Warren's church, despite their disagreements on a number of issues.

The president-elect said a "wide range of viewpoints" will be presented during the inaugural ceremonies.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Dec 08 - 03:21 PM

PArt of the man's strength is he doesn't mind sitting in front of contradictory perspectives for a while in an effort to find some higher, common ground. ANd bear in mind that inviting someone to speak is not a legislative act, it is simply an honorary courtesy.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Dec 08 - 03:24 PM

ANother "elevated" viewpoint on the inaugural speech shtick.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 18 Dec 08 - 03:45 PM

A good article. Amos. I do hope that you and many others here actually read it. I did.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Dec 08 - 05:28 PM

I read it too!

I think it must be Christmas time again

I'd rather join Bruce , Doug, and Teribus in the shithouse than subscribe to such twaddle!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Dec 08 - 06:19 PM

"He could appoint a panel in an hour, who could dig for months in relative obscurity, and take up little Executive time..."


                   If he did it that way, I'm all for it. I don't object to looking into the Bush stuff. It's just down on the list of priorities right now.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 11:24 AM

"Obama's commitments

In the context of American values, Obama is both symbolically and substantively significant: He represents a gigantic step in this country's long attempt to narrow its racial divisions, and his political views offer the potential for progress on many fronts. He has pledged to restore basic American legal principles by closing the detention center at Guantanamo. The nation should hold him to his word. He has promised to reverse the Bush administration's devastatingenvironmental record and commit his government to addressing climate change. Now he must deliver. And, having opposed the war in Iraq, he vowed to end it. In our view, the sooner the better.

As a teacher of constitutional law, Obama is fluent in the language of American history and rights, as he amply demonstrated during the campaign. In just a few weeks, he will occupy an office in which he can do more than just embody or appreciate those values, but advance them. In building his administration and laying out its early goals, Obama has pledged to draw on conservatives as well as liberals, Republicans as well as Democrats. We commend him for it.

But Obama's commitment to governing with bipartisan support inevitably challenges the depth of his ideological convictions. To cite just one issue on which Obama could show resolve at the risk of offending some of his more conservative backers: A man whose own life is the result of an interracial union must end his dithering on same-sex marriage. It is all well and good to respect the views of those who do not accept such unions as the next step on our historic path toward true equality for all, but Obama must not be swayed by them. He owes it to gays and lesbians to abandon his hedged support of their civil rights and offer an unequivocal endorsement of gay marriage. He already has waited too long.

Meanwhile, circumstances have bestowed on Obama a far more difficult nation to govern than the one he set out to lead. In the space of just a few months, one venerable institution after another has teetered toward collapse. Banks, insurance companies, automakers -- all have fallen in rapid succession, prompting a staggering set of economic calculations by Washington. The costs of bailing out the economy have skyrocketed, to the point that the incoming Obama administration is seriously considering a stimulus package that could exceed $700 billion -- on top of what the Bush administration already has committed to that process. Without it, members of Obama's team say, the economy could shed 4 million jobs in the next two years; the current situation, by common and bipartisan agreement, is worse than any faced by this nation in half a century.

The road to recovery

The result has been a radical shift in the national debate over economic recovery, with deficit spending now accepted indefinitely and the stakes for social programs uncertain as cascading catastrophes defy the imagination.

Take one sobering example: A year ago, Obama campaigned on a healthcare plan to extend insurance to nearly all Americans; in the presidential debates and through the rest of the campaign, critics worried over its extravagant cost, estimated by some to be more than $60 billion. Just this month, Bernard Madoff was arrested on allegations that he ran a Ponzi scheme that bilked investors out of roughly $50 billion. That figure could well prove inflated, but it is shocking to imagine that one man is accused of squandering a sum large enough to represent a substantial down payment toward the repair of the country's inequitable healthcare system. Madoff's alleged scheme and its far-flung victims painfully remind us how the collapse of meaningful government regulation and enforcement has contributed to the perils of our economy.

Greed, arrogance, intolerance -- as much as we wish they were not a part of the American fabric, they are. And they have been much in evidence in recent months. They represent the prime challenge to Obama, just as the brighter virtues of our heritage provide him with a bulwark of principle. We are the nation that produced George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, Kennedy and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. But we also inhabit the land of George Wallace, Joe McCarthy, the robber barons, the John Birch Society and the Ku Klux Klan.

It is incumbent on our new president, then, to govern with humility but also with strength, to welcome others to his coalition but not to surrender his principles -- or to compromise the nation's -- for expediency or convenience. We have lived through eight grim, violent and disheartening years. Intellectual prowess has been ridiculed, achievement belittled and virtue sacrificed for gain. It's time to begin again.

With that hope, we end this entreaty as we did our series, bidding farewell to what has inhibited this nation's promise and offering a plea that our leaders restore its status as a leading light of liberty. As we said a year ago:

"One characteristic of the Bush administration has been its wearying appeal to the weak, to those who are threatened by energetic political expression and instead take refuge in the slow forfeit of their rights; to those too timid to trust that hateful speech is best rebutted by more speech, not by squelching dissent; to those so unnerved by terrorism that they would condone torture. We live in a nation that once had the confidence to defend the speech and association rights of American communists even as it fought their sponsors and supporters abroad. Yet that same nation now flinches at the threat posed by a high school student who displays a banner that reads, nonsensically, 'BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.'

"That is a depressing relinquishment of what has given the United States its place in history. We hope, with fervent optimism, for a president who will embrace our defining love of liberty and who will relish, not disdain, its many blessings." ..." LA Times Editorial 12-24-08

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 01:07 AM

Akenaton: It's been many, many, years since I had to relieve the growling in my bowels in a, as you call it, "shit house." To me, that means visiting my grandmother and grandfather on their farm where the only means for such relief was done in the "outhouse". After the dirty deed was did, the only clean-up available was a previous year's Sears & Roebuck catalog. Political writings were not included.

Anyway, Amos, you are betting very heavily on your Obama to bring about the changes you feel are necessary to correct all the ills of the world. I hope you are not disappointed.

DougR

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 01:17 AM

Well, I am not expecting my highest hopes to be realized, but I will not be disappointed in solid improvement, which I expect.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 06:10 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/30/AR2008123002972.html?hpid=topnews

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 12:41 PM

From the link: "One of Rush's colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.), told the Associated Press last night that he had been offered the appointment last week but that he turned it down because "I thought the environment had been poisoned."

Wise and moral man. The environment, of course, has been poisoned and no one knows it better than Blago. Chicago's Lieutenant Governor and the US Senate have both said they would not certify or seat anyone that the Governor names; Blago is doing nothing but trying to force the issue.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 07:51 AM

(CNN) -- An audio message reportedly from al Qaeda's deputy chief vows revenge for Israel's air and ground assault on Gaza and calls the Jewish state's actions against Hamas militants "a gift" from U.S. President-elect Barack Obama.

The speaker, identified as Ayman al-Zawahiri, addresses Muslims in Gaza. He said the violence "is one part of a series of a crusade war against Islam and these air strikes are a gift from Obama before he takes office, and (Egyptian President) Hosni Mubarak, that traitor, is the main partner in your siege and killing."

The message, posted Tuesday on various Islamist Web sites with a picture of al-Zawahiri next to an image of a wounded child, urges militants to rally against Israel.

"My Muslim brothers and mujahedeens in Gaza and all over Palestine, with the help of God we are with you in the battle, we will direct our strikes against the crusader Jewish coalition wherever we can."

The 10-minute message also address Muslims worldwide, claiming that Obama was portrayed as "the savior who will come and change American policy" during the U.S. election but is now "killing your brothers and sisters in Gaza without mercy or even pity."

Obama's transition team did not immediately respond to the message. Earlier Tuesday, the president-elect said he was "deeply concerned" about the loss of life in Gaza and Israel, and he promised to make the issue a top priority in his administration.

It was Obama's first public reaction to the ongoing fighting between Israel and Hamas militants in Gaza, which began with Israeli air strikes 11 days ago. He reiterated that only one president can speak for the United States at a time.

"Starting at the beginning of our administration, we are going to engage effectively and consistently to try to resolve the conflicts that exist in the Middle East," Obama said.

CNN Senior International Correspondent Nic Robertson said the al Qaeda message speaks to al-Zawahiri's cause in two ways: It bashes the new U.S. president before he takes office and it criticizes Mubarak, who has drawn al-Zawahiri's ire for not allowing goods and aid through Egypt's border with Gaza.

Al-Zawahiri is a native of Egypt who has served jail time there.

Robertson, who is reporting from the Israeli-Gaza border, noted on CNN's "Situation Room" that al-Zawahiri got the message out quickly -- "within 12 days, that's very fast." He said that indicated "there's many issues there that are dear to him."

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 05:27 PM

Report: Al-Qaida No. 2 blames Obama for Gaza fight

By HADEEL AL-SHALCHI – 21 hours ago

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) — Al-Qaida's No. 2 leader lashed out at President-elect Barack Obama in a new audio message Tuesday, accusing him of not doing anything to stop Israel's offensive in the Gaza Strip, according to an intelligence monitoring center.

The recording purportedly by Ayman al-Zawahiri was al-Qaida's first comments on the Gaza crisis since Israel launched its offensive against the Islamic militants of Hamas on Dec. 27.

In the comments, which were posted on a militant Web site and obtained by the SITE Monitoring Service, al-Zawahiri described Israel's actions in Gaza as a "crusade against Islam and Muslims" and called it "Obama's gift to Israel" before he takes office later this month.

"This is Obama whom the American machine of lies tried to portray as the rescuer who will change the policy of America," al-Zawahiri said, according to SITE. "He kills your brothers and sisters in Gaza mercilessly and without affection."...

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 05:37 PM

Al Qaeda Plays the Malcolm Card
By Salim Muwakkil

When media reports emerged that al Qaeda's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, disparaged President-elect Barack Hussein Obama as a "house negro," it angered many in the black community. However, it also struck a chord.

Al Qaeda Plays the Malcolm Card
By Salim Muwakkil

When media reports emerged that al Qaeda's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, disparaged President-elect Barack Hussein Obama as a "house negro," it angered many in the black community. However, it also struck a chord.

The Egyptian physician — who is reportedly Osama bin Laden's confidant — actually used the phrase "house slave," but it was later translated as "house negro."

Al-Zawahiri said, "You [Obama] represent the direct opposite of honorable black Americans like Malik al-Shabazz or Malcolm X," who "condemned the crimes of the Crusader West against the weak and oppressed, and he declared his support for peoples resisting American occupation."

The al Qaeda leader said Obama, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice "confirmed" Malcolm X's definition of a "house slave." He was referring to Malcolm X's distinction between slave-era "house Negroes," who lived comfortably in the big house abetting white supremacy, and "field negroes," who toiled in the fields under the whip, plotting resistance.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 05:45 PM

Gee whiz, Sawz! You promulgate hate speech from Al Queda?

That's pretty sp[iteful.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 07:57 PM

CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) - President-elect Barack Obama on Wednesday will
announce his selection for the role of "chief performance officer," a
newly created position that will work to scrub the federal budget and
reform government, a Democratic official told CNN.

The person will "help put us on a path to fiscal discipline," the
official said.


http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/>
http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 09:46 PM

Al zawah whatever is an asshole and public enemy #2, nevertheless he has a view that will likely influence other views.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 06:56 AM

Gee whiz, Amos! You promulgate hate speech from NYT and other Bush-haters?

That's pretty spiteful, too.

bb

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 11:40 AM

Bruce:

Your continuous use of my posts as mockeries are always unwelcome, juvenile, unthinking and usually without merit. Especially since you have been told repeatedly that they are non-productive and puerile. IF you do not have the personal resources to write a complete sentence of your own, just refrain from posting.   

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 11:41 AM

Ex-Presidents Popular; But Dubya? Nyet
January 7, 2009
Want to be a popular President? Make sure you're emeritus and not the guy who actually has the job at the time.

A CNN/Opinion Research poll released today shows that the three ex-Presidents meeting with President Bush and President-elect Obama all have positive job approval ratings that tower over the incumbent commander-in-chief.

Some 64% of the poll's respondents approve of Jimmy Carter's performance as President; 60% say the same for George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton tops the charts at 69%.

The same CNN poll taken last month put the current President Bush's job approval rating at 27%. And Obama? His pre-presidential approval rating is a whopping 82%.

- Ken Bazinet

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 01:21 PM

He sure did a quick about-face on Burris.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 04:10 PM

Poland hopes Obama will back missile shield
Mon Jan 12, 2009 10:24am EST

WARSAW (Reuters) - Poland's Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said on Monday he hoped the administration of U.S. President-elect Barack Obama will press ahead with plans to install elements of a missile shield on Polish soil.

Warsaw agreed last August to station 10 ground missile interceptors as part of the global missile defense system Washington says will protect the United States and its allies from attacks by what it calls 'rogue states', notably Iran.

"I hope the new administration of President-elect Barack Obama, led by strategic security considerations, will continue the installation of missile defenses," Sikorski told a ceremony to commemorate the 90th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Washington and Warsaw.

Obama, who is to be sworn in as president on January 20, has said he wants to be sure any missile defense system has been proven to work before it is deployed.

The plan, which also envisages a radar facility in the Czech Republic, faces stiff opposition from Russia, Poland's Soviet-era overlord. Moscow regards the plan as a direct threat to its own security.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 07:32 AM

Jan. 14, 2009 | Dear Camille,

When Obama is reading off a teleprompter or in a scripted environment like a debate (where the game is to plug in your prepared sound bites regardless of the question), he comes across as a magnificent and inspiring speaker. But there were several times during the campaign where he appeared to trip all over himself when off script.

Now in his comments about the Blagojevich mess, he comes across badly and makes it look like we are in for another four (or eight) years of people having to carefully parse every word. Do you get that same impression to any extent, and if so, does it cause you concern?

Blake Krass
Pflugerville, Texas

Because my support for Obama was based on his steady, tempered performance in the debates rather than on his soaring but rather vague speeches, I have never been troubled by any gap between his mundane and rhetorical selves. The widespread notion that Obama is inarticulate came from stunt tapes broadcast on conservative talk radio where his occasional hesitations on the road were stitched together to make him sound like a stuttering Bugs Bunny.

Who wouldn't misspeak from fatigue on the long, brutal national campaign trail? Only candidates popping pep pills or relying on a Versailles-like staff of flunkies to feed them talking points and buzzwords. Considering what a relative newcomer he is, Obama endured that punishing trial by fire amazingly well. Since the election, he has also projected a cordial dignity and thoughtful reserve that seem to have impressed and reassured observers across the political spectrum.

However, you are quite right to call the controversy over the indictment of buffoonishly sly Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich a "mess." That the normally deft Obama team mishandled its rapid response to it was obvious from the get-go. Obama's first statements about his and his staff's communications with Blagojevich were inadequate at best and misleading at worst. Then there was a second stage of needless blunders when Obama opposed the tarnished Blagojevich's perfectly legal appointment of Roland Burris to fill Obama's vacated Senate seat -- a foolishly hard line that the president-elect inevitably had to reverse.

The usual tranquil transition period between an election and inauguration has certainly been overshadowed by the murky Blagojevich scandal, but I think most reasonable people would give Obama a pass on it. Any new president must learn crisis management the hard way. No evidence to date directly implicates Obama in Blagojevich's follies. But Obama's future chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, the arrogant Chicago scrapper who was reportedly a conduit to the governor, already seems like an albatross who should be thrown overboard as soon as possible. Nobody wants a dawning presidency addicted so soon to stonewalling, casuistry and the Nixonian dark arts of the modified limited hangout.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 07:40 AM

Jan. 14, 2009 | Dear Camille,


I wish to present an observation, of sorts, from an evil conservative view.

I am not in the least bit surprised that the Obama crew is shaping up to look like a Clinton retread crew because it seems to me that the Clinton years are the only real benchmark of accomplishment that Democrats today can look to. Sure, they wiped up the Republicans in '06 and '08, but they haven't done much of anything of substance except torpedo Congress's already historically abysmal approval ratings and piss off their own Capitol Hill staffers. If anyone ought to be allowed (or encouraged) to smoke, it would be these D.C. staffers, and are you really willing to screw with that?

It is going to be interesting to see how the Democrat Party is able to hold up in this first year or so internally. In my humble opinion, Obama is not the leader of this party -- Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are -- and to see how Obama grabs hold of Dem leadership responsibilities, if at all, will be interesting. I think that the party is at a crossroads, with political posturing at the top (Obama's rapidly backpedaling policy plans), power and ego struggles (Hillary, Harry, Nancy, etc.) and a voter base that is starting to look and sound more like British Labour and that grows less tolerant of electoral posturing and only more restless in its pursuit of what I can only describe as radical change.

Obama will certainly have his hands full with his band of bozos, and because they control Congress and the White House, whichever way they pull themselves, so go the rest of us. Oh well, in God I trust, and in his faithful servant, John Browning.

Daine Zaccheo
469th FMC Info Sys Support Spc
Palm Bay, Fla., by way of Balad, Iraq



Thank you for your tart perspective on the travails of my party! In invoking God's "faithful servant" John Browning, I assume you are referring to the innovative Mormon gunsmith (1855-1926) who invented a staggering number of weapons and who is considered the godfather of today's automatic and semiautomatic firearms.

Surely both parties should be rooting for Congress to dig in its heels and assert its constitutional authority vis-à-vis the White House. The U.S. was meant to have a vigorous tripartite government, which has been weakened by the post-Nixon slide toward an ad hoc imperial presidency. The legislative branch shouldn't roll over and play dead like a cutesy pound puppy.

On the other hand, I agree with you that Congress has come across lately like a clumsy, flea-bitten bunch of "bozos." Its poll ratings are lower than stinking swamp mud. I have a soft spot for the nimble Nancy Pelosi, a master of the ladylike stiletto thrust, but Harry Reid is a cadaverous horse's ass of mammoth proportions. How in the world did that whiny, sniveling incompetent end up as Senate majority leader? Give him the hook! As for the "radical change" that you fear, it's hard to imagine (short of a crisis-driven imposition of martial law) how that will ever happen in our sluggish, consensus-driven political system.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 10:00 AM

Sun-Times: Journalists Being Shut Out by Obama
By Warner Todd Huston (Bio | Archive)
January 12, 2009 - 21:43 ET

According to Sun-Times columnist and long-time Chicago journalist, Carol Marin, journalists at Barack Obama news conferences have come to realize that Obama has pre-picked those journalists whom he will allow to ask him questions at the conference and many of them now "don't even bother raising" their hands to be called upon.

One wonders why journalists are allowing this corralling of the press? Would they have allowed George W. Bush to pre-pick journalists like that? Would they meekly sit by and allow themselves to be systematically ignored, their freedom to ask questions silenced by any Republican? Would journalists so eagerly vie with one another for the favor of Bush like they are Obama's?

For her part, it seems that Carol Marin is starting to wonder at the "bizarro world" that is being invented by the pliant and smitten Obama loving press corps.

As ferociously as we march like villagers with torches against Blagojevich, we have been, in the true spirit of the Bizarro universe, the polar opposite with the president-elect. Deferential, eager to please, prepared to keep a careful distance.

The Obama news conferences tell that story, making one yearn for the return of the always-irritating Sam Donaldson to awaken the slumbering press to the notion that decorum isn't all it's cracked up to be.

The press corps, most of us, don't even bother raising our hands any more to ask questions because Obama always has before him a list of correspondents who've been advised they will be called upon that day.


Will the rest of the press retake their manhood and again become the tough guys they have always claimed to be or are they going to stay so smitten by Obama and their love for The One that they will allow themselves to continue being forced into a subservient role?

One has a sinking suspicion that the press is allowing itself to become Obama's lapdog extraordinaire.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 10:51 AM

"One has a sinking suspicion that the press is allowing itself to become Obama's lapdog extraordinaire."


          I don't know; they managed to uncover the illegal alien that his appointee to treasury department hired...

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 02:53 PM

What a storm of empty nonsense.

First of all, after 195 posts, the fact remains that the Obama administration does not begin operating for real for another 6 days!!

Second of all, journalists with hurt feelings spouting miscellaneous whingery and calling things "bizarre" is not news. It isn't even story. It's just flapdoodle noisemaking. Especially since apparently no attempt was made to find out what the whole story may have been.

Third of all, when the Obama administration DOES swing into operation, the issues will be a bit more important than noise about noisemakers making noise. We'll be able to debate or argue on the merits of the case, to whatever degree we can learn what those are.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 03:01 PM

Amos,

"It isn't even story. It's just flapdoodle noisemaking. Especially since apparently no attempt was made to find out what the whole story may have been."

As opposed to many of the anti-Bush diatribes that you have posted before??? Please!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 03:13 PM

SO far, Obama has done nothing indicating he deserves the kind of calumny that Bush's secretive, ill-conceived powerplays deserved.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 03:19 PM

For the cost of the inaugural, we could house and feed all the homeless in the US for four years. ( including the costs to surrounding states and DC.)


Why not a simple ceremony with TV coverage?



Far more of a waste than anything Bush caused with Katrina.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 03:21 PM

Waste? Bush? Oh, surely you jest.

How much did his inauguration cost?

And also, just as a comment, I believe the inauguration is being funded with voluntary donations, is it not?


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 03:23 PM

Not the FEDERAL funds given to MD, VA, and DC to pay for the "public safety" aspects.

But I suppose you don't want to look at that, as you would if it was Bush.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 03:25 PM

"t will be one of the biggest parties in American history, but half of the country will be left out. With a price tag of up to $50 million, President George W Bush's inauguration in 11 days' time will be an unashamed celebration of Red America's victory over Blue America in last November's election.

It is going to be the most expensive, most security-obsessed event in the history of Washington DC. An army of 10,000 police, secret service officers and FBI agents will patrol the capital for four days of massive celebrations that some critics have derided as reminiscent of the lavish shindigs thrown by Louis XIV, France's extravagant Sun King.

More than 150,000 people, nearly all Republicans whose tickets are a reward for election work, will pack the Mall to hear Bush take his oath of office on 20 January. There will be nine official balls, countless unofficial ones, parades and a concert hosted by Bush's daughters, Jenna and Barbara. "


Anyway, I agree the money would be better spent on supporting charitable works. Between Bush's wars and Paulson's bail-out, in comparison it seems a pittance. 'T is a shame.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 03:53 PM

"Inauguration has already cost Maryland $11 million
By Paul West | [e-mail]
12:56 PM EST, January 13, 2009
WASHINGTON - Next week's presidential inauguration of Barack Obama has already cost Maryland at least $11 million, state officials said today.

The unbudgeted spending, mainly for transportation and security, is part of some $75 million that Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia have already had to absorb, Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty told reporters.

The $11 million figure also includes costs associated with Obama's Saturday train trip and scheduled stop in Baltimore.

Gov. Martin O'Malley, a Democrat, said he has spoken with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada about getting Congress to reimburse the cash-short state government. Members of the Maryland congressional delegation, including Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, and Rep. Elijah E. Cummings of Baltimore, are also involved in seeking federal reimbursement, he said."


And the $75,000,000 is only the cost to the states- NOT the cost of the inaugural ( I think that was about $40,000,000- I'll look for the exact amount)

Makes Bush's $50,000,000 seem just a pittance, doesn't it?

The real question is who is paying? If donations, ( the "cost" of the inaugurals) fine- but that $75,000,000 is FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 04:00 PM

"Should Obama and his supporters spend $24-$50 million for the inauguration at a time when the United States is in in the midst of a Recession and facing the highest unemployment rate in sixteen years with 2.6 million having lost their jobs? Who are the donors so gladly paying as much as $50,000 to participate and hosting galas for Congressional members as well?"

http://us-president.suite101.com/article.cfm/obama_and_the_24_million_inaugural



"Obama and Congressional Donor List
Obama's campaign has capped donors to the inauguration at $50,000 and banned lobbyist and corporations from contributing to inaugural events. Corporate donors, such as Florida Power & Lights and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida have gotten around this by contributing to private parties. Critics such as Public Citizen note that most contributors to the presidential inaugural committee and the private parts, including those for Congress members, are well-connected political donors.(McClatchy News, 01/09/09)

Donors, including businesses and their lobbying arms, are helping to underwrite the 10 official celebrations. These include corporations and individuals giving $50,000 such as:

American Airlines
Chicago-based Exelon Utility
The Nuclear Energy Institute
Director and Producer Steven and his wife, Kate Capshaw Spielberg
John Keane of CBS-Viacom
Louis Susman of Citibank

Congress is not without it donors. Although an ethics law passed barred lawmakers from attending parties in their honor but left a loop hole for inauguration-related events. For example, textbook publishers and educational-software providers are helping to pay for a ball honoring Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass, chairman of the education committee. The Creative Coalition, and entertainment industry group, will host a gala with more than 40 lawmakers as "honorary hosts." (USA Today, 12/23/08)

At a time when many Americans are suffering economically, and when Obama has promised "Change", some wonder whether it is appropriate to continue the excessive presidential inaugural festivities, whether being paid for with private or public funds. As the Obama Donor List is scrutinized, there may be some suspicion that Obama and Congress are not much different than the administrations that preceded them."

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 04:05 PM

Obama raises $27 million for inaugural
January 6, 2009 - 4:35pm

By SHARON THEIMER
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Despite the economic hard times, money keeps pouring in for President-elect Barack Obama's inaugural festivities.

The inaugural committee has raised at least $27 million, donor information on its Web site Tuesday showed. Most of that has come in over the past three weeks.

If fundraising continues at that pace, Obama's committee will have no problem reaching or exceeding the roughly $40 million raised for each of President George W. Bush's two inaugural celebrations.

More than 2,000 donors are helping to finance Obama's Jan. 20 swearing-in festivities. At least 378 gave the maximum $50,000.

Top donors include financier and major Democratic donor George Soros, actors Halle Berry, Jamie Foxx, Sharon Stone and Samuel L. Jackson, producer Jeffrey Katzenberg and directors Ron Howard, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Robert Zemeckis. Lisa Henson, daughter of "Muppets" creator Jim Henson and the co-CEO of The Jim Henson Co., also gave the maximum.

Math teacher Jon Mormino of Washington's Sidwell Friends School, where Obama's daughters Malia and Sasha started classes this week, gave $250.

The $50,000 donors get access to inaugural events including candlelight dinners with appearances by members of Congress and the Obamas and tickets to an official ball, the swearing-in ceremony and parade seating.

The committee expects to raise about the same amount as Bush did for his last inauguration. Americans shouldn't get the impression that the money will be spent on caviar and champagne, inaugural committee spokeswoman Linda Douglass said. Light fare and snacks will be served at the official balls; there will be no caviar, and people will have to pay for their drinks, she said.

...
The inaugural committee is releasing the names of those who give $200 or more. It is refusing money from labor unions, corporations, political action committees, foreigners and Washington lobbyists.

The committee isn't turning away contributions from those whose enterprises lobby in Washington, however.

Google chief executive Eric Schmidt and five others at the Internet company gave $25,000 each. The inaugural committee received a total of $150,500 from six Microsoft employees, including the maximum $50,000 from Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer.

Also giving the limit were Thomas Strickland, UnitedHealth Group executive vice president and chief legal officer, and two Indian tribes with casinos, the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in California.

Microsoft, Google, UnitedHealth and the two Indian tribes have all lobbied in Washington over the past year.

Other maximum donors include Louis Susman, who retired this month as vice chairman of Citigroup, a banking giant that has received a multibillion-dollar bailout from the U.S. government.

___

On the Net:

Inaugural donors: http://www.pic2009.org/page/content/donors/

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 04:11 PM

Wall Street Dominates List of Inaugural Donors
Posted Jan 9, 09 1:30 PM CST in Business, Politics
(Newser) – Private donations to defray the cost of Barack Obama's inauguration festivities total $27.3 million—and large donors, including Wall Street executives flush with bailout cash, chipped in $24.8 million, the Wall Street Journal reports. That runs counter to the vow to remain independent of special interests that led the president-elect to ban corporations from funding the Jan. 20 ceremonies.

Financial-services execs have bundled donations, and just 378 people raised 70% of the money raised through yesterday. Wall Street employees were the largest single source. A Lehman exec bundled $115,000, a Citigroup director put a $265,000 package together, and Goldman accounted for least $175,000. Congress approved $10 million in public funds for the event.
Source: Wall Street Journal




So, $10,000,000 from Congress, and $75,000,000 to reinburse states- $85,000,000 tax dollars.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 08:30 PM

Sigh.

Actually its oranges and apples. No mention was made of the security and transport costs during the unprecedented Bush four-day celebration.

Notice also, that Obama has invited Americans all over the country to contribute with a day of public service, as he and Michelle are doing the day before the inauguration.

One day of your godforsaken war, Bruce, would have paid for both their damned inaugurations.



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 12:58 PM

I wouldn't be surprised if most Americans agree, both the war and the inauguration--at least at this level--are a waste of money.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jan 09 - 12:24 PM

"We are here today not simply to pay tribute to our first patriots but to take up the work that they began. The trials we face are very different now, but severe in their own right. Only a handful of times in our history has a generation been confronted with challenges so vast. An economy that is faltering. Two wars, one that needs to be ended responsibly, one that needs to be waged wisely. A planet that is warming from our unsustainable dependence on oil.

And yet while our problems may be new, what is required to overcome them is not. What is required is the same perseverance and idealism that our founders displayed. What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives - from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry - an appeal not to our easy instincts but to our better angels.

That is the reason I launched my campaign for the presidency nearly two years ago. I did so in the belief that the most fundamental American ideal, that a better life is in store for all those willing to work for it, was slipping out of reach. That Washington was serving the interests of the few, not the many. And that our politics had grown too small for the scale of the challenges we faced.

But I also believed something else. I believed that our future is our choice, and that if we could just recognize ourselves in one another and bring everyone together - Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, north, south, east and west, black, white, Latino, Asian, and Native American, gay and straight, disabled and not - then not only would we restore hope and opportunity in places that yearned for both, but maybe, just maybe, we might perfect our union in the process.

This is what I believed, but you made this belief real. You proved once more that people who love this country can change it. And as I prepare to leave for Washington on a trip that you made possible, know that I will not be traveling alone. I will be taking with me some of the men and women I met along the way, Americans from every corner of this country, whose hopes and heartaches were the core of our cause; whose dreams and struggles have become my own.

Theirs are the voices I will carry with me every day in the White House. Theirs are the stories I will be thinking of when we deliver the changes you elected me to make...."

Barack Obama on the whistle-stop tour from Philly

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jan 09 - 12:42 PM

Next Week!!! Snow White and the seven dwarfs!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jan 09 - 01:07 PM

"Snow White and the seven dwarfs!"

?? I don't get it...guess I must be dense.

I really don't get bruce's series of posts about inauguration costs either. Is there some sort of real point or claim being made, or just another "you judge US by different standards" insinuation?

EVERY president is expected to have some sort of celebration of the beginning of their term, and I see many figures that any excess...(like the train trip) is coming from contributions.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jan 09 - 01:35 PM

It was just another Disney "classic" Bill.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jan 09 - 03:08 PM

AKe is being snarky in his very best passive-aggressive style, Bill. But I think it is saf eto ignore his bad humor on the grounds that he is not of or in th eporcess going on with the advent of Obama.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Stringsinger
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 02:46 PM

We don't know what he will do as in 1933 people had no idea what FDR would do.

As Krugman has pointed out, a stimulus package will have little affect. If the US remains in Afghanistan or Iraq, the Mid-East crisis will escalate and the economic short-fall to support these incursions may bankrupt the country.

What Obama needs to do is boost trade unionism, put money into infrastructure (which could create "green" jobs), help to enforce the raising of tariffs (yes, protectionism) to support American workers and discourage off-shore corporate movement, put money into education and suggest policies that encourage learning rather than testing, divert funds from the military to peacetime public works as FDR did with the WPA, and encourage service like Americorps or the Peace Corps as an alternative to non-productive military tours of duty.

Frank

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 03:26 PM

Frank, you have the national situation in a nutshell, there. Well put.

Let it so be written, and let it be done.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 04:15 PM

What Obama needs to do and what he is allowed to do are two competely different issues.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 04:22 PM

Well, no duh, Ake. He has to cleave to the feasible.

You use the word "allowed" as though he has to toe somebody's line, in addition to achieving enough consensus in COngress to get things accomplished.

Who do you think Mister Obama belongs to, then??????



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 04:56 PM

He belongs to the same people that Mr Bush belonged to.
The people who fight wars against "Terror" whilst practicing it themselves.
The people who made trillions out of financial manipulation then demanded that you and I pick up the tab to set the whole corrupt mess back on the road.
The people who watched over a thousand women and children slaughtered by our weapons of mass destruction and supported that action..........need I go on......duh!!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 05:08 PM

Ake, how many pennies did Mister Bush cost you? And how do you figure President Obama is going to get the UK to pay up?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 05:11 PM

Come on my dear, you're better than that!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 05:13 PM

Your "people" and our "people" are very closely related.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 05:25 PM

I hope you will pardon my naivite, Ake, but I believe you are dead wrong on that one. Although money always talks, not everyone listens slavishly like an alcoholic glued to Sesame Street.


Obama is a different cut of mankind than Bush, and it is just facile (not to say embittered and jaded) to assume the same order of corruption is just sitting there waiting to re-assert itself.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 05:40 PM

Mr Obama's pronouncements on the Middle East,Afghanistan,and the current financial situation, or the composition of his administration, give me no hope that a change of direction is imminent or even possible.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 07:12 PM

PErhaps, mon vieux jade, you are looking for hope in the wrong quarter . The signs of it are so thickly splattered across the Washington mall as to make that frozen city believe it must be Spring. Do not forget that there is none so blind as he who wills himself not to see.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 07:26 AM

News & Opinion
Tuesday, January 20, 2009


Battered Liberal Syndrome
Perhaps there is something in the soul of Democrats, scarred by the stolen election of 2000 and a close loss in 2004, that anticipates setback. Call it Battered Liberal Syndrome. This time, it's not electoral defeat Democrats fear, but a devaluation of last November's victory, a scenario in which progressive policy is undermined and Democratic dreams are once again deferred.

A number of liberal bloggers and columnists, most notably the New York Times' Paul Krugman, worry, hint or state outright that Obama appears to be selling his mandate short. Their indictment of the stimulus—or recovery plan, as Obama prefers to call it—is that the plan is both less efficient and less fair because it includes tax cuts. Then there's Obama's reluctance to pledge to investigate and prosecute a wide array of misconduct in the Bush administration. Obama is reproved for his resolve to focus on the future, not the past. At the least, dissenters on the left insist, he should establish a truth finding panel, with subpoena power, to rake through the Bush detritus and expose it to the world.

http://www.theweek.com/article/index/92398/3/Battered_Liberal_Syndrome

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 07:28 AM

WASHINGTON – Unemployment is up. The stock market is down. Let's party.

The price tag for President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration gala is expected to break records, with some estimates reaching as high as $150 million. Despite the bleak economy, however, Democrats who called on President George W. Bush to be frugal four years ago are issuing no such demands now that an inaugural weekend of rock concerts and star-studded parties has begun.

Obama's inaugural committee has raised more than $41 million to cover events ranging from a Philadelphia-to-Washington train ride to a megastar concert with Beyonce, U2 and Bruce Springsteen to 10 official inaugural balls. Add to that the massive costs of security and transportation — costs absorbed by U.S. taxpayers — and the historic inauguration will produce an equally historic bill.

In 2005, Reps. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., and Jim McDermott, D-Wash., asked Bush to show a little less pomp and be a little more circumspect at his party.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090117/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inauguration_spending

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 07:44 AM

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Inauguration/story?id=6665946&page=1


What Recession? The $170 Million Inauguration
Obama's Inauguration Has Been Financed Partially by Bailed-Out Wall Street Executives
By SCOTT MAYEROWITZ
ABC NEWS Business Unit
Jan. 19, 2009

The country is in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, which isn't stopping rich donors and the government from spending $170 million, or more, on the inauguration of Barack Obama .

Employees at banks, brokerages and Wall Street firms donated $7 million Barack Obama's inauguration.

The actual swearing-in ceremony will cost $1.24 million, according to Carole Florman, spokeswoman for the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.

It's the security, parties and countless Porta-a-Potty rentals that really run up the bill.


=====================================================================

The federal government estimates that it will spend roughly $49 million on the inaugural weekend. Washington, D.C., Virginia and Maryland have requested another $75 million from the federal government to help pay for their share of police, fire and medical services.

=====================================================================



And then there is the party bill.

"We have a budget of roughly $45 million, maybe a little bit more," said Linda Douglass, spokeswoman for the inaugural committee.

That's more than the $42.3 million in private funds spent by President Bush's committee in 2005 or the $33 million spent for Bill Clinton's first inaugural in 1993.

....

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 08:33 AM

More joy, plus inflation, about accounts for the difference.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 08:48 AM

=====================================================================

The federal government estimates that it will spend roughly $49 million on the inaugural weekend. Washington, D.C., Virginia and Maryland have requested another $75 million from the federal government to help pay for their share of police, fire and medical services.

=====================================================================



That is about $124,000,000 of TAX dollars.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 08:37 PM

""A number of liberal bloggers and columnists, most notably the New York Times' Paul Krugman, worry, hint or state outright that Obama appears to be selling his mandate short. Their indictment of the stimulus—or recovery plan, as Obama prefers to call it—is that the plan is both less efficient and less fair because it includes tax cuts. Then there's Obama's reluctance to pledge to investigate and prosecute a wide array of misconduct in the Bush administration. Obama is reproved for his resolve to focus on the future, not the past. At the least, dissenters on the left insist, he should establish a truth finding panel, with subpoena power, to rake through the Bush detritus and expose it to the world.""

Negative as ever Bruce, when faced with defeat of your beloved corporate puppets.

Perhaps President Obama feels that fixing what's wrong with America is a higher priority than chasing down the poor misguided idiot who just left office, and the question of tax cuts depends I suppose on whether YOU stand to gain, or not.

Sorry pal, but most of the "intelligent" world would agree with HIM, not you.

And bear in mind that at the time of writing, he has been de facto pres for just seven and one half hours. Hardly time to judge his progress?

Don T.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Charley Noble
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 08:54 PM

Bearded Bruce-

When you win, you party! And what a party!

Get over it!

Obama did take time in between festivities, to sign some official documents, approving some of his picks for his cabinet.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 06:38 AM

Don,

Too bad you can't bother to read the clickey...


Charlie,

When you win and you are Republican, you are criticised for partying.


And those were MY tax dollars being spent.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 08:55 AM

Really?

Have you calculated out the proportion of your own tax remittance to the national tax revenue stream? What do you think it is--one three-millionth? ONe ten-millionth?

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 12:52 PM

"...In his Inaugural Address, President Obama gave them the clarity and the respect for which all Americans have hungered. In about 20 minutes, he swept away eight years of President George Bush's false choices and failed policies and promised to recommit to America's most cherished ideals.

With Mr. Bush looking on (and we'd like to think feeling some remorse), President Obama declared: "On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn- out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics."

The speech was not programmatic, nor was it filled with as much soaring language as F.D.R.'s first Inaugural Address or John Kennedy's only one. But it left no doubt how Mr. Obama sees the nation's problems and how he intends to fix them and, unlike Mr. Bush, the necessary sacrifices he will ask of all Americans.

The American story "has not been the path for the faint-hearted, for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame," he said.

Just as he reshaped the Democratic Party to win its nomination, and the American electorate to defeat John McCain, Mr. Obama said he intended to reshape government so it will truly serve its citizens.

"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified," he said.

Mr. Obama was unsparing in condemning the failed ideology of uncontrolled markets. He said the current economic crisis showed how "without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control" and that the nation has to extend the reach of prosperity to "every willing heart, not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good."

Mr. Obama also did not shrink from the early criticism of his ambitious economic recovery plan. Rather, he said the "state of our economy calls for action, bold and swift," to build roads and bridges and electrical power and digital networks, to transform schools, and "harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories."

After more than seven years of Mr. Bush's using fear and xenophobia to justify a disastrous and unnecessary war, and undermine the most fundamental American rights, it was exhilarating to hear Mr. Obama reject "as false the choice between our safety and our ideals."

Instead of Mr. Bush's unilateralism, Mr. Obama said the United States is "ready to lead once more," by making itself a "friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity." He said "our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please." Mr. Obama told the Muslim world that he wants "a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect."

Mr. Obama was steely toward those "who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents." He warned them that "our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you." But where Mr. Bush painted this as an epochal, almost biblical battle between America and those who hate us and "who hate freedom," Mr. Obama also offered to "extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."

As the day continued with a parade and parties and balls, the image that stayed with us was the way the 44th president managed to embrace the symbolism and rise above it. It filled us with hope that with Mr. Obama's help, this battered nation will be able to draw together and mend itself.... (NYT)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 12:58 PM

Ask this question in 100 days, after he has actually done something.
So far, all he has done is chose a mixed bag of appointees, given a speech, and partied. This is not enough to judge an administration.
Let's hope he does good for the country under the Constitution.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 05:57 PM

"...'THE WORK OF REMAKING AMERICA': The Bush administration was marked by a near-ideological adherence to irresponsibility. The dismissal of facts, the failure to plan, and the elevation of politics over competence, led to a host of problems that now consume this nation. Repeatedly, Obama obliquely rebuked the legacy of the previous office-holder. Obama pledged to change the course of government,  saying that "our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions -- that time has surely passed." He pledged to "restore science to its rightful place" --  after eight years of "concerted assault" on the environment and inaction on global warming. Obama rejected "as false the choice between our safety and our ideals" -- in contrast to Bush, who personally authorized torture. And he signaled a new course in foreign policy, telling the Muslim world that "we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect."

'THE PRICE AND THE PROMISE OF CITIZENSHIP': In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Bush rallied the nation to continue shopping. In 2006, with recession looming, Bush asked the American people to "go shopping more." In a stark contrast, Obama defined his ideal of the "price and the promise of citizenship." He called for "a new era of responsibility," in which every American recognizes "that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and our world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character than giving our all to a difficult task." In a service event on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, "when a grateful nation emulates Dr. King's sacrifice and service to others," Obama explained his vision of shared responsibility. "If we're just waiting around for somebody else to do it for us, if we're waiting around for somebody else to clean up the vacant lot or waiting for somebody else to get involved in tutoring a child, if we're waiting for somebody else to do something, it never gets done," he said. "We're going to have to take responsibility -- all of us."

'THE SPIRIT OF SERVICE': Obama honored the men and women of the armed services "not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service: a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves," he said. Obama then argued that this spirit "must inhabit us all." this call to service is not new. In the early days of his presidential campaign, Obama "advocated a major expansion of the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps and other national service programs," and established a goal of "50 hours of community service per year for middle and high school students." For MLK Day, Obama asked "all Americans to make an ongoing commitment to better the lives of others." The Obama team established USAService.org, a website meant to be a clearinghouse for service opportunities.  Over 11,000 service projects across the country -- "from working in homeless shelters and mentoring young people to assembling more than 80,000 care packages for our troops at a service event here in Washington, D.C." -- were organized on the site.  As one volunteer in Albuquerque, NM, told reporters, "More people need to be aware that this isn't just six people building a fence, but instead a community coming together to say, 'All right we're getting involved, we're going to make a difference.'"
..."

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: freda underhill
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 07:16 AM

I'm very pleased that there has been a change of government. One thing that struck me about Obama's speech was the lack of acknowledgement of the initial occupants of the country - the native Americans. When Obama referred to forefathers it was as if America started withy them.

apart from that, it has been very inspiring. And it's good that he rang Palestinian President Abbas first, before any other with a foreign leader. that is a good sign for the prospects of peace.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 11:05 AM

I dunno. I'd watch that Hillary Clinton if I were him.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 11:46 AM

He just signed the order for Guantanamo closure. He's my man.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 06:49 PM

Yes Heric, and I particularly liked his reference to the US ensuring its safety by giving up its ideals.

I've been waiting a long time to hear that from a US president.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 06:50 PM

Damn, that should read NOT ensuring its safety by giving up its ideals.

DT

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 06:52 PM

He's unsure about what he said!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: fumblefingers
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 07:03 PM

Isn't he just the most perfect thing that ever lived? He's so cute!

And if something goes wrong, everybody knows it'll be Bush's fault.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 01:44 PM

It has received the least attention of his first-day decisions, but President Barack Obama's memorandum on reviving the Freedom of Information Act stands as the clearest signal yet that his campaign talk about "a new era of open government" wasn't just rhetoric; it's for real.

The key phrase comes right at the top: "The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails."

Later in the memo: "All agencies should adopt a presumption of disclosure. … The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA."
Furthermore, "In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies should act properly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public." In fact, "All agencies should take affirmative steps to make information public. They should not wait for specific requests from the public."
This could not be clearer. The new president was calling for a complete reversal of the Bush administration's directives on this matter—and a restoration of the Freedom of Information Act's original purpose.

The Bush era's tone was set in October 2001, when then-Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a memo to all federal agencies, assuring them that if they were sued for refusing to release documents under the FOIA, the Justice Department would defend them in court as long as their decision had a "sound legal basis." This reversed a guideline, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, noting that the Justice Department would defend agencies' refusals only if releasing the documents would cause "foreseeable harm."...

Slate (Kaplan)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 01:53 PM

"recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public"

...music to my ears.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 03:04 PM

"...Americans tend to get giddy over winners, especially underdogs who take the measure of a foe thought to be impregnable — in this case, the mighty forces carefully assembled over several years by the Clintons.

And it's not just the president himself who looks good. Even the shameless purveyors of fantasy at central casting would blush at the thought of crafting a family as picture perfect as the Obamas. So, yes, there is an awful lot to like about the Obama phenomenon.

But I've seen charismatic politicians and pretty families come and go like sunrises and sunsets over the years. There was something more that was making people go ga-ga over Obama. Something deeper.

We've been watching that something this week, and it's called leadership. Mr. Obama has been feeding the almost desperate hunger in this country for mature leadership, for someone who is not reckless and clownish, shortsighted and self-absorbed.

However you feel about his policies, and there are people grumbling on the right and on the left, Mr. Obama has signaled loudly and clearly that the era of irresponsible behavior in public office is over.

No more crazy wars. No more torture, and no more throwing people in prison without even the semblance of due process. No more napping while critical problems like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, global warming, and economic inequality in the United States grow steadily worse.

"We remain a young nation," Mr. Obama said in his Inaugural Address, "but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things."

On Wednesday, his first full day in office, the president took steps to make the federal government more transparent, signaling immediately that the country would move away from the toxic levels of secrecy that marked the Bush years.

"Transparency and rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency," he said. It was a commitment to responsible behavior, and a challenge to the public to hold the Obama administration accountable. It reminded me of the wonderful line written into a federal appeals court ruling in 2002 by Judge Damon Keith:

"Democracies die behind closed doors."

This has been the Obama way, to set a responsible example and then to call on others to follow his mature lead. In Iowa, after his victory in the Democratic caucuses a year ago, he promised to be "a president who will be honest about the choices and challenges we face, who will listen to you and learn from you, even when we disagree, who won't just tell you what you want to hear, but what you need to know."

In a cynical age, the inclination is to dismiss this stuff as so much political rhetoric. But Mr. Obama carries himself in a way that suggests he means what he says, which gives him great credibility when he urges Americans to work hard and make sacrifices, not just for themselves and their families but for the common good — and when he tells black audiences that young men need to hitch up their trousers and behave themselves, and that families need to turn off the TV so the kids can do their homework.

Or when he says of the many serious challenges facing the nation, as he did in his Inaugural Address: "They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America: They will be met."

The bond is growing between the nation and its new young leader. Let's hope it's a mature romance that weathers the long haul. "

(NYT Columnist Bob Herbert)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 05:26 PM

I wonder if the taxpayers are going to get stuck with the bill for replacing all the mirrors in the White House?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 12:03 AM

Chavez says Obama "throwing stones" at Venezuela
Fri Jan 16, 2009 Reuters

Casting a bad omen for better ties with Washington, Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez said on Thursday he will keep fighting the U.S. "empire" and warned President-elect Barack Obama against "throwing stones."

Chavez said Obama accused Venezuela in a speech earlier this week of exporting terrorism and obstructing progress in Latin America.

"Look what he has started saying, what's next for us? We'll keep fighting imperialism whether the chief of the empire is black or white," Chavez told hundreds of supporters in Caracas.

Chavez is a fierce critic of U.S. foreign policy and during the administration of President George W. Bush the former paratrooper accused Washington of organizing a 2002 coup against him. In September, he expelled the U.S. ambassador.

Venezuela, 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.

Washington accuses Venezuela of supplying guns and money to neighboring Colombia's Marxist guerrillas, a charge Chavez denies. CIA Director Michael Hayden said on Thursday that falling world oil prices could be positive because they might fracture Chavez's government.

Despite warning Obama, Chavez said he hoped relations with the United States would improve under the new president.

"If he respects Venezuela, he will receive a respectful reply," he said. "There is still time for Mr Obama to rectify when he assumes the presidency."

Chavez has been in power for a decade and is popular for welfare programs and building health clinics. He wants to change the constitution so he can run for president again in 2012 but Venezuela's opposition has gained strength in the last two years and Chavez could struggle to win voter approval for the reform.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 05:31 PM

Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney on President Obama: "So far, what we've got is the silence of the lambs, but I thought we were voting for a lion"

BEIRUT, January 21, 2009,

Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney was the Green Party candidate for President in 2008. Ms. McKinney was aboard the boat "Dignity", which tried to break the siege in Gaza. She tells iloubnan.info what she thinks about President Barack Obama's promise of change.

iloubnan.info: Do you think American policy in the Middle East will change now that Barack Obama is elected President?
Cynthia McKinney: I have implored President-elect Obama to say something concerning the situation in Gaza. This kind of violence is reported to be the worst violence inflicted to the Palestinians in 60 years. How can this man who has been so loquacious on other subjects be silent on this issue? The two words that would characterize the Obama campaign were Hope and Change and a lot of people voted for Barack Obama based on their big desire for change. Are we going to get it? If we look at the menu of advisors, if we look at the history of the Democratic Party, what we don't see is change. If we look at the incoming cabinet members, what we don't see is change. Now you ask, is there going to be change? Yes, there will be change in the face; there will be a change in the superficialities. But will there be deep substantive change, like the people of Bolivia were able to acquire through their vote, like the people of Ecuador or Venezuela? I am committed to the hope that we can have that kind of change in the United States but obviously it's going to take a lot more than what we've done thus far. So far, what we got is what I call the silence of the lambs, but I thought we were voting for a lion.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 05:32 PM

Cindy Sheehan wrote: "If Obama declares an end to the fucking phony "war on terror," brings our troops home from Iraq AND Afghanistan; repeals the USA PATRIOT ACT; restores habeas corpus and prosecutes George and Dick...I WILL SHAVE MY HEAD and give my abject apologizes to all the Obama maniacs.

This is my promise to you."

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 05:59 PM

Do you think shaving her head would help?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 07:12 PM

:0)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 10:03 PM

21 Jan 2009 ... The executive order on ethics I will sign shortly represents a clean break from business as usual. As of today, lobbyists will be subject to stricter limits than under any -- under any other administration in history.

If you are a lobbyist entering my administration, you will not be able to work on matters you lobbied on, or in the agencies you lobbied during the previous two years. When you leave government, you will not be able to lobby my administration for as long as I am president.

Two days later, back to business as usual:

23 Jan 2009 ... The Obama administration has waived its ethics rules to allow William Lynn to serve as the deputy secretary of Defense.


So now we have two tax dodgers and a lobbyist in the Obama administration.

How long before the Mudcat Awakemimg?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Feb 09 - 12:40 AM

IDiot child.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Feb 09 - 08:54 AM

Yeah - Looks like it's business as usual!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Feb 09 - 09:45 AM

?...We also now know conclusively that the larger Bush tax cuts, besides running up record deficits and exacerbating income inequality, were also at best a placebo on our road to ruin. In a January survey of economists, including former McCain advisers like Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Mark Zandi, The Washington Post determined that the job growth the Bush administration kept bragging about ("52 straight months!") was a mirage inflated by the housing bubble. Job growth — about 2 percent — was in fact the most tepid of any eight-year period "since data collection began seven decades ago." Gross domestic product grew at a slower pace than in any eight years since the Truman administration.

But even if tax cuts alone could jump-start a recovery, they couldn't do the heavy lifting that Obama has promised and the country desperately needs: a down payment on a new economy to replace our dilapidated 20th-century model and bring back long-term growth. The Republicans don't acknowledge the need for this transformation, or debate it in good conscience, preferring instead to hyperventilate over the contraceptives in a small family-planning program since removed from the stimulus bill. All it takes is the specter of condoms for the party of Vitter, Foley and Craig to go gaga.

The Republicans' other preoccupation remains Rush Limbaugh, who is by default becoming their de facto leader. While most Americans are fearing fear itself, G.O.P. politicians are tripping over themselves in morbid terror of Rush.

These pratfalls commenced after Obama casually told some Republican congressmen (correctly) that they won't "get things done" if they take their orders from Limbaugh. That's all the stimulus the big man needed to go on a new bender of self-aggrandizement. He boasted that Obama is "more frightened" of him than he is of the Republican leaders in the House or Senate. He said of the new president, "I hope he fails."

Obama no doubt finds Limbaugh's grandiosity more amusing than frightening, but G.O.P. politicians are shaking like Jell-O. When asked by Andrea Mitchell of NBC News on Wednesday if he shared Limbaugh's hope that Obama fails, Eric Cantor spun like a top before running off, as it happened, to appear on Limbaugh's radio show. Mike Pence of Indiana, No. 3 in the Republican House leadership, similarly squirmed when asked if he agreed with Limbaugh. Though the Republicans' official, poll-driven line is that they want Obama to succeed, they'd rather abandon that disingenuous nicety than cross Rush.

Most pathetic of all was Phil Gingrey, a right-wing Republican congressman from Georgia, who mildly criticized both Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to Politico because they "stand back and throw bricks" while lawmakers labor in the trenches. So many called Gingrey's office to complain that the poor congressman begged Limbaugh to bring him on air to publicly recant on Wednesday. As Gingrey abjectly apologized to talk radio's commandant for his "stupid comments" and "foot-in-mouth disease," he sounded like the inmate in a B-prison-movie cowering before the warden after a failed jailbreak.

"It's up to me to hijack the Obama honeymoon," Limbaugh soon gloated, "and I've done it." In his dreams. He has hijacked what's left of the Republican Party; the Obama honeymoon remains intact. The nightmare is that we have so irrelevant, clownish and childish an opposition party at a moment when America is in an all-hands-on-deck emergency that's as trying as war. To paraphrase a dictum that has been variously attributed to two of our most storied leaders in times of great challenge, Thomas Paine and George Patton, the Republicans should either lead, follow or get out of the grown-ups' way.".(NYT)

---

SO far the OA has been working hard to do the right thing.

Rush Limbaugh is a national embarassment.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Feb 09 - 10:36 PM

Washington 6 Jan2009

President-elect Barack Obama pledged Tuesday that he will not allow lawmakers to insert any "earmarks," or Congressional pet projects, into his massive economic recovery package proposal.

    Renewable energy and new energy infrastructure will figure prominently in the program estimated $850 billion or more and also expected to include $330 billion in individual and business tax cuts.

    "We're not having earmarks in the recovery package. Period," Obama told reporters following a meeting with his top economic advisers. He added that the move will increase transparency and that he will also allow the public to track how tax dollars are being spent in an online database.

    Earmarks, which are member-requested projects not limited to energy spending, are common in energy and other appropriations bills.

    Obama sat down with his economic advisers, including Treasury Secretary-designate Timothy Geithner, National Economic Adviser Lawrence Summers and Peter Orszag, Obama's pick for director of the Office of Management and Budget.

    Obama said that he wanted to create an Economic Recovery Oversight Board made up of administration officials and independent advisers to oversee that those funds are used wisely.

Where is this "Economic Recovery Oversight Board"?

According to No Pork Obama, these are not earmarks:

$   34 million For remodeling the Department of Commerce headquarters
$ 150 million Spent on honey bee insurance
$    20 million For removal of small to medium-sized fish passage barriers                
$ 650 million For digital TV coupons
$ 335 millionfor STD prevention
$    50 million in funding for the National Endowment of the Arts.
$    44 millionfor repairs to U.S. Department of Agriculture headquarters.
$    21 million for sod for the National Mall
$ 4 BILLION assistance for "nonprofit entities including ACORN, currently under criminal investigation for paying people to fill out registration forms for Donald Duck
$    87 million for 1 new icebreaker ship to be used in the Arctic. Where is the ice anyway?
$   4.8 million polar bear exhibit at the Providence, Rhode Island, zoo.
$   1.5 million for a water ride at the Grapeland Water Park in Miami Fla.
$   20 million minor league baseball museum in Durham, North Carolina
$   6.1 million for corporate jet hangars at the Fayetteville, Arkansas, airport
$   20 million for renovations at the Philadelphia Zoo
$   1.5 million program to reduce prostitution in Dayton, Ohio.
$ 376.5 million for aquatic centers, museums, bike paths, zoos, skateboard parks, dog and equestrian parks, police department stun guns, tree planting and murals.

Change we can believe in

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Feb 09 - 04:57 PM

Oh well at least it's still alright to torture folks

No change there then!!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Feb 09 - 10:02 PM

Sawz:

If you cannot state things accurately, it is a real wonder to me why you bother stating them at all. Is your intention just to vent your vapors? Stir up discontent by misrepresentation? Or just flap your wings and cluck?


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 09:51 PM

So what is in particular is inaccurate? Got any facts?

Where are your numbers are do you operate on rhetoric alone?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 10:01 PM

MSNBC was trying to make the case that Zoe Baird's(sp?) case was the same as Daschel's, because they both owed taxes. They said if Daschel's nomination went forward, the Democrats would be guilty of sexism.
          Baird was found guilty of employing an illegal alien and not paying the payroll taxes. Of course she couldn't pay the taxes if she wanted to, because that would expose the fact that she was harboring a criminal. The blind extremists couldn't see the difference, apparently, so it's "bye bye Daschel."

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 10:14 PM

Amos:

Here is the exact wording cut and pasted for one item. What the hell is this going to do to get people back to work and get mortgages paid? Just tell the broadcaster to continue broadcasting analog until things straighten out.

These damned converter boxes are made in China anyway.

8 Box Program, $650,000,000, to be available until Sep9
tember 30, 2009: Provided, That these funds shall be
10 available for coupons and related activities, including but
11 not limited to education, consumer support and outreach,
12 as deemed appropriate and necessary to ensure a timely
13 conversion of analog to digital television.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 10:51 PM

Sawz:

You aren't even making complete statements about who is suggesting what!!! Just lists of odd categories.

Are you taking these out of the house version of the current bill, or somewhere else altogether? Why don't you learn that a simple proposition has a predicate and a subject with a verb in between? Why won't you cite sources? I am of the mind you are but a troll.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 11:13 PM

Where is the MSM on this? Heckuva job there Barry.

Ice-battered Kentucky pleads for help from storm

By BRUCE SCHREINER MARION, Ky. (AP) —

A crippling winter storm has plunged about a million customers into the dark from the Midwest to the East Coast, and thousands of people in ice-caked Kentucky have sought refuge in motels and shelters.

Dozens of deaths have been reported and many people are pleading for a faster response to the power outages. Some in rural Kentucky ran short of food and bottled water, and resorted to dipping buckets in a creek.

Thousands fled frigid, powerless homes for hotels and even a heated auditorium at Murray State University that was converted into a shelter following Monday's storm that left some areas in up to 1 inch ice.

Utility workers hoped to speed up efforts Saturday to turn the lights back on. Still, rural communities feared it could be days or even weeks before workers got to areas littered with downed power lines.

Temperatures were expected to rise just above freezing Saturday for the first time in days.

At least 42 people have died in the icy arc of destruction that began in the Midwest. At least nine deaths were reported in Arkansas, six each in Texas and Missouri, three in Virginia, two each in Oklahoma, Indiana and West Virginia and one in Ohio. Most were blamed on hypothermia, traffic accidents and carbon monoxide poisoning from generators.

In Kentucky, where 11 people had died, a man and two women were the latest victims after they were found dead in a southwestern Louisville home. One woman was found in a bed; the other two were found in the garage with a generator, police spokesman Phil Russell said.

Meanwhile, the uncertainty of when power might be restored had many appealing for help. Officials urged those in dark homes to leave.

"We're asking people to pack a suitcase and head south and find a motel if they have the means, because we can't service everybody in our shelter," said Crittenden County Judge-Executive Fred Brown, who oversees about 9,000 people, many of whom spent a fifth night sleeping in the town's elementary school.

Local officials grew angrier at what they said was a lack of help from the state and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

In Kentucky's Grayson County, about 80 miles southwest of Louisville, Emergency Management Director Randell Smith said the 25 National Guardsmen who have responded have no chain saws to clear fallen trees. He said roads are littered with fallen trees and people shivering in bone-chilling cold are in need.

"We've got people out in some areas we haven't even visited yet," Smith said. "We don't even know that they're alive."

Smith said FEMA was still a no-show days after the storm.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 09 - 02:14 AM

Jesus. What the hell is going on here?

This is a grim picture.

About 1 per cent of the relief package from the House of Representatives is proposed for weird shit. That's still too much. Obama should have trimmed Daschle back three days ago at the lates, and done some razor work on the fat, even though it is only one percent.. Come on, Barry!!

I appreciate he is in his first thirty days, and he probably had no idea how fast and how deep the shit was going to hit.

But he's got the plan, and he needs to keep it sharp and start using those elbows, or he'll be in a mess. That we do NOT need.

And, Sawz, do me a favor and stow the useless empty-headed schadenfreude. You and Limbaugh; wodda pair o' maroons.

S



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Feb 09 - 10:24 AM

He's suspending the E-Verify program. Our wors fears are being realized.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 09 - 01:32 PM

"E-Verify (formerly known as the Basic Pilot/Employment Eligibility Verification Program) is an Internet based system operated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in partnership with the Social Security Administration (SSA) that allows participating employers to electronically verify the employment eligibility of their newly hired employees.

E-Verify is free and voluntary and is the best means available for determining employment eligibility of new hires and the validity of their Social Security Numbers."
___________________________________________________

Oh, horrors. You mean the gardener might end up being illegal?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Feb 09 - 01:51 PM

Yes, and all of his children will end up in our underfunded schools, and the hospital will have to shut down because the emergency room will be overflowing with illegal patrons, and California will end up with a huge budget short-fall.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Feb 09 - 02:17 PM

updated 1 hour, 25 minutes ago

   Commentary: Obama's press office needs diversity

Story Highlights
Roland Martin: White House press office shows very little diversity

He says Barack Obama needs to be accountable for diversity on his staff

Martin: Jobs on that staff are steppingstones to future success in Washington

He says diversity is very important to the future of the country

By Roland S. Martin
CNN Contributor
   
Editor's note: A nationally syndicated columnist, Roland S. Martin is the author of "Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith" and "Speak, Brother! A Black Man's View of America." Visit his Web site for more information.


Roland S. Martin says Barack Obama should be accountable for ensuring diversity on his staff.

(CNN) -- A lot of media outlets made a big deal out of the mostly white White House press corps covering the first black president, and those stories were worth pursuing.

Any of us in the business knows full well that those are considered plum jobs and are a steppingstone to greater things.

But while we hold the media accountable for the need to diversify their ranks, it's quite telling to see the lack of diversity in the White House's press office.

I got an e-mail Tuesday listing all of the various press folks and contact information, and hardly any African-Americans or Hispanics were listed. Granted, the deputy press secretary is African-American and the director of broadcast media is Hispanic. That's not sufficient.

Unfortunately, this shouldn't come as a shock, because the campaign press staff of then-Sen. Barack Obama was just as weak on diversity.

Just because there is a black president doesn't mean that issues like diversity should be cast aside. President Obama should be held to the same standard when it comes to this issue as any other occupier of that office. I am a former national board member of the National Association of Black Journalists, and my support for diversity never wavers, no matter who is running the show.

One of the reasons this is important is because just like in the media, where there are bigger and better things awaiting the White House correspondent, a position in the White House press office positions someone for the next level.

When the press secretary leaves, the president normally chooses the next one from those ranks. We've never seen a black or Hispanic press secretary standing at the podium each day giving daily briefings, and when there are none on the bench, well, that streak will continue.

Looking at the roster of other offices, I don't believe there's even one African-American or Hispanic who is the primary spokesman or number two at any of the major departments, such as Treasury, State, and Justice.

These coveted positions often lead to the top jobs in communications firms in Washington and around the country, and even junior staffers now are tapped for senior jobs in the next administration (Look at how many junior staffers on President Bill Clinton's team are now senior staffers for President Barack Obama).

Various reports have stated that Obama was bothered by the lack of diversity among his campaign team, yet he wasn't moved to do anything about it. Now I'm hearing the same when it comes to his senior staff, and that is clearly the case in his press office.

The election of President Barack Obama means that one barrier, albeit a major one, has been torn down. But that doesn't mean that others don't need to come tumbling down as well. For those groups that have often been marginalized, it's important to have the doors of opportunity opened.

If diversity truly matters, then it must be emphasized and realized top down. The company leaders in corporate diversity got there because the CEO made it clear that it mattered, and they demanded their underlings make it a reality.

Al Neuharth is a prime example. Were it not for his fierce leadership on diversity, Gannett would have never outpaced the media industry when it comes to minorities and women being publishers, general managers and executives among the company's media properties. He set the gold standard for advocating diversity in media.

If change is truly what this president wants to bring to bear, let's see change across the board. He should make it clear that the clubby atmosphere in Washington of hire-who-you-know has gone out the window, and that window has been opened up for the next generation of talented individuals. The power positions matter a lot in the nation's capital, and when you have a seat at the table, that's what counts.

I'm used to getting e-mails from folks who will say it's wrong for me to look at this through a racial lens and that we now live in a post-racial world. But if I got an e-mail listing all men, trust me, I would be the first to ask, "Where are the women?" If I've pushed the need for diversity at every mainstream media operation I've worked at, including CNN, why would I be silent about it in an Obama administration?

I've been told that not all hiring has been completed in the White House press office and in other areas. OK, fine. But the A-team has clearly been hired, and that means anyone else coming in the door is on the B-team. And that just won't cut it.

Diversity has tremendous value in this country, and you don't get there by lauding it. You get there by doing it. And that challenge should be met by any and every CEO, whether they are black or white, Fortune 500 or the president of the United States.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 09 - 02:31 PM

Good for him. It is an important issue.

However, there are certainly more urgently pressing issues at the moment than to count skin tones or plumbing curves on staff. Really.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Feb 09 - 02:43 PM

Darned right it's an important issue. There is not one chimpanzee on Obama's team yet. Not one. And no monkeys either. That tells you something.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Feb 09 - 05:06 PM

Frankly, I don't think there's anything more urgent than plumbing curves!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Feb 09 - 07:18 AM

Washington Post

The Senate Balks

Why President Obama should heed calls for a more focused stimulus package
Thursday, February 5, 2009; Page A16

Today in The Post, President Obama challenges critics of the $900 billion stimulus plan that was taking shape on Capitol Hill yesterday, accusing them of peddling "the same failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis" and warning that, without immediate action, "Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse." A thinly veiled reference to Senate Republicans, this is a departure from his previous emphasis on bipartisanship. Still, as a matter of policy, Mr. Obama is justified in signaling that the plan should not be tilted in favor of tax cuts -- and that the GOP should not waste valuable time trying to achieve this.

However, ideology is not the only reason that senators -- from both parties -- are balking at the president's plan. As it emerged from the House, it suffered from a confusion of objectives. Mr. Obama praised the package yesterday as "not merely a prescription for short-term spending" but a "strategy for long-term economic growth in areas like renewable energy and health care and education." This is precisely the problem. As credible experts, including some Democrats, have pointed out, much of this "long-term" spending either won't stimulate the economy now, is of questionable merit, or both. Even potentially meritorious items, such as $2.1 billion for Head Start, or billions more to computerize medical records, do not belong in legislation whose reason for being is to give U.S. economic growth a "jolt," as Mr. Obama himself has put it. All other policy priorities should pass through the normal budget process, which involves hearings, debate and -- crucially -- competition with other programs.

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine is one of the moderate Republicans whose support the president must win if he is to garner the 60 Senate votes needed to pass a stimulus package. She and Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska are working on a plan that would carry a lower nominal price tag than the current bill -- perhaps $200 billion lower -- but which would focus on aid to states, "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects, food stamp increases and other items calculated to boost business and consumer spending quickly. On the revenue side, she would keep Mr. Obama's priorities, including a $500-per-worker tax rebate.

To his credit, Mr. Obama continues to seek bipartisan input, and he met individually with Ms. Collins for a half hour yesterday afternoon. We hope he gives her ideas serious consideration.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Feb 09 - 07:50 AM

Washington Post- ( I will guess self-view counts)

The Action Americans Need

By Barack Obama
Thursday, February 5, 2009; Page A17

By now, it's clear to everyone that we have inherited an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the days of the Great Depression. Millions of jobs that Americans relied on just a year ago are gone; millions more of the nest eggs families worked so hard to build have vanished. People everywhere are worried about what tomorrow will bring.

What Americans expect from Washington is action that matches the urgency they feel in their daily lives -- action that's swift, bold and wise enough for us to climb out of this crisis.

Because each day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes. And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.

That's why I feel such a sense of urgency about the recovery plan before Congress. With it, we will create or save more than 3 million jobs over the next two years, provide immediate tax relief to 95 percent of American workers, ignite spending by businesses and consumers alike, and take steps to strengthen our country for years to come.

This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending -- it's a strategy for America's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, health care and education. And it's a strategy that will be implemented with unprecedented transparency and accountability, so Americans know where their tax dollars are going and how they are being spent.

In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis -- the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures; that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.

I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change. They know that we have tried it those ways for too long. And because we have, our health-care costs still rise faster than inflation. Our dependence on foreign oil still threatens our economy and our security. Our children still study in schools that put them at a disadvantage. We've seen the tragic consequences when our bridges crumble and our levees fail.

Every day, our economy gets sicker -- and the time for a remedy that puts Americans back to work, jump-starts our economy and invests in lasting growth is now.

Now is the time to protect health insurance for the more than 8 million Americans at risk of losing their coverage and to computerize the health-care records of every American within five years, saving billions of dollars and countless lives in the process.

Now is the time to save billions by making 2 million homes and 75 percent of federal buildings more energy-efficient, and to double our capacity to generate alternative sources of energy within three years.

Now is the time to give our children every advantage they need to compete by upgrading 10,000 schools with state-of-the-art classrooms, libraries and labs; by training our teachers in math and science; and by bringing the dream of a college education within reach for millions of Americans.

And now is the time to create the jobs that remake America for the 21st century by rebuilding aging roads, bridges and levees; designing a smart electrical grid; and connecting every corner of the country to the information superhighway.

These are the actions Americans expect us to take without delay. They're patient enough to know that our economic recovery will be measured in years, not months. But they have no patience for the same old partisan gridlock that stands in the way of action while our economy continues to slide.

So we have a choice to make. We can once again let Washington's bad habits stand in the way of progress. Or we can pull together and say that in America, our destiny isn't written for us but by us. We can place good ideas ahead of old ideological battles, and a sense of purpose above the same narrow partisanship. We can act boldly to turn crisis into opportunity and, together, write the next great chapter in our history and meet the test of our time.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Feb 09 - 12:29 PM

"...The cases give Mr. Obama a chance to show how serious he is about repairing Mr. Bush's legacy of harm.

The first test comes on Monday in San Francisco, where three judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit are scheduled to hear arguments in a civil case involving kidnapping and torture. The Bush team was using one of its signature legal tactics — stretching the evidentiary rule known as the state secrets privilege — to avoid having the detainees' claims ever heard.

The five plaintiffs, victims of Mr. Bush's extraordinary rendition program, were seized and transported to secret American facilities abroad or to countries known for torturing prisoners — on flights organized by a private contractor, Jeppesen Dataplan.

One plaintiff, an Ethiopian citizen and legal resident of Britain, says he was tortured in Pakistan, Morocco and a C.I.A.-run prison outside Kabul commonly known as the "Dark Prison" before being transferred to Guantánamo, where he remains.

In Morocco, according to his account, he endured routine beatings and perpetual shackling, and security agents cut him all over his body. A hot, stinging liquid was then poured into his open wounds.

Another plaintiff, an Iraqi citizen and legal resident of Britain, was arrested in Gambia while on a business trip. He was flown to Afghanistan and held, chained and shackled in a tiny, pitch-black cell. Later, he was transferred to the American-run Bagram Air Base, where he endured beatings and inadequate sleep, water and clothing. Finally, he was sent to Guantánamo. After four-and-a-half years in detention without any charges being filed, he was released in 2007.

A federal trial judge dismissed these serious allegations without allowing any evidence to be presented. He reflexively bowed to the Bush administration's claim that doing so would put national secrets at risk.

The Bush administration's claim is that the "very subject matter" of the suit is a state secret. We can understand why the Bush team would not want evidence of illegal detentions and torture presented in court, but the argument is preposterous.

To begin with, there is a growing body of public information about the C.I.A.'s rendition, detention and coercive interrogation programs. More profoundly, the argument that any litigation touching upon foreign intelligence operations is categorically off limits to judicial scrutiny is an affront to the constitutional separation of powers.

It is also contrary to Mr. Obama's stated views. To put them into action, Mr. Holder should immediately ask the court for time to rethink the government's position and to file a new brief. Instead of trying to automatically shut down any judicial review of these issues, the Obama administration should propose that judges examine actual documents or other specific evidence for which the state secrets privilege is invoked, and redact them as needed to protect legitimate secrets.

Should Mr. Obama decide against pursuing criminal cases for the torture and abuse of prisoners, taking any chance of an effective civil case off the table would give a pass to such misconduct and leave its victims without any legal remedy. That certainly does not fit principles that the new president has so often articulated." NYT

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Feb 09 - 01:21 PM

The wall street criminals have all of their secret bail out money.

The main street victims need thier transparent bail out, Nobel proze winner Paul Krugman feels that anything sohort of 3 trillion will be insufficient to head off the worst of a record breaking recession.



Obama spoke with unparalleled eloquence at the National Prayer club this morning. Only a spattering of quiet applause was heard only once, as if those who were not stunned were in awe. It is the closest thing to a Gettsberg address on the subject of religion I have heard (except for a few mudcat contributors).

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 12:00 AM

Obama climate czar has socialist ties
Group sees 'global governance' as solution
Stephen Dinan

Until last week, Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama's pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.

By Thursday, Mrs. Browner's name and biography had been removed from Socialist International's Web page, though a photo of her speaking June 30 to the group's congress in Greece was still available.

Socialist International, an umbrella group for many of the world's social democratic political parties such as Britain's Labor Party, says it supports socialism and is harshly critical of U.S. policies.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 12:31 AM

Me, oh my. Is Obama's gold plate beginning to become a bit tarnished? Suppose he really can't walk on water? Me oh, my.

I listened to his speech tonight made at the House Democrats retreat, and he sounds as though he is still running for election. Somebody should tell him he won and now it's time to govern.

DougR

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 01:10 AM

Doug, I too listened to him at the House Retreat in Williamsburg and in my opinion it was stellar. He was motivating the House Representatives to get out there and work.

He was defining- once again - the fact that the stimulus that the Republicans favored had been tried. And failed. As he said, their plan was what brought us to this dire condition in the first place.

I especially liked : And now they're saying that this is not a stimulus plan, it's a spending plan. Of course it's a spending plan. What else is a stimulus?

***************
The text of his speech is not yet available online but when it is, I dare you, I double dare you to post it in its entirety.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 01:10 AM

FEMA Gives Tainted Food to Storm Victims

Food kits distributed by FEMA as part of a disaster relief effort in Kentucky and Arkansas may contain some of that awesome salmonella peanut butter we've been hearing so much about.

CNN: Jay Blanton, spokesman for Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, said late Wednesday: "We just received this information from FEMA. Tonight, out of an abundance of caution, we are in the process of finding alternative sources of food for people in shelters. The Kentucky National Guard is starting to notify people who've already received the (meal kits) or might be getting one."

The meals have a variety of main dishes, but all apparently contain peanut butter packets. Do not eat.

Yer doin' a good job, Barry.

If FEMA did not show or if this had been had happened under the GWB administration, he and Dick would have been accused of trying to kill off the po folks for some sort of profit.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 01:26 AM

Doug waits, hoping for some bad things to happen to Barack Obama. Four years of hoping for some bad things to happen. That's the partisan mind at work. That's why I don't believe in the partisan system any more. I think it's downright evil.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 08:44 AM

It is evil. I don't know how to go about making it better. I think a strong third party would help.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 09:14 AM

LH,

"Doug waits, hoping for some bad things to happen to Barack Obama. Four years of hoping for some bad things to happen. That's the partisan mind at work. "

As long as you remember the waiting and hoping of many here during the Bush administration- THEY were as partisan, and should not copmplain when their party is treated the way they treated others.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 10:27 AM

Following in the Amos tradition of posting quips from the opposing party...


February 6, 2009
Romney: Obama 'off to a rocky start'
Posted: 09:32 AM ET

(CNN) – Mitt Romney says it's "been a good year" since he dropped out of the GOP nomination fight, but, he says, "I wish I would have won the nomination, and won the presidency."

In an interview with TIME magazine, Romney said the man who won the presidency, Barack Obama, "is off to a rocky start."

"The theme 'Yes, we can' seems to have been replaced with 'Well, maybe we can't,'" he said. "I believe that with all the challenges America faces, the simple solutions and the hope that were sold by the Obama team are inadequate to the task ahead."

Like many congressional Republicans, Romney said he favors a stimulus package, but only if the money is free of pork and devoted to tax cuts and "high priority, urgent" infrastructure projects.

The former businessman also questioned Obama's move Wednesday to install an executive pay cap at financial firms taking bailout money.

"I am very uncomfortable with government dictating the course for managing an enterprise," he said. "This should be done by the shareholders and by the board of directors, not by the federal government."

Romney would not speculate on his plans for the next election in 2012, but he did comment on a potential rival for the nomination, should he decide to seek it.

Of Sarah Palin, he would say only: "Gov. Palin is an effective and popular political voice, and I believe she will continue to draw interest among party faithful and that she'll have an impact on the party's direction in the future."

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 10:30 AM

Washington Post

The Fierce Urgency of Pork
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, February 6, 2009; Page A17

"A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe."
-- President Obama, Feb. 4.



Catastrophe, mind you. So much for the president who in his inaugural address two weeks earlier declared "we have chosen hope over fear." Until, that is, you need fear to pass a bill.

And so much for the promise to banish the money changers and influence peddlers from the temple. An ostentatious executive order banning lobbyists was immediately followed by the nomination of at least a dozen current or former lobbyists to high position. Followed by a Treasury secretary who allegedly couldn't understand the payroll tax provisions in his 1040. Followed by Tom Daschle, who had to fall on his sword according to the new Washington rule that no Cabinet can have more than one tax delinquent.

The Daschle affair was more serious because his offense involved more than taxes. As Michael Kinsley once observed, in Washington the real scandal isn't what's illegal, but what's legal. Not paying taxes is one thing. But what made this case intolerable was the perfectly legal dealings that amassed Daschle $5.2 million in just two years.

He'd been getting $1 million per year from a law firm. But he's not a lawyer, nor a registered lobbyist. You don't get paid this kind of money to instruct partners on the Senate markup process. You get it for picking up the phone and peddling influence.

At least Tim Geithner, the tax-challenged Treasury secretary, had been working for years as a humble international civil servant earning non-stratospheric wages. Daschle, who had made another cool million a year (plus chauffeur and Caddy) for unspecified services to a pal's private equity firm, represented everything Obama said he'd come to Washington to upend.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/05/AR2009020502766.html

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 10:38 AM

A Horse and Pony Show


By Dana Milbank
Friday, February 6, 2009; Page A03

Lawmakers, the saying goes, are either workhorses or show horses. As they debated the economic stimulus package yesterday, senators took this truism a step further: The workhorses and the show horses split into rival herds and began whinnying at each other.

After Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) held a copy of the Senate stimulus plan in the air, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said: "I find it really rather amazing that the senator is holding up a bill. That's theatrics." But she appeared to do the same on the Senate floor. (Senate Television Via Associated Press)

(AP)
The workhorses -- an ad hoc group of 18 moderates and dealmakers from both parties -- holed up in a committee room on the third floor of the Dirksen Building, tossed out their staff and got to work on a compromise plan that could get bipartisan support.

The show horses -- including the leadership of both parties -- gave speeches on the Senate floor and news conferences either to trade blame for partisan deadlock or to denounce the Group of 18's dealmaking efforts.

The workhorses, taking a lunch break so some of them could confer with the White House about the compromise, were pleased with their labors.

"It is unusual to think of senators actually doing that kind of painstaking, thorough work," said Susan Collins (Maine), leader of the Republican workhorses.

"Always refreshing to be able to do that," added Ben Nelson (Neb.), captain of the Democratic workhorses.

But 10 minutes later, Senate Democratic leaders pranced into a news conference and trampled on the workhorses' work.

"As I have explained to the people within that group, they cannot hold the president of the United States hostage," fumed Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.). "If they think they are going to rewrite this bill and Barack Obama's going to walk away from what he has been trying to do for the American people, they've got another thought coming."


Holding the president hostage? This caused the workhorses to rear up.

"Oh, goodness, no," said Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) as he returned to the dealmaking table in Dirksen. "I'm for human rights."

And Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) chuckled at her leader's accusation. "A little dramatic, don't you think?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/05/AR2009020503057.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 10:53 AM

"Yer doin' a good job, Barry.

If FEMA did not show or if this had been had happened under the GWB administration, he and Dick would have been accused of trying to kill off the po folks for some sort of profit.SZ

my god. Barack Obama has been president for 17

When 9/11 happened George W. had been president for 9 MONTHS.

What's wrong with this picture?

********************

Whether or not Obama and his administration - with the people's help - are able to pull this country out of its morass any time soon, it is evident that some of its citizens will do their best pulling in the opposite direction.

Grow up.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 11:25 AM

BRuce:

The difference is that I was voicing objections to a psycho trying to wreak dramatization and self-serving chaos; while you, claiming to be following my tradition, are scraping up criticisms of a decent man trying to kick-start an economic wreck started and brought to fruition by Bush's policies.

So I decline to have my name used in your mindless mimicry, as you are not exercising enough discretion to even make it similar. USe your own name to post this crap. Krauthammer in particular is a muckraker and mudslinger, not a pundit and certainly not an analyst.

That said, I think Obama would do well to identify the major thrusts of his stimulus plan and pitch them loud and clear, and hammer down on the weenie-brains who think failed tax policy is the way to go int he future.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 01:17 PM

January 29, 2009
President Introduces New $100 Per Pound "Wagyu Steak" Cocktail Party

The presidential cocktail party took place last night, just in time to celebrate the passage of the new, monopartisan stimulus package.

At least 42 people have died, including 11 in Kentucky, and conditions are worsening in many places days after an ice storm knocked out power to 1.3 million customers from the Plains to the East Coast. About a million people were still without electric Friday, and with no hope that the lights will come back on soon, small communities are frantically struggling to help their residents.

What's wrong with this picture?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 01:21 PM

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.

"He's from Hawaii, O.K.?" said Mr. Obama's senior adviser, David Axelrod, who occupies the small but strategically located office next door to his boss. "He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there."

What's wrong with this picture?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 01:30 PM

Amos,

Until you realize how what you state sounds to anyone not apriori agreeing with you, I am forced to repeat it back as an edited phrase you will understand:



The difference is that I was voicing objections to a psycho trying to wreak dramatization and self-serving chaos; while you are scraping up criticisms of a decent man, Bush, trying to kick-start an political wreck started and brought to fruition by Clintons's policies.

I guess it depends on what you want to believe. But you cannot claim the moral highground until you have established some morals.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 01:54 PM

What complete horsepucky, Bruce.

Compare the viability of the American national balance sheet at the end of 1999 with the same balance sheet at the end of 2008. By theior fruits shall ye know them.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 01:58 PM

Amos,

Consider the safety of the US- IMHO, we are safer now (with the actions of the Bush administration) than we were in 1999.


But my point is that YOU do not get to declare "Since my side is the one of angels, I get special rules applied."


One Ubermensch on here is enough.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 02:01 PM

I get to declare the reality of things as I see 'em, my friend.

YOU do not get to twist my phrases and sentences. You are required to write your own.



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 02:03 PM

My own? OK, YOU do not get to declare the reality of the things that ** I ** see.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 02:08 PM

Well, I won't pass judgment on your imaginary characters, agreed. If it is in the common domain, let us each speak our truths in our own words, as gentlemen should.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 02:14 PM

I thought I had- and you disparaged my comments.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 04:47 PM

You mock me
I will not be mocked

nya nya nya

You mock me
I will not be mocked

nya nya nya...




sorry, withour reading the entire thread, some segments do seem to get bogged down. Instant gratification in fixing the state of our nation after 30 years of abuse, is too much to ask.

Take heart in any small act of kindness and savor it. It will be the the greatest thing we can create ourselves.


The risk takers have run across the ice with heavy bags of gold that they robbed from all of us. Despite their crimes we have tried to rescue those that have fallen through the ice.
It is now time to start rescuing each other.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 05:09 PM

Lately Obama has been throwing carrots while the Republicans hit him with sticks.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 11:10 PM

"Yesterday, President Obama strongly condemned members of both political parties for characterizing the economic recovery package before Congress as a "pork" spending plan for pet projects: "[W]hen you hear these attacks deriding something of such obvious importance as this, you have to ask yourself, 'Are these folks serious?'" Despite the loss of 600,000 jobs last month alone, debate over the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 has been reduced to petty bickering over extremely small portions of the overall recovery plan. Marching to Rush Limbaugh's drumbeat, conservatives spent all week on cable news caricaturing tiny portions of the bill -- including provisions that they had previously supported -- in order to score political points and embarrass the Obama administration. But these antics have distracted Washington from "the reality that we may well be falling into an economic abyss." Today, The Progress Report takes a step back and looks at the key principles that should guide the construction of any compromise on the economic recovery package.

IT SHOULD BE IMMEDIATE: In recent days, congressional conservatives have expressed a desire to slow down deliberation over the economic recovery plan. But as National Economic Council Director Larry Summers reiterated yesterday, "We do not have time to wait." He called comprehensive and immediate economic recovery legislation "imperative for our economic security." Evidence of the need for immediate action is clear. Today, the Labor Department reported that the U.S. economy lost 598,000 jobs in January alone, raising the unemployment rate to 7.6 percent. Yesterday, the Labor Department reported that 626,000 Americans applied for unemployment benefits for the first time last week, a 26-year high. These grim reports add to the 2.6 million jobs lost in 2008, 59 percent of which occurred in the last quarter of 2008 alone. And the rate at which job losses are increasing is reaching historic highs. Indeed, in the first 12 months of the current recession, unemployment rose by 2.6 percent -- "the fastest such increase since the recession that started in January 1970." The effects of these increasing job losses can be seen rippling through the economy in the form of increasing credit card default rates, record decreases in the value of homes, and near record high levels of household debt.

IT SHOULD BE BIG: Last weekend, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) explained his opposition to the current recovery proposal by complaining, "[T]his is the largest spending bill in history." Congressional Republicans made similar complaints again and again throughout this week, but such rhetoric reveals an obvious ignorance of economic policy. Indeed, the size of the spending bill is not arbitrary, but rather is based on the current and expected gap between the nation's economic capacity and its actual economic output. As the Center for American Progress explained, "We are now in a situation where the private sector is unable -- or unwilling -- to use all of the available productive capacity: able people aren't working, machines sit idle, and cubicles stand empty." As a result, there are "millions of families who are cutting back due to layoffs, fear of layoffs, lower home values, or reduced retirement savings," and "demand for goods and services in the entire economy falls." As demand falls, companies are forced to cut back production and employment further, causing additional decreases in demand. Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman explains that economists generally find that every "excess point" of unemployment above the rate that is expected in a healthy economy leads to 2 percent gap between the nation's actual economic output and its potential economic output. To prevent this gap from increasing indefinitely, the government must step in to temporarily increase demand and close the nation's economic output gap. Because unemployment is so high and demand continues to spiral downward, the current package before Congress -- if anything -- is too small.

IT SHOULD LAY THE FOUNDATION FOR LONG-TERM GROWTH: Conservative policymakers and uninformed members of the traditional media suggest that the current economic recovery package is not "stimulative" because it includes spending on public welfare programs that have both short-term and long-term benefits. They argue that relying on tax cuts would provide fast-acting and long-lasting stimulative effects. In reality, tax cuts are less stimulative than public spending. Further, cutting taxes -- unlike spending on social programs -- permanently increases the budget deficit. Instead, and as the current recovery package is slated to do, investment in America's future energy, health care, and education infrastructure puts Americans to work now and yields economic, environmental, and social benefits for years to come. While conservatives characterize the effects of such spending as being "too slow," the current proposal is designed to be fast-acting, but also maintain large (and needed) stimulative benefits through 2010. Unfortunately, a group of moderate senators, led by Sens. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Susan Collins (R-ME), aim to cut at least $80 billion from the the recovery package with large cuts to science, agriculture, energy, and education. "

---

Sigh. Obstreperous obstructionism at its best. These are people who were just delighted to send othe rpeoples' sons to war on Bush's say so. Ptui.



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 09:37 AM

BB Douggie & Company are just throwing the usual hissy fit. Any minute now the'll threaten to hold their breaths 'til they turn blue.

Toddlers are prone to these sorts of tantrums when they can't have their own way and things don't go as they'd like.

Ignore them. It'll pass.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 04:28 PM

"American national balance sheet at the end of 1999"

Amos: Why are you cherry picking data and ignoring the end of 2000?

Here is why:

Joseph Stiglitz, chairman of Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers:

The bursting of the stock-market bubble showed that New Economy rhetoric contained more than a little hype. And the Enron, Arthur Andersen, Merrill Lynch, and Adelphia scandals presented another side of American capitalism. Now the economy is setting new kinds of records: WorldCom's is the largest bankruptcy in history; the fall in the stock market is the largest in decades. As the market has plunged, those who confidently ploughed their savings into stocks have found their retirement incomes in jeopardy.

It would be nice for us veterans of the Clinton Administration if we could simply blame mismanagement by President George W. Bush's economic team for this seemingly sudden turnaround in the economy, which coincided so closely with its taking charge. But although there has been mismanagement, and it has made matters worse, the economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office, and the corporate scandals that are rocking America began much earlier.

If you cannot grasp those facts, here is a chart that wiil make it so obvious that even you can understand it.

View chart of the national debt

Upon looking at this chart, you will plainly see that during the last year of the Clinton administration, the national debt started to increase at the same rate that it increased during the Bush administration.

To put in plain words, Bush inherited the current rate of rise in the national debt from the Clinton administration.

Clinton did manage to slow it down during his first 6 years but in the 7th year the climb increased and in the 8th year it increased again.

Overall it increased about the same as it did during the Reagan years, about $1 trillion.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 08:18 PM

But on the one hand you want to hold Obama responsible for bad news today after scarcely two weeks in office while on the other hand you blame 9/11 on the Clinton administration although Bush had been in office 3/4 of a year.

You want to know how I see it? In my opinion, Bush and the GOP and its diehard supporters saying that "Bush kept us safe" is a bunch of baloney. 9/11 happened on his watch and was primarily because he and his closest advisers chose to ignore clear warnings.. They should forever be held accountable for it.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 10:22 PM

What were Obama's campaign promises?

No. 368: Direct rebuilding efforts from the White House after a catastrophe

"Immediately following a catastrophe, Barack Obama will appoint a Federal Coordinating Officer to direct reconstruction efforts. The job of the FCO and his or her staff will be to cut through bureaucratic obstacles, get federal agencies to work together and to coordinate efforts with local officials. Obama and Biden will ensure bipartisan staffing to ensure that politics do not override the real needs of the recovering community."

No. 369: Appoint a Chief Financial Officer to oversee the rebuilding following national disasters

"Will appoint a Chief Financial Officer to oversee the rebuilding following national disasters to minimize waste and abuse."

No. 370: Create a national catastrophe insurance reserve

"Will create a National Catastrophe Insurance Reserve that would be funded by private insurers contributing a portion of the premiums they collect from policyholders. Such a framework would neither distort the insurance market nor discourage risk avoidance and risk mitigation investments because insurers would not be forced out of high-risk markets for fear of bankruptcy in the event of a disaster. With this program in place, disaster victims would no longer have to depend solely on taxpayerfunded federal disaster aid loans."

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 11:12 PM

Ebbie: What is your opinion on the very pertinent comparison of Obama's hypocritical turning up the thermostat to Nixon'a turning down of the thermostat?

Or is it not pertinent?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 11:20 PM

Barack Obama Campaign Promise No. 234:

Allow five days of public comment before signing bills

Obama ethics plan: To reduce bills rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them, Obama "will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days."

---

President Obama signed his first bill without posting it to the Web for five days of public comment.

For his second bill, Obama signed an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Fund, which provides health coverage for low-income children. He signed it on Feb. 4, 2009, just hours after it was finalized in Congress.


The change we can believe in, the change we need.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 11:08 AM

Commentary: Obama's 100 days of problems?

Story Highlights
Julian Zelizer: In first 100 days, Obama administration encounters rough water

He says stimulus bill and flawed nominations are causing problems

Zelizer: JFK was able to overcome rocky start, Clinton and Carter were dogged by it

He says the stakes are enormous for Obama given huge size of stimulus bill


By Julian E. Zelizer
Special to CNN
   
Editor's note: Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. He is completing a book on the history of national security politics since World War II, to be published by Basic Books. Zelizer writes widely on current events.


Julian Zelizer says Barack Obama's Hundred Days are being shaped by debate over the economic stimulus bill.

PRINCETON, New Jersey (CNN) -- Tomorrow marks the end of the third week of President Barack Obama's Hundred Days. After what can only be described as a euphoric inauguration, Obama has encountered some trouble.

Despite his effort to court Republicans in the House, he failed to obtain a single GOP vote for the economic recovery package.

The Senate is moving toward an expected passage of a similar stimulus bill, obtaining the crucial support of three Republican senators only by cutting spending by tens of billions.

Given that most liberal economists believed the House version much too small to repair the state of the economy, for many in the Obama administration, these reductions were less than satisfactory.

The wrangling over the economic legislation compounded an already turbulent week when former Sen. Tom Daschle had to withdraw his nomination for Secretary of Health and Human Services, one of several nominations that tarnished the president's image as a reformer.

President Obama is partway through the artificial period that has been used as a benchmark for presidents since Franklin Roosevelt in 1933, when reporters borrowed a term that had been used to describe Napoleon's famous march from exile to Louis XVIII's return to power in 1815.

As I have written in a previous commentary, the concept of the Hundred Days is an invention of the New Deal but it is one that matters politically. Journalists, pundits, scholars, and even voters use them to evaluate the early performance of a president.

more

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 11:28 AM

"Ebbie: What is your opinion on the very pertinent comparison of Obama's hypocritical turning up the thermostat to Nixon'a turning down of the thermostat?

Or is it not pertinent? " Seenuttin

One has to do with body comfort level, the other with sybaritic hedonism.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 11:32 AM

Sources: Iraq, Afghanistan withdrawals delayed

Story Highlights
Decisions delayed on Iraq troop withdrawals, sending more troops to Afghanistan

Decisions delayed until Pentagon gives President Obama more detail on risks

Pentagon working on three Iraq combat troop withdrawal options for the president

Options include: 16 months, 19 months and 23 months


By Barbara Starr
CNN
   
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Decisions about withdrawing troops from Iraq and sending more troops to Afghanistan have been delayed until the Pentagon provides President Barack Obama with more detail about the risks and implications of the issues confronting him, according to two senior Pentagon officials.


A U.S. soldier stands guard as policemen destroy poppy fields in Nadi Ali district, February 5, 2009.

Both officials, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the issue, have a direct understanding of the discussion regarding troop withdrawals. They said the military is not concerned about the delays, but that there is concern about the deteriorating levels of security in Afghanistan.

The officials confirmed that the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command are now working on three Iraq combat troop withdrawal options for the president: 16 months, 19 months and 23 months.

The first option is consistent with Obama's campaign promise. But in recent discussions with senior military leaders and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, it became clear the president wanted to see other options and have a full discussion of the risks involved with each of them, the officials said.

"The President asked for ideas and we are working on them," one official said.

So far, a final recommendation from the military has not been submitted to the White House. The 19- and 23-month options were developed by the military, but Obama did not specifically ask for them, the officials said.

"The President is not fixated on a time frame. He has taken a step back and is reflecting on what's at stake," the second official said.

more

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 10:19 PM

Ebbie: So I guess sybaritic hedonism means it is OK for Obama to preach one thing and do another?

FACT CHECK: Obama has it both ways on pork Washington Post February 9, 2009

WASHINGTON -- At least Route 31 is a road to somewhere. President Barack Obama had it both ways Monday when he promoted his stimulus plan in Indiana and later at a prime-time news conference. He bragged in Indiana about getting Congress to produce a package with no pork, yet boasted it will do good things for a Hoosier highway and a downtown overpass, just the kind of local projects lawmakers lard into big spending bills. Obama's sales pitch on the enormous package he wants Congress to make law has sizzle as well as steak. He's projecting job creation numbers that may be impossible to verify and glossing over some ethical problems that bedeviled his team. In recent years, the so-called Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska came to symbolize the worst excesses of congressional earmarks, a device that allows a member of Congress to add money for local projects in legislation, practically under the radar. Nothing so bold, or specific, as that now-discarded bridge project is contained in the stimulus package. That's not to say the package steers clear of waste or parochial interests. Obama played to such interests Monday, speaking at one point as if he'd come to fill potholes. A look at some of Obama's claims in Elkhart, Ind., and the news conference called to make his case to the largest possible audience:

OBAMA: "Not a single pet project," he told the news conference. "Not a single earmark." He said in Elkhart: "Understand, this bill does not have a single earmark in it, which is unprecedented for a bill of this size. ... There aren't individual pork projects that members of Congress are putting into this bill."

THE FACTS: There are no "earmarks," as they are usually defined, inserted by lawmakers in the bill. Still, some of the projects bear the prime characteristics of pork _ tailored to benefit specific interests or to have thinly disguised links to local projects. For example, the latest version contains $2 billion for a clean-coal power plant with specifications matching one in Mattoon, Ill., $10 million for urban canals, $2 billion for manufacturing advanced batteries for hybrid cars, and $255 million for a polar icebreaker and other "priority procurements" by the Coast Guard. Obama told his Elkhart audience that Indiana will benefit from work on "roads like U.S. 31 here in Indiana that Hoosiers count on." He added: "And I know that a new overpass downtown would make a big difference for businesses and families right here in Elkhart." U.S. 31 is a north-south highway serving South Bend, 15 miles from Elkhart in the northern part of the state.

OBAMA: "Most economists, almost unanimously, recognize that even if philosophically you're wary of government intervening in the economy, when you have the kind of problem you have right now ... government is an important element of introducing some additional demand into the economy."

FACT: True, economists believe government should act. But while many believe government spending is the answer, there is hardly unanimity on what to do, and Obama may have overstated conservative support. In a recent newspaper ad, 300 economists signed up against the stimulus promoted by the president. "Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth," they wrote. Martin Feldstein, a conservative economist at Harvard University and president emeritus of the National Bureau of Economic Research, has advocated a stimulus package in the past, but he argued recently that the package before Congress "delivers too little extra employment and income for such a large fiscal deficit."

OBAMA: "They'll be jobs building the wind turbines and solar panels and fuel-efficient cars that will lower our dependence on foreign oil and modernizing our costly health care system that will save us billions of dollars and countless lives."
ad_icon

THE FACTS: The economic stimulus bill would allocate about $20 billion to help hospitals and doctors transition from paper charts to electronic health records for their patients. Research has shown that in some instances, electronic record keeping can eliminate inappropriate services and improve care, but it's not a sure thing by any means. "By itself, the adoption of more health IT is generally not sufficient to produce significant cost savings," the Congressional Budget Office reported last year.

OBAMA: "We also inherited the most profound economic emergency since the Great Depression."

THE FACTS. This could turn out to be the case. But as bad as the economic numbers are, the unemployment figures have not reached the levels of the early 1980s, let alone the 1930s yet. A total of 598,000 payroll jobs vanished in January _ the most in nearly 35 years and the unemployment rate jumped to 7.6 from 7.2 percent the month before. The most recent high was 7.8 percent in June 1992. And the jobless rate was 10.8 percent in November and December 1982. Unemployment in the Great Depression ranged for several year from 25 percent to close to 30 percent.

OBAMA: "I've appointed hundreds of people, all of whom are outstanding Americans who are doing a great job. There are a couple who had problems before they came into my administration, in terms of their taxes. ... I made a mistake ... I don't want to send the signal that there are two sets of rules." He added: "Everybody will acknowledge that we have set up the highest standard ever for lobbyists not working in the administration."

THE FACTS: Two of his appointees, former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle for secretary of health and human services and Nancy Killefer as his chief compliance officer, dropped out after reports they had not paid a portion of their taxes. Obama previously acknowledged he "screwed up" in making it seem to Americans that there is one set of tax compliance rules for VIPs and another set for everyone else. Yet his choice for treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, hung in and achieved the post despite having belatedly paid $34,000 to the IRS, an agency Geithner now oversees. That could leave the perception that there is one set of rules for Geithner and another set for everyone else. On lobbyists, Obama has in fact established tough new rules barring them from working for his administration. But the ban is not absolute. William J. Lynn III, tapped to be the No. 2 official at the Defense Department, recently lobbied for military contractor Raytheon. William Corr, chosen as deputy secretary at Health and Human Services, has lobbied as an anti-tobacco advocate. And Geithner's choice for chief of staff, Mark Patterson, is an ex-lobbyist from Goldman Sachs.

OBAMA: "The plan that we've put forward will save or create 3 million to 4 million jobs over the next two years."

THE FACTS: Job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers. Beyond that, it's unlikely the nation will ever know how many jobs are saved as a result of the stimulus. While it's clear when jobs are abolished, there's no economic gauge that tracks job preservation.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 08:12 AM

Are Bush's secrets safe with Obama?


Josh Gerstein – Tue Feb 10, 4:52 am ET

For years, Democrats in Congress and open government groups battled, with little success, to expose many of the most closely guarded secrets of President George W. Bush's time in office.

Now President Barack Obama holds the power to reveal them, but some of his allies may be disappointed when he doesn't pull back the curtain as far — or as fast — as they would like.

The documents still under wraps stem from the hottest scandals and controversies of the Bush era: warrantless wiretapping, alleged torture of prisoners in the war on terror, the abrupt dismissal of a batch of U.S. attorneys in 2006 and a criminal investigation into the White House's involvement in the leak of a CIA operative's identity.

Obama signed two orders calling for government openness but also said he'd rather turn the page on some Bush-era fights than rehash them. Still, he and his aides may feel pressure to lay the cupboards bare — all in the name of transparency, the mantra of his presidential campaign.

But what Obama must remember is this: Whatever he releases retroactively about Bush might well be released someday about his own administration's inner workings and private debates. And that's enough to give any president pause.

"A president that sets the tone of openness and demands it of others would be held ultimately, I think, to the same standards," said Douglas Kmiec, a former Justice Department official under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He backed Obama in November. "I'd hope the new president would say, 'Amen.' Of course, it's easier to say, 'Amen' in the abstract when you're not at issue."


full story

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 08:22 AM

'OBAMA: "The plan that we've put forward will save or create 3 million to 4 million jobs over the next two years."'


                Here is what I see that is wrong with that. If the government spends $100,000.00 to creat one $30,000.00 job, the tax payers would have been better off for the government to have simply give the person the money.

                There is something totally upside-down in the entire economic structure, it seems to me. I think the people in charge are too narrowly focused. They should be looking at ways to improve the average citizens lives. Jobs might not be the answer.

                One of the problems is that during The Great Depression and WWII, we went off on the track of tying health, retirement, and other benefits to employment. Now that there are not enough jobs to go around, too many people are losing those things along with their job.

                There must be a better way!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 08:32 AM

FACT CHECK: Examining Obama's job, pork claims
      
Calvin Woodward, Associated Press Writer – Tue Feb 10, 4:05 am

WASHINGTON – At least Route 31 is a road to somewhere. President Barack Obama had it both ways when he promoted his stimulus plan in Indiana and later at a prime-time news conference. He bragged in Indiana about getting Congress to produce a package with no pork, yet boasted it will do good things for a Hoosier highway and a downtown overpass, just the kind of local projects lawmakers lard into big spending bills.

Obama's sales pitch on the enormous package he wants Congress to make law has sizzle as well as steak. He's projecting job creation numbers that may be impossible to verify and glossing over some ethical problems that bedeviled his team.

In recent years, the so-called Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska came to symbolize the worst excesses of congressional earmarks, a device that allows a member of Congress to add money for local projects in legislation, practically under the radar.

Nothing so bold, or specific, as that now-discarded bridge project is contained in the stimulus package. That's not to say the package steers clear of waste or parochial interests. Obama played to such interests Monday, speaking at one point as if he'd come to fill potholes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090210/ap_on_go_pr_wh/fact_check_obama

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 10:44 AM

(What does 'hedonism' mean to you, Seez? Is it kind of like it means whatever you mean it to mean, no more and no less?)

What I really wish is that everyone would stop and think.

Question: What do you think would work to bring us out of this mess?

Question: If John McCain had won the presidency what do you think his first acts and plans would be?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 11:03 AM

"There is always a tendency to underestimate Barack Obama. We are inclined in the news media to hyperventilate over every political or policy setback, no matter how silly or insignificant, while Mr. Obama has shown again and again that he takes a longer view.

There was no way, for example, that the Daschle flap was going to derail the forward march of a man who had survived the Rev. Jeremiah Wright fiasco. It's early, but there are signs that Mr. Obama may be the kind of president who is incomprehensible to the cynics among us — one who is responsible and mature, who is concerned not just with the short-term political realities but also the long-term policy implications.

He has certainly handled himself much better than some of the clowns carrying leadership banners for the G.O.P. Michael Steele, the new Republican Party chairman, could barely contain his glee over the fact that no Republicans voted for the stimulus package in the House. "The goose egg that you laid on the president's desk was just beautiful," he said.

"This bill stinks," said Lindsey Graham of South Carolina during the Senate debate on the package.

Representative Pete Sessions of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, made it clear that his party was committed to the low road when he talked about picking up pointers from the Taliban.

I'm not joking. "Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban," said Mr. Sessions, in an interview with Hotline, which is part of NationalJournal.com.

The simple truth is that most Republican politicians would like Mr. Obama to fail because that is their ticket to a quick return to power. I think the president is a more formidable opponent than they realize.

Mr. Obama is like a championship chess player, always several moves ahead of friend and foe alike. He's smart, deft, elegant and subtle. While Lindsey Graham was behaving like a 6-year-old on the Senate floor and Pete Sessions was studying passages in his Taliban handbook, Mr. Obama and his aides were assessing what's achievable in terms of stimulus legislation and how best to get there.

I'd personally like to see a more robust stimulus package, with increased infrastructure spending and fewer tax cuts. But the reality is that Mr. Obama needs at least a handful of Republican votes in the Senate to get anything at all done, and he can't afford to lose this first crucial legislative fight of his presidency.

The Democrats may succeed in bolstering their package somewhat in conference, but I think Mr. Obama would have been satisfied all along to start his presidency off with an $800 billion-plus stimulus program. ..."(NYT)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 12:11 PM

Personally, I think the Republicans have a point when they try to tie the spending to only those things that will actually stimulate the economy.

         On the other hand, I don't see how tax cuts would do that unless they cut only payroll and capital gains taxes.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: irishenglish
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 01:42 PM

Rig, you said, "There is something totally upside-down in the entire economic structure, it seems to me. I think the people in charge are too narrowly focused. They should be looking at ways to improve the average citizens lives. Jobs might not be the answer."

Respectfully I disagree. Job losses are not at the levels they have been in the past, but I think you might agree that they ARE climbing, seemingly more by the week. It seems across the country people are trimming down on household budgets. People aren't going out as much, vacations are shorter, the destinations closer, and all sorts of basic things of that nature. There is nothing I would love more than to have a cheaper grocery bill right now, to not pay 10 bucks for a six pack, to have more spending money, and have it go further, all of which would certainly improve this average citizen's life! But if more and more people are unemployed, in my opinions, things get much worse. Without getting bogged down in all the specifics of the New Deal, because there were many failures with it, when you ask people what they know of it, most will respond, it created jobs at a time when they were needed, plain and simple. Nothing will work as a quick fix, nothing will stimulate growth in and of itself. But the way I see it, people need to be employed for anything to be accomplished. I'm not so blind as to think that the numbers Obama gives for job creation will be 100% accurate, but if more job loss occurs the remainder of this year, then you are looking at an even more dire situation. As I'm typing this I found out my wife's boss (my wife being a nanny), who works for a major publisher, her division was just dramatically scaled down, laying off a bunch of people. Her boss is fine, but now her job gets more stressful, but at least she has a job. And thats what I am afraid will happen more and more in this country right now. And with unemployment comes the downward cycle of loss of home, hunger, crime, etc. I say give his measured response time-I can't think what else to do right now.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 02:26 PM

Obama: "What do you think a stimulus is?"

Ahhhhhhhhhh, if spending is stimulus, the bridge to nowhere was stimulus too.

Is a 200,000 passenger per year international airport nowhere?

According to the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, the project's goal was to "provide better service to the airport and allow for development of large tracts of land on the island".

The dreaded and ignored facts:

A ferry runs to the island every 30 minutes during most of the year, except during the May–September peak tourist season, when it runs every 15 minutes. It charges $5 per adult, with free same-day return, and $6 per automobile each way .

According to USA Today, the bridge was to have been nearly as long as the Golden Gate Bridge and taller than the Brooklyn Bridge. The bridge would cross the Tongass Narrows, part of Alaska's Inside Passage, so the bridge was designed to be tall enough to accommodate ship traffic, including the Alaska Marine Highway and the cruise ships which frequent Alaskan waters during the summer.

Ketchikan's airport is the second largest in Southeast Alaska, after Juneau International Airport, handling over 200,000 passengers a year, while the ferry shuttled 350,000 people in the same time period. The Golden Gate Bridge carries about 118,000 vehicles each day. The Gravina Island Bridge, commonly referred to as the "Bridge to Nowhere", was a proposed bridge to replace the ferry that currently connects Ketchikan, Alaska to the Gravina Island's 50 residents and the Ketchikan International Airport. The bridge was projected to cost $398 million total, $133 million in federal funds. Members of the Alaskan congressional delegation, particularly Rep. Don Young and Sen. Ted Stevens, were the bridge's biggest advocates in Congress, and helped push for federal funding. The project encountered fierce opposition outside of Alaska as a symbol of pork barrel spending and is labeled as one of the more prominent "bridges to nowhere". As a result, Congress removed the federal earmark for the bridge in 2005.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 09:13 AM

Washington Post

So Far, Amateur Hour


By Kathleen Parker
Wednesday, February 11, 2009; Page A19

The first however-many days of Barack Obama's presidency have been a study in amateurism.

Many suspected that Obama wasn't quite ready, but kept their fingers crossed. Optimistic disappointment is the new holding pattern.

What's missing from Obama's performance isn't the intelligence that voters acknowledged in electing him. It's the experience they tried to pretend didn't really matter. Experienced politicians, after all, got us into this mess.

Absent is maturity -- that grown-up quality of leadership that is palpable when the real deal enters a room. There's a reason why elders are respected. They have something the rest of us don't have -- yet -- because we haven't lived long enough. We haven't made the really tough decisions, the ones that are often unpopular.

There's also a reason why it's lonely at the top. The view is better, but the summit isn't so much a mountaintop as a deserted city.

Obama wants too much to be liked. This isn't a character flaw. In fact his winning personality and likability have served him well through the years. Growing up in multiple cultures -- black and white, American and Indonesian -- he had to learn how to get along. By all accounts, he became easy company.

But there's a price one pays in becoming president. Giving up being liked is the ultimate public sacrifice. This was the hardest lesson for Bill Clinton, who loved people and found the isolation of the presidency particularly brutal. Similarly, Obama wants to stay in touch with everyday Americans, as symbolized by his reluctance to surrender his BlackBerry.

There was a time last week when Obama looked younger than usual. Not youthful so much as not fully formed. He seemed out of place in his presidential role. In a word, he seemed haunted. Had he been visited by the ghosts of Christmas future?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/10/AR2009021003098.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 09:15 AM

Washington Post

Obama in the Shallows
Is There Any Vision Behind the Pragmatism?

By Michael Gerson
Wednesday, February 11, 2009; Page A19

If Barack Obama's presidential campaign was smooth and deep like the rivers, his first few weeks in Washington have been turbulent and shallow like the rapids. It began with the quick end of the Bill Richardson nomination, revealing a vetting process with the thoroughness of a subprime loan application. Then came an inaugural address so flat that both supporters and detractors wondered if the flatness was intentional -- a subtle game of strategic mediocrity. Then the broad violation of an overbroad lobbying ban, which made no distinction between lobbying for the Iranian regime and lobbying against teenage smoking. Then a spate of IRS troubles, leaving the impression of an administration more interested in raising taxes than paying them.

These stumbles have had an almost theological effect among Republicans: The doctrine of Obama's political infallibility has been challenged. But the administration's setbacks -- particularly those on personnel -- are temporary, and easily reversed by a series of legislative victories that have already begun.

The initial period of the Obama administration, however, has provided hints of a long-term problem -- not one of incompetence, but of emptiness.

Obama partisans would doubtless call this "pragmatism." His inaugural address included one of the most prominent defenses of that political philosophy in American history. "What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them," he informed Americans who hold old-fashioned ideological beliefs, "that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works. . . ."

This approach has earned Obama praise for his prudence, independent thinking, epistemological modesty, empiricism, curiosity, results orientation, lack of dogmatism, distaste for extremism, willingness to compromise and insistence on nuance. He has been compared to William James and John Dewey, the heroes of American pragmatism.

But that creed has now been tested in two areas. First, the new president deferred almost entirely to the Democratic congressional leadership on the initial shape of the stimulus package -- which, in turn, was shaped by pent-up Democratic spending appetites instead of by an explainable economic theory. Senate modifications made the legislation marginally more responsible. But Obama's pragmatism, in this case, was a void of creativity, filled by the most aggressively ideological branch of government. And this managed to revive Republican ideological objections to federal overreach. In the new age of pragmatism, all the ideologues seem to be encouraged.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/10/AR2009021003100.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 10:28 AM

"Without getting bogged down in all the specifics of the New Deal... it created jobs at a time when they were needed, plain and simple. Nothing will work as a quick fix, nothing will stimulate growth in and of itself. But... people need to be employed for anything to be accomplished."


                  irishenglish - Yes, I agree that's the way things were done in the past, and maybe it's the only way. I think the point I was getting at, some commentators say that for some jobs the governemnt will spend $100,000.00 to creat a $30,000.00 job.
                                 The other thing I find troubling is the reality that so many things are tied to employment. Health care, retirement, and in some cases, if your employed you get reduced rates on auto and home-owner's insurance.
                                 There might be cases where it's more cost effective to pay a person not to work, like we pay farmers not to grow wheat. I know it sounds funny, but a little creative thinking wouldn't hurt things, I suspect.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 04:58 PM

Gregg withdraws nomination to become commerce secy
         

David Espo, Ap Special Correspondent – 3 mins ago


WASHINGTON – Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire abruptly withdrew his nomination as commerce secretary Thursday, citing "irresolvable conflicts" with President Barack Obama's handling of the economic stimulus and 2010 census.

"We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy," Gregg said in a statement released by his Senate office.

Gregg, 61, is a former New Hampshire governor who previously served in the House. He has been in the Senate since 1993 and currently serves as the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, where he is known as a crusader against big spending.

He was Obama's second choice to fill the Commerce portfolio.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson withdrew several weeks ago in the wake of a grand jury investigation into alleged wrongdoing involving state contracts. He has not been implicated personally.

The withdrawal appeared to take the White House by surprise. An administration official said Gregg dropped out without warning for a position that he had expressed interest in just a few weeks ago.

In his statement, Gregg thanked Obama for the nomination, and said, "I especially admire his willingness to reach across the aisle."

In citing the stimulus and census, he said, "Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns. We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090212/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gregg_withdrawal

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 07:48 AM

Washington Post

Treasury's Salesman-in-Training

By Eugene Robinson
Friday, February 13, 2009; Page A17

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner will get much better at making his case to Congress and the American people. I'm confident in that prediction because after watching his debut this week, I don't see how he could get much worse.

Reviews of Geithner's performance in rolling out the Obama administration's financial rescue plan were so uniformly negative that to add my own would be piling on. Too much of the criticism, in any event, focused on style rather than substance. Geithner will inevitably become more comfortable speaking from a witness chair on Capitol Hill, which means he will begin to sound more confident and authoritative. The fact that he looks so young -- kind of like "Doogie Howser, Cabinet secretary" -- is something that he's going to have to learn to use to his benefit and that we're just going to have to get used to.

What I hope he learned this week is how closely Americans are following the economic crisis and how angry they are. Geithner rose to prominence in the financial world at a time when it was assumed that brainiacs were running economic policy in Washington and major financial institutions on Wall Street. What did it matter that no one understood a word Alan Greenspan said? There was no need for regular folks to worry about the details.

To put it mildly: Wrong.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/12/AR2009021203013.html

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 08:41 AM

Commentary: Obama under fire from left and right

Story Highlights
Ruben Navarrette: Stimulus plan moving ahead toward Obama's signature

He says administration had a disastrous debut for its bank bailout plan

Navarrette says much criticism of Obama has come from the left

He says the critics of Obama's effort to get bipartisan support are wrong


By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Special to CNN

   
Editor's note: Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a nationally syndicated columnist and a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union-Tribune. Read his column here.


Ruben Navarrette Jr. says the left is criticizing Barack Obama for trying to promote bipartisan cooperation.

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- We have a deal. This week, House and Senate leaders agreed on a $789 billion stimulus package intended to jumpstart the economy, create millions of jobs, and alleviate some of the financial anxiety suffered by individuals and businesses.

After another round of voting in the House and Senate, the compromise bill is due to land on President Obama's desk by Monday.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the Capitol, the administration's plan for another banking bailout got a cool reception from lawmakers in what Obama senior adviser David Axelrod acknowledged was a "bumpy rollout" for the financial rescue plan.

You can say that again, David. The bumps include Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's disastrous testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, which was so unconvincing and so bereft of specifics that it sent Wall Street investors into a nosedive. And to think this is the wunderkind who the Obama team told us deserved a break on his tax problems because he was uniquely qualified to fix the economic mess.

If this guy rates as "uniquely qualified," I'd hate to see the administration's idea of unqualified.

Besides, congressional Democrats have to bend themselves into pretzels to stand by Geithner. As the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, he was a central player in Bush's bailout of our lending institutions -- the same bailout that Democrats voted for and now criticize.

This week, some of them made a show of scolding the CEO's of the major banks for earning too much and not giving out enough loans to homeowners -- in short, for not using the billions they were given as Congress would have liked, all to cover up the fact that Congress was foolish enough not to attach strings to the giveaway.

Like a lot of Americans, I've been watching all this with mixed emotions. I'm caught between my natural inclination to applaud quick and decisive action on the part of political leaders who are often averse to these things, and the concern that the legislation that Congress and the White House are rushing into law is too expensive and too laden with pork and politics -- all for an outcome that is too uncertain.

This all has the feel of being simply a down payment. And yet, even with those qualms, I'm not sold on the idea being advanced by some conservative talk show hosts that the smart thing to do would be to do nothing and let the market correct itself.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/13/navarrette.stimulus/index.html

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 09:39 AM

Obama cabinet: Unlucky or naive?

By Jonathan Beale
BBC News, Washington



The US president appears to be struggling to build up his Cabinet
Picking a Cabinet? Easier said than done. Just ask Barack Obama.

The president came to power with a powerful promise of change and a pledge to end the old politics while ushering in a new era of political integrity.

There was to be political and racial diversity too, but it has not quite worked out as planned.

Nominees have already fallen like flies. Out has gone his first choice of commerce secretary, the New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, who is facing an investigation into his links with big business. The president's pick for health secretary, Tom Daschle, has had to pull out too after failing to keep up with his taxes.

The same problem befell Nancy Killefer, earmarked for the job of chief government performance officer. The president wanted Tim Geithner for treasury secretary, and did get his man despite having found another who has been embarrassed by tax issues.

But now there's the case of Judd Gregg, whose sudden departure is rather different from the rest. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde: to lose one may seem unfortunate but to lose four looks more like carelessness.

Mr Gregg is the first to withdraw his nomination because of "irresolvable conflicts" over policy, and the blame does not all belong to Mr Obama. Only 10 days ago the Republican was happy to accept his nomination as commerce secretary, praising the president's decision to reach across the aisle.

It just became clear to me that it would be very difficult, day in and day out, to serve in this cabinet or any other cabinet

But in hindsight Senator Gregg says it was all a mistake. "I'm a fiscal conservative, as everybody knows a fairly strong one," the Senator said at a hastily-convened news conference.

He added: "It just became clear to me that it would be very difficult, day in and day out, to serve in this cabinet or any other cabinet."

It's just a shame for the Obama team that he had not thought through all that before.

No doubt fellow Republicans have been leaning on the senator to help him with his decision. But why did the words "fiscal conservative" fail to ring alarm bells in the White House - just as they were trying to get Congress to approve the $800bn dollar stimulus bill.

While Mr Gregg was making his announcement, Mr Obama was at a factory in Illinois trying to sell the very same stimulus bill that the Republican senator had found hard to swallow.

The president made no reference to his latest problem, but a rather annoyed White House then issued a terse statement saying it was Mr Gregg who had asked to do the job, and that he had made it clear to them he would "support, embrace and move forward with the President's agenda".

Judd Gregg is the fourth Cabinet choice to have fallen by the wayside
The statement rather curtly concluded: "We regret that he had a change of heart."

That's all very well, but were the president and his advisers not being rather naive in assuming that they could appoint a fiscal conservative to the job of commerce secretary? They were, after all, preparing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to revive the ailing US economy.

It's like asking a teetotaller to serve behind the bar. Given the other setbacks it certainly raises questions about the White House vetting process.

The president's promise of bipartisanship is certainly not going according to plan. First there was the Republican revolt over the stimulus bill, now there's one fewer Republican serving in his cabinet. But Mr Obama is not giving up hope yet of creating his "team of rivals" in the mould of one of his political heroes, Abraham Lincoln.

He told reporters travelling with him that he was an optimist and that he would continue to reach out to the other side. His tone was far more conciliatory than the earlier Whitehouse statement. And he even had some nice words for Senator Gregg.

Barack Obama has not lost his faith in his own formidable powers of persuasion. Nor is he the first president to suffer setbacks of this kind. But while his supporters may feel he has just been unlucky, his opponents will accuse him of being naive.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 09:55 AM

SURPRISE! Dems Break Promise: Stimulus Bill to Floor Friday
by Connie Hair 02/12/2009

In a press conference Thursday, the House Republican leadership spoke candidly about being kept out of the House-Senate conference on the Obama-Pelosi-Reid so-called "economic stimulus" bill. They confirmed they had not yet seen the text of the bill as of 4 p.m.

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he was unsure how many Democrats would vote with Republicans again on this bill but that he thought Republicans "may get a few" Democrats to side with them. The fact that the Demos have now broken their promise to have the public able to see the bill for 48 hours may drive more Dems into the Republican camp.

"[I] don't know, 'cause they haven't seen the bill either," Boehner said.

"The American people have a right to know what's in this bill," Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind) told HUMAN EVENTS after the press conference. "Every member of Congress -- Republicans and Democrats -- voted to post this bill on the internet for 48 hours, 48 hours ago. We'll see if the Democrats keep their word."

Actually -- as of 5:15 pm, the Democrats had broken their word. The stimulus bill -- which we still haven't seen -- will be released late tonight and will be brought up on the House floor at 9 am tomorrow.

The following statement was released by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer at 4:57 p.m.:

"The House is scheduled to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow and is expected to proceed directly to consideration of the American Recovery and Reinvestment conference report. The conference report text will be filed this evening, giving members enough time to review the conference report before voting on it tomorrow afternoon."

Meanwhile, at an earlier presser Thursday, Pelosi -- while talking about legislation regarding school construction funds -- said it was vital to see the language of a bill before making decisions. ReadtheStimulus.org had the following quote:

"With all of this you have to see the language. You said this --- I said that --- I understood it to be this way --- you know, we wanted to see it in writing and when we did that then we were able to go forward."

"Around here language means a lot. Words weigh a ton and one person's understanding of a spoken description might vary from another's. We wanted to see it. And not only just I had to see it, I had to show it to my colleagues and my caucus. We wanted to take all the time that was necessary to make sure it was right."

Congressional members are also exchanging barbs via the popular social network Twitter. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) twittered, "Don't know when we're going to vote. Will the no votes delay vote just because they can? Speed is important. They know that."

House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) twittered back, "Those in favor of speed over commonsense may just be afraid of letting the People know what they are ramming through."

UPDATE: The Democrats finally made the bill's language available around 11 p.m. Thursday, approximately 10 hours before members meet Friday to consider the bill and 38 hours short of the time promised Americans to review the bill.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 10:25 AM

Obama promise to have a five-day period of "sunlight before signing," as he detailed on the campaign trail and on his website.

He has broken that promise.

Will he break it again if and when he signs "Porkulus"

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 01:14 PM

February 13, 2009

Poll: Trouble signs for Obama over Cabinet picks?
Posted: 12:30 PM ET

From CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser


Obama's second pick for Commerce Secretary, Sen. Judd Gregg, withdrew his nomination Friday.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Four weeks into his administration, President Barack Obama is still searching for secretaries of Commerce and Health and Human Services.

But six out of 10 Americans think Obama is doing a good job choosing members of his Cabinet, according to a national poll. The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released this week suggests that 61 percent of those questioned give the president a thumbs-up when it comes to choosing his Cabinet, with 38 percent saying Obama is doing a poor job selecting the top officials in his administration.

While 61 percent is a solid majority, it's far lower than the 80 percent of respondents who say Obama is providing strong leadership for the country, the 76 percent who feel he's doing a good job handling foreign policy, the 72 percent who indicate Obama's doing a good job dealing with the economy and the 68 percent who give the President a thumbs-up when it comes to handling policies on terrorism.

It's also 15 points lower than the president's overall approval rating of 76 percent.

"His approval rating on choosing his Cabinet is a good number, but it's his biggest weakness," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted February 7-8, before Senator Judd Gregg stepped down Thursday from his nomination as Commerce Secretary, but after former Senator Tom Daschle dropped out earlier this month as Health and Human Services nominee. Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico also stepped down at the beginning of the year from his nomination as Commerce Secretary, bringing the number of formal Obama Cabinet nominees to drop out to three.

When former President George W. Bush was moving into the White House in 2001, only one of his Cabinet designates stepped down after being nominated; the same with Bill Clinton when he was taking over the presidency back in 1993.

When broken down by party, the poll suggests that 88 percent of Democratic respondents say Obama is doing a good job when it comes to choosing his Cabinet, with 11 percent saying he's doing a poor job. It's a different story among Republicans, with 36 percent giving Obama the thumbs-up and 64 percent feeling the President's doing a poor job when it comes to choosing the top members of his administration.

"Democrats are standing by him. Republicans aren't, even though he used some of his Cabinet picks to reach out to the GOP," adds Holland.

Gregg would have joined Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood as the third Republican in Obama's Cabinet.

The poll questioned 806 adult Americans by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 01:18 PM

Again: What would you like to see presented as the solution(s) to the mess we are in? If John McCain were president today, what do you think he would/should be doing?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 01:24 PM

A 6 month suspension of Federal Income taxes, to take effect immediately.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 02:09 PM

Ah. I see. That should mightily grieve the powers.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 09:48 PM

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seeks an apology from the Obama Administration for past American policy

Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting Original Article January 28, 2009

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: In addition to seeking an American apology on Tuesday, one of his close aides announced that he'll be running for a second term in the spring election. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday that the new U.S. administration's spoken motto of "change" is a welcomed one, adding, however, that claims about a change in U.S. policy will only be proven when words are translated into action.

President Ahmadinejad was speaking to people in Kermanshah Province on Wednesday, where he was following up on development projects he approved during a visit to the province last year.
"In light of the fact that the policies of the Bush Administration were immoral, inhuman and against the teachings of the Divine Messengers, the stated desire for change of the new American government is welcomed" the President said. "But change can be of only two kinds, substantial or tactical. If it is the latter form, only the rhetoric changes," the President noted, adding that if this "change" proved to be merely tactical, other nations would quickly stand against the new policies.

President Ahmadinejad then made it clear that substantial changes in relations would take place only if a number of key Bush policies were reversed, including the rhetoric of superiority embraced by the former president. "A major problem with the Bush Administration was its domineering approach toward other nations. It tended to treat other states as second class and spoke to them as though they were debtors, and the U.S. a creditor," the President added. "Only if the government abandons its domineering policies would change would be meaningful. If rhetoric of the bully resumes, that will show that no change has occurred."

The President then said he deplored the way American authorities meddle with the internal affairs of other states: "If they speak of change, then why do they interfere in the domestic affairs of other nations'?" he inquired. "A real change in policy would be [for the U.S.] to relinquish unconditional support for the illegitimate and child-killing Zionist regime, and let the Palestinian nation decide its own fate," the President added.

Touching on U.S. interference in Iran's domestic affairs over recent decades, the President condemned America. "Those who say they want to change their policies must take note that for over 60 years, successive American governments have stood against the Iranian nation. He also said that the U.S. government wrested Iran of its oil wealth and left in its place a Satanic intelligence force called SAVAK, which, supported by America, persecuted and tortured young people and scholars in its dungeons. [Editor's Note: SAVAK was the Iran's domestic security and intelligence service from 1957 to 1979..]

"America held us back for 25 years, ushering in poverty and illiteracy in our nation," the President said with regret. "They backed a despotic ruler (the Shah ) and stood against the nation's call for independence and committed other crimes, such as: conducting espionage in their embassy ; attacking Tabas City; making a coup attempt; supporting bands of terrorists; supporting (Iraqi dictator) Saddam Hussein and assisting him in the eight-year war he imposed on Iran ; shooting down Iran Air Flight 655 (290 passengers were murdered )," the President recalled.

"At one point, they have even expressed the wish to uproot the Iranian nation," the President said, adding that it was impudent for a state in possession of over 10,000 nuclear bombs to feign concern over and stand against the Iranian peoples' scientific nuclear drive.

The president then suggested that a first step toward a genuine change in policy would be to apologize to the Iranian nation, and attempt to make up for these crimes. The president finished off by saying that Iran would welcome any genuine change. But he also expressed a word of caution. "They [the Obama Administration] should note that if they continue Bush's bullying and aggressive rhetoric, our nation's response will be the same as it was to Bush and his cronies."

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 07:08 AM

Washington Post editorial

A Truth Commission?
The Danger in Democrats' Rush to Investigate

....

They should think twice. Attempting to prosecute political opponents at home or facilitating their prosecution abroad, however much one disagrees with their policy choices while in office, is like pouring acid into our democratic machinery. As the history of the late, unlamented independent counsel statute taught, once a Pandora's box is opened, its contents can wreak havoc equally across the political and party spectrum. If, for example, al-Qaeda is nothing more than a criminal conspiracy -- as some have claimed for many years -- President Obama's charge sheet has already been started. By authorizing continued Predator missile attacks against al-Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan, he has directly targeted those "civilians" with deadly force. That is a war crime.

Obama and the Democratic Congress are entitled to revise and reject any or all of the Bush administration's policies. But no one is entitled to hound political opponents with criminal prosecution, whether directly or through the device of a commission, and those who support such efforts now may someday regret the precedent it sets. Claims that the Bush administration abused presidential powers have been thoroughly reviewed by several congressional committees, and the Justice Department is capable of considering whether any criminal charges are appropriate. If H.R. 104 or a similar bill is passed by Congress, Obama should nip in the bud this recipe for a continuing political vendetta and veto the legislation.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 08:22 AM

Commentary: Stimulus bill a sorry spectacle

Story Highlights
Jack Cafferty: 1,073-page bill was passed before Congress could read it

He says Congress violated pledge to make it public 48 hours before vote

Cafferty: Some provisions enable leaders to grab pork for their districts

He says the tax cuts in the bill may be too small to get the economy moving


By Jack Cafferty
CNN
   
Editor's Note: Jack Cafferty is the author of a new book, "Now or Never: Getting Down to the Business of Saving Our American Dream," to be published in March. He provides commentary on CNN's "The Situation Room" daily from 4 to 7 p.m. You can also visit Jack's Cafferty File blog.


Jack Cafferty says the House violated a pledge to make stimulus bill public 48 hours before vote.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- What a joke. Your Congress has voted to spend almost $790 billion of your money on a stimulus package that not a single member of either chamber has read.

The 1,073-page document wasn't posted on the government's Web site until after 10 p.m. the day before the vote to pass it was taken. I don't care if you're Evelyn Wood, you can't read almost 1,100 pages of the lawyer talk that makes up all legislation in eight or 10 hours.

The criminal part of this boondoggle is divided into two parts. The first is the Democrats promised to post the bill a full 48 hours before the vote was taken to allow members of the public to see what they were getting for their money. Both parties voted unanimously to do this ... and they lied.

It didn't happen. Why am I not surprised? Congress lying to the American people has become part of their job description. They can't be trusted on anything anymore.

I'm sure part of the reason there was no time for the public to read the bill was the 11th-hour internecine warfare between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

When Reid first announced the compromise had been reached, Nancy Pelosi was nowhere to be seen. And it would take an act of God for this egotistical, arrogant woman to miss a photo op where she could take credit for anything. But she wasn't there.

She summoned Reid to her office, where unnamed sources said she blew her top over some provision for schools that she wasn't happy with. Pelosi's snit delayed everything.

It's really too bad President Obama couldn't figure out a way to jettison these two who are poster children for everything that is wrong in Washington. The Associated Press called the birth of the stimulus bill "sausage making" in the best tradition of Washington politics as usual.

The second part of the crime is the contents of the bill itself. Far from being only about jobs, infrastructure and tax cuts as promised, the stimulus bill stimulates a bunch of other stuff as well. Eight billion dollars for high-speed rail lines, including a proposed line between Las Vegas and Los Angeles. This little bit of second story work wasn't even in the House version of the bill.

It started in the Senate as a $2 billion project, and came out of the conference committee costing a whopping $8 billion. Gee, now who would that benefit? Oh yeah, the Senate majority leader is from Nevada.

Filipino veterans, most of whom don't live in the U.S., will get $200 million in compensation for World War II injuries. And: $2 billion in grants and loans for battery companies, $100 million for small shipyards and a rollback of the alternative minimum tax at a cost of some $70 billion.

The AMT provision is much-needed legislation, but it doesn't belong in the stimulus bill. It forced other things out so Congress could keep to its self-imposed $800 billion cap.

And when it comes to the tax cuts contained in the stimulus bill, experts have determined they will amount to about $13 per week after taxes for the average American. I'm not sure how much stimulation $13 a week buys. It depends on the neighborhood.

The biggest problem of all is the stimulus bill may not be nearly enough. And if the president has to come back asking for more, the next time might not be so easy.

So far, we have an anemic stimulus bill and some sort of vague proposal from the secretary of the Treasury to deal with the banking crisis -- a proposal that landed with a thud last week -- as the two first steps toward solving a financial crisis that is threatening to take down the country.

Obama better step up his game, or it's going to be a short four years in office.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 06:28 PM

Posted at 12:23 PM ET, 02/18/2009
Obama Hasn't Entirely Abandoned the Bush Playbook

Is President Obama adopting some of his predecessor's signature anti-terror tactics?

A New York Times story this morning says it looks that way. And there have, indeed, been a few instances lately in which Obama has gravely disappointed civil libertarians, who thought he could be relied upon to make a clearer and more immediate break with Bush across the whole range of terror-related issues -- especially after he declared in his inaugural address that he would "reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals."

Charlie Savage writes: "Even as it pulls back from harsh interrogations and other sharply debated aspects of George W. Bush's 'war on terrorism,' the Obama administration is quietly signaling continued support for other major elements of its predecessor's approach to fighting Al Qaeda."

His evidence includes:

"In little-noticed confirmation testimony recently, Obama nominees endorsed continuing the C.I.A.'s program of transferring prisoners to other countries without legal rights, and indefinitely detaining terrorism suspects without trials even if they were arrested far from a war zone.

"The administration has also embraced the Bush legal team's arguments that a lawsuit by former C.I.A. detainees should be shut down based on the 'state secrets' doctrine. It has also left the door open to resuming military commission trials.

"And earlier this month, after a British court cited pressure by the United States in declining to release information about the alleged torture of a detainee in American custody, the Obama administration issued a statement thanking the British government 'for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information.'

"These and other signs suggest that the administration's changes may turn out to be less sweeping than many had hoped or feared — prompting growing worry among civil liberties groups and a sense of vindication among supporters of Bush-era policies."

The notion that Obama would endorse any of Bush's most extreme claims of extra-legal authority is certainly alarming. And his administration's decision to press ahead with a ridiculously broad interpretation of the state secrets privilege last week was nothing less than shocking.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/2009/02/obama_hasnt_entirely_abandoned.html#more

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 09:26 PM

Eric Holder says you are a coward.

Mr Obama has fielded a team of losers tax dodgers lobbyists and incompetent fools.

Latest addition Jeff Immelt, Wall street executive, former CEO of GE whom has run that company into the ground>

Reuters:

GE's Board of Directors Should Dismiss CEO Jeff Immelt, Says the Free
Enterprise Action Fund (Ticker: FEAOX); Immelt's Failed Leadership Hurts
Shareholders

WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 /PRNewswire/ -- The board of directors of the General
Electric Company should immediately dismiss Chairman and CEO Jeff Immelt says
Action Fund Management, the investment adviser to the Free Enterprise Action
Fund (Ticker: FEAOX), a publicly-traded mutual fund.

AFM urges GE's board to take immediate action because after years of failed
leadership on the part of Immelt, the company is in disarray and its stock is
in freefall.
AFM adds the following reasons to justify Immelt's dismissal:
    -- GE had to scramble earlier this month to raise about $12.2 billion in
a
       stock offering and seek an additional $3 billion from Berkshire
Hathaway
       to assist GE Capital - its ailing finance unit.
    -- GE stock is selling at about a 10-year low.
    -- GE is facing two shareholder class action lawsuits alleging company
       executives made false and misleading statements in providing earnings
       guidance to shareholders in 2008.
    -- GE continued to do business with Iran in 2008.
   
"Since 2006 we have been warning shareholders that Immelt was not up to the
task of managing GE. Unfortunately, in only a few years, Immelt has caused
irreparable harm to the company. The board of directors must act now and
dismiss Immelt before he causes additional damage," said Steve Milloy of AFM.

"It's time for GE's board of directors to discard its clubby atmosphere and
represent shareholders interests. For far too long the board watched while
Immelt stubbornly held on to the outdated conglomerate business model and he
overleveraged GE to meet earnings expectations. Immelt needs to go and now,"
said Tom Borelli of AFM.

The FEAOX owns approximately 8,000 shares of GE stock.

---

January 10, 2008

A member of NBC press corps writes that NBC, which is owned by GE, has stopped its newscasters from reporting about the fact that GE is still selling goods to Iran. A Canadian subsidiary of GE has supplied hydroelectric generators to Iran, while an Italian subsidiary has supplied pipeline and gas turbines to Iran. Even with the fact that Iran is listed by the State Department as one of seven state sponsoring terrorists. These nations included Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, North Korea, and Cuba. Iraq is no longer on this list.

GE utilizes offshore subsidiaries, as well as Canadian and Mexican subsidiaries to go around the law.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 04:52 PM

WSJ

Is the Administration Winging It?
Obama's reputation for competence is at risk.By KARL ROVE

Team Obama demonstrated remarkable discipline during the presidential campaign. From raising an unprecedented amount of money to milking every advantage from the Internet to grabbing lots of delegates from inexpensive caucus states, they left nothing to chance.

And now the administration has scored a major legislative victory in an extraordinarily short period of time. Less than 700 hours after taking the oath of office, President Barack Obama signed the largest spending bill in American history.

Nevertheless, this fast start can't overcome a growing sense the administration is winging it on issues large and small.

Take the vetting of cabinet nominees. Mr. Obama's aides ignored a federal investigation of New Mexico's Gov. Bill Richardson that started last August for a possible pay-for-play scandal. Mr. Richardson had to withdraw after being named to become secretary of commerce.

The administration treated as inconsequential the failure of its choices for Treasury secretary and White House performance officer, as well as its labor secretary-designate's spouse, to pay taxes. It failed to uncover Tom Daschle's problems with more than $102,943 in previously unpaid taxes, penalties and interest -- and once it did, aides assumed Mr. Daschle would be given a pass.

Team Obama promised Gen. Anthony Zinni he'd be ambassador to Iraq, then cut him loose without explanation. After the Bill Richardson fiasco, it romanced Republican Sen. Judd Gregg for commerce secretary -- then ignored his advice on the stimulus and wouldn't trust him with running the department, moving supervision of the Census into the White House. Mr. Gregg withdrew himself from consideration.

Then there is the stimulus itself. Mr. Obama's economic team met with congressional leaders in December to green light a bill costing up to $850 billion. But they described less than $200 billion of what they wanted in the envelope. In return for outsourcing the bill's drafting to Congress, the administration took on two responsibilities: running polls to advise Hill Democrats on how to sharpen their marketing, and putting the president on the road to sell a bill others wrote.

Team Obama was winging it when it declared the stimulus would "save or create" 2.5 million, then three million, then 3.7 million, and then four million new jobs. These were arbitrary and erratic numbers, and they knew there's no way to count "saved" jobs. Americans, being commonsensical, will focus on Mr. Obama's promise to "create" jobs. It's highly unlikely that more than 180,000 jobs will be created each month by the end of next year. The precise, state-by-state job numbers the administration used to sell the stimulus are likely to come back to haunt them as well.

Bipartisanship? The administration failed even to respond to GOP offers to endorse an Obama campaign proposal to suspend capital gains taxes for new small businesses.

Inexplicably, the president, in a prime-time press conference, raised expectations for Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's bank rescue plan, which turned out the next day to be no plan at all. The markets craved details; they got none. When markets cratered, spokesmen didn't acknowledge the administration's poor planning, but blamed the markets.

Team Obama was also winging it on enhanced interrogation of terrorists. First it nullified all the Bush administration's legal authorities before considering what rules it should have in place. When the CIA briefed White House officials on the results obtained from these techniques, the administration backtracked and organized a four-month study of what rules were appropriate.

Something similar happened with the promise to close Guantanamo Bay within a year: The administration has no idea what it will do with the violent terrorists detained there. And on ethics, Mr. Obama proclaimed an end to lobbyist influence in government -- even as he was nominating lobbyists for major posts and filling White House ranks with former lobbyists.

Team Obama has been living off its campaign reputation for planning and execution. That reputation is now frayed, and all the bumbling and unforced errors will have an impact. Such things don't go unnoticed on Capitol Hill or in foreign capitals.

The president, a bright and skilled politician, has plenty of time to recover. The danger is that what we have seen is not an aberration, but the early indications of his governing style. Barack Obama won the job he craved, now he must demonstrate that he and his team are up to its requirements. The signs are worrisome. The world is a dangerous place. The days of winging it need to end.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 03:46 PM

Analysis: Clinton's mockery of Obama proves true

Story Highlights
Obama's first weeks in office have seen little of the bipartisanship that he ran on

The economic stimulus plan that Obama got through Congress divided parties

Animosity illustrated by Obama's trip to Denver to sign stimulus into law

Missteps over appointees has made Team Obama look less than ready

By Alexander Mooney
CNN
   
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- During the most contentious stretch of the Democratic presidential primary campaign last winter, then-candidate Hillary Clinton mocked Barack Obama for his pledge to transcend Washington's entrenched partisanship.

"The sky will open. The lights will come down. Celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect!" Clinton bellowed.

Obama dismissed Clinton's sarcasm as overly cynical and further evidence she was a creature of Washington. But as President Obama prepares to make his first major address to Congress, Clinton's comments are borne out.

For a candidate who won the White House on a mantle of bringing the country's two political parties together, Washington could not be more divided on Obama's initial weeks in the Oval Office and the policies he has put in place.

Depending on who you ask, in 30 days the new president has either rescued the nation's economy from financial ruin or set in motion the most liberal government in a generation, and one that's likely to prolong -- perhaps even prevent -- the country's economic recovery. Watch Obama explain the stimulus »

There have also been heated debates over a string of executive orders and bill signings that have fundamentally reversed several policies of the Bush administration -- including the closing of Guantanamo Bay, a firm decree against torture, the extension of children's health insurance, and the lifting of a ban to give funds to international groups that perform abortions. Watch highs and lows of Obama's first month »

"Clinton's earlier critique of change has quickly become very valid," said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. "The Washington of George Bush is the same Washington of Barack Obama. The promise of bipartisanship and hope in Washington is difficult to actually achieve."

It's the massive $787 billion stimulus bill that has drawn the most criticism -- and praise -- in the president's first month. To be sure, while former president Clinton famously declared an end to the "era of big government" 13 years ago, Obama will herald its return in his speech to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday.

Congressional Democrats and Obama supporters argue the new president has admirably taken bold action in response to the dire conditions he inherited, swiftly accomplishing a string of dramatic reforms in a town known to operate at a sluggish pace.

Obama has also enacted dramatic Wall Street reforms, salary caps on CEO pay, and a wide-ranging plan to stem the ongoing foreclosure crisis.

"This is a presidency on steroids," wrote Eugene Robinson, a liberal columnist for the Washington Post. "Barack Obama's executive actions alone would be enough for any new administration's first month. That the White House also managed to push through Congress a spending bill of unprecedented size and scope ... is little short of astonishing."

But scorn from the right is equal to admiration from the left: He championed a new way of doing things in Washington, but Obama went about shepherding his stimulus bill in a very old-fashioned partisan way, Republicans said.

That Obama signed the historic measure into law 1,500 miles away from Washington in Denver, Colorado, was a symbol to some of just how much animosity it had stirred up in the nation's capital.

"If this is going to be bipartisanship, the country's screwed," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, declared last week. "I know bipartisanship when I see it."

Amidst the passage of Obama's major economic reforms and the country's continued economic turmoil, was a transition process that began smooth but quickly turned rocky after embarrassing revelations regarding several of the president's appointees.

Beleaguered by tax issues or charges of impropriety, three of Obama's appointees withdrew their names, including Tom Daschle who would have led the Health and Human Services Department, Nancy Killefer, nominated as a the chief government performance officer, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, tapped to head the Commerce Department.

A fourth appointee -- Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire -- also withdrew his name for Commerce last week, citing "irresolvable conflicts."

Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton each lost one cabinet appointee during their first terms. Presidents Carter, Reagan and the elder Bush lost none during their transition process.

Suddenly, a vetting process that was self-proclaimed as the most thorough in history -- and included a 60-page questionnaire -- looked downright amateur.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/22/obama.so.far/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 11:16 PM

THis is hogwash. The country is nowhere near as divided as it was after the '04 election, by far.

THis is just Percodan-brained natter...



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 10:01 AM

Stanford link to Biden family

Stanford link to 'second family fund'A fund of hedge funds run by two members of US vice president Joe Biden's family was marketed by firms connected to Sir Allen Stanford, it has been claimed.

The Texan billionaire is facing charges over a $9 billion fraud involving certificates of deposit with unrealistically high interest rates from his Stanford International Bank in Antigua.

The claims have rocked the worlds of investment and sport, with Sir Allen heavily involved with English cricket.

And now according to the Wall Street Journal family members of the US vice president have become embroiled, although there is no suggestion of wrongdoing by any of the Bidens.

A lawyer quoted by the newspaper says the $50 million Paradigm Stanford Capital Management Core Alternative Fund was part owned by the vice president's son Hunter and brother James.

It claims that neither man met or communicated with Sir Allen and that Stanford-related companies invested roughly $2.7 million of their own money into the fund.

When contacted by the Reuters news agency Joe Biden's office or the US securities and exchange commission (SEC), which filed civil charges over the alleged fraud last week, were not immediately available for comment.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 02:55 PM

Exclusive: Lawyer says Guantanamo abuse worse since Obama
Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:48am EST

LONDON (Reuters) - Abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay has worsened sharply since President Barack Obama took office as prison guards "get their kicks in" before the camp is closed, according to a lawyer who represents detainees.

Abuses began to pick up in December after Obama was elected, human rights lawyer Ahmed Ghappour told Reuters. He cited beatings, the dislocation of limbs, spraying of pepper spray into closed cells, applying pepper spray to toilet paper and over-forcefeeding detainees who are on hunger strike.

The Pentagon said on Monday that it had received renewed reports of prisoner abuse during a recent review of conditions at Guantanamo, but had concluded that all prisoners were being kept in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

"According to my clients, there has been a ramping up in abuse since President Obama was inaugurated," said Ghappour, a British-American lawyer with Reprieve, a legal charity that represents 31 detainees at Guantanamo.

"If one was to use one's imagination, (one) could say that these traumatized, and for lack of a better word barbaric, guards were just basically trying to get their kicks in right now for fear that they won't be able to later," he said.

"Certainly in my experience there have been many, many more reported incidents of abuse since the inauguration," added Ghappour, who has visited Guantanamo six times since late September and based his comments on his own observations and conversations with both prisoners and guards.

He stressed the mistreatment did not appear to be directed from above, but was an initiative undertaken by frustrated U.S. army and navy jailers on the ground. It did not seem to be a reaction against the election of Obama, a Democrat who has pledged to close the prison camp within a year, but rather a realization that there was little time remaining before the last 241 detainees, all Muslim, are released.

"It's 'hey, let's have our fun while we can,'" said Ghappour, who helped secure the release this week of Binyam Mohamed, a British resident freed from Guantanamo Bay after more than four years in detention without trial or charge.

"I can't really imagine why you would get your kicks from abusing prisoners, but certainly, having spoken to certain guards who have been injured in Iraq, who indirectly or directly blame my clients for their injuries and the trauma they have suffered, it's not too difficult to put two and two together."

FORCE-FEEDING

Following a January 22 order from Obama, the U.S. Defense Department conducted a two-week review of conditions at Guantanamo ahead of the planned closure of the prison on Cuba.

Admiral Patrick Walsh, the review's author, acknowledged on Monday that reports of abuse had emerged but concluded all inmates were being treated in line with the Geneva Conventions.

"We heard allegations of abuse," he said, asked if detainees had reported torture. "And what we did at that point was to go back and investigate the allegation... What we found is that there were in some cases substantiated evidence where guards had misconduct, I think that would be the best way to put it."

Walsh said his review looked at 20 allegations of abuse, 14 of which were substantiated, but he did not go into details. Generally he said the abuse ranged from "gestures, comments, disrespect" to "preemptive use of pepper spray."

Ghappour said he had spoken to army guards who, unsolicited, had described the pleasure they took in abusing prisoners, whether interrupting prayer or physical mistreatment. He said they appeared unconcerned about potential repercussions.

He also saw evidence of guards pulling identity numbers off their uniforms or switching them once they were on duty in order to make it more difficult for them to be identified.

Ghappour said he had filed two complaints of serious detainee abuse since December 22 but received no response from U.S. authorities. In one case his client had his knee, shoulder and thumb dislocated by a group of guards, Ghappour said.

In one of the six main camps at Guantanamo, the lawyer said all the detainees he knew were on hunger strike and subject to force-feeding, including with laxatives that induced chronic diarrhea while they were strapped in their feeding chairs.

"Several of my clients have had toilet paper pepper-sprayed while they have had hemorrhoids," Ghappour said.

Another area of concern was evidence that detainees were being abused on the way to meetings with their lawyers -- sometimes so badly that they no longer wanted to meet with counsel for fear of the beatings they would receive, he said.

"Some detainees are convinced they are going to be locked up there forever, despite the promises to close the camp," he said.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 02:57 PM

Byrd: Obama in power grab
By JOHN BRESNAHAN | 2/25/09 10:34 AM EST      


Byrd is a stern constitutional scholar who has always stood up for the legislative branch in its role in checking the power of the White House.


Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the longest-serving Democratic senator, is criticizing President Obama's appointment of White House "czars" to oversee federal policy, saying these executive positions amount to a power grab by the executive branch.

In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd complained about Obama's decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions "can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials."

While it's rare for Byrd to criticize a president in his own party, Byrd is a stern constitutional scholar who has always stood up for the legislative branch in its role in checking the power of the White House. Byrd no longer holds the powerful Appropriations chairmanship, so his criticism does not carry as much weight these days. Byrd repeatedly clashed with the Bush administration over executive power, and it appears that he's not limiting his criticism to Republican administrations.

Byrd also wants Obama to limit claims of executive privilege while also ensuring that the White House czars don't have authority over Cabinet officers confirmed by the Senate.

"As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the president," Byrd wrote. "They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19303.html

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 03:32 PM

You're making free with the old Insinuation Generator these days, aren't you? Is Rush a personal friend? Or are you just bent on getting even because Bush was such an embarassment to you?



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 03:38 PM

Amos,

Just following the sterling example of fairness and even-handedness you established in the threads about the popular ( NYT) Opinion of the Bush administration.


Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the longest-serving Democratic senator

Ghappour, a British-American lawyer with Reprieve, a legal charity that represents 31 detainees at Guantanamo.



Are YOU just bent on complaining because you don't like the tactics that you used on us being applied to your side??????

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 12:40 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/opinions/tomtoles/?hpid=opinionsbox1

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 02:07 PM

Newsweek debunks major Republican exagerrations and distortions relating to the stimulus bill debate, clarifying genuine concerns and who they are from.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 04:16 PM

I will not be disparaged!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Mar 09 - 01:33 PM

Everyone's favorite red-head, Maureen Dowd, does a brillianter-than-usual job comparing Presidents 43 and 44.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Mar 09 - 01:37 PM

"As he stood before Congress on Tuesday night, the new president was armed with new job approval percentages in the 60s. After his speech, the numbers hit the stratosphere: CBS News found that support for his economic plans spiked from 63 percent to 80. Had more viewers hung on for the Republican response from Bobby Jindal, the unintentionally farcical governor of Louisiana, Obama might have aced a near-perfect score.

His address was riveting because it delivered on the vision he had promised a battered populace during the campaign: Government must step in boldly when free markets run amok and when national crises fester unaddressed for decades. For all the echoes of F.D.R.'s first fireside chat, he also evoked his own memorably adult speech on race. Once again he walked us through a lucid step-by-step mini-lecture on "how we arrived" at an impasse that's threatening America's ability to move forward."

(NYT)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Mar 09 - 02:28 PM

Hey, Bruce! When are you due to graduate from Junior High School? And are you going to have a 14th Birthday Party.

Jaysus, give the adolescent crap a rest, will ya?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Mar 09 - 05:16 PM

"President Obama called his budget "a threat to the status quo," and trust me, the status quo noticed. Oil companies, big banks and insurance companies are already mobilizing to stop it.2

Unfortunately, most folks don't realize how far-reaching and progressive the plan is—that's where we all come in.

Here are 10 really incredible things about Obama's plan. Check them out and then send them on to your friends and family so that millions of people will have the information they need to fight to make this vision a reality.

10 things you should know about Obama's plan (but probably don't)

The plan:


§ Makes a $634 billion down payment on fixing health care that will go a long way toward paying for a more efficient, more affordable health care system that covers every single American.3

§ Reduces taxes for 95% of working Americans. And if your family makes less than $250,000, your taxes won't go up one dime.4
 
§ Invests more than $100 billion in clean energy technology, creating millions of green jobs that can never be outsourced.5
 
§ Brings our troops home from Iraq on a firm timetable, finally bringing the war to a close—and freeing up almost ten billion dollars a month for domestic priorities.6
 
§ Reverses growing income inequality. The plan lets the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire and focuses on strengthening the middle class.7
 
§ Closes multi-billion-dollar tax loopholes for big oil companies. 8
 
§ Increases grants to help families pay for college—the largest increase ever.9


§ Halves the deficit by 2013. President Obama inherited a legacy of huge deficits and an economy in shambles, but his plan brings the deficit under control as soon as the economy begins to recover.10

§ Dramatically increases funding for the SEC and the CFTC—the agencies that police Wall Street.11
 
§ Tells it straight. For years, budgets have used accounting tricks to hide the real costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush tax cuts, and too many other programs. Obama's budget gets rid of the smokescreens and lays out what America's priorities are, what they cost, and how we're going to pay for them.12

This is the change we voted for. ..." (MoveOn)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Mar 09 - 06:52 PM

This is, I suppose, what the ousted-ideologues object to:

"What can the disavowed dauphin possibly be thinking as Professor Obama strides up to the blackboard to erase everything W. stood for, while giving us crisp lectures about how we must get more educated, more equitable, more realistic, more responsible and more reasonable?"

"...we must get more educated, more equitable, more realistic, more responsible and more reasonable?"

I can see why they are hurting so bad. To them it is a novel concept.

I do wish that one of them would check out the things we said after Bush came into office and the startlingly inept things we objected to for the next 8 years and contrast them to what they are promulgating now. Almost all that is visible now are lies, distortions, myths, rumors and lip-smacking gossip. Grow up, OK?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Mar 09 - 07:01 PM

Had Mr Obama come to power four years ago, do you really think that the financial ruin that we now see before us would have been avoided?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Mar 09 - 07:24 PM

Apples and oranges, ake. Obama was not running. And no, I don't think we would be where we are today if Al Gore had won. Good grief.

Bush never felt a need for diplomacy and swaggered eagerly into a fight - make that two fights - without an exit strategy. Does that sentence describe either Gore or Kerry?

It's been said before but I'll repeat it here: The action taken against the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon that awful day was a crime that needed to be viewed as such. It was not instigated by a country.

With all the good will the world extended us subsequent to those events I don't doubt but that the world's nations would have joined us to find and root out and bring to justice the criminals of that day.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Mar 09 - 08:35 PM

Bruce:

I am always happy to be discovered as the ultimate cause of things, but I think you need to take a little more responsibility, and recognize the bvery telling differences between Obama's present situation and the chronic cloud of misrepresentation that surrounded Bush. There is a world of difference between the situations, warranting a more attentive stance on your part. I decline to be blamed for your journalistic irresponsibility.





A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Mar 09 - 08:36 PM

In any event, it looks like it's going to be troops in Iraq and wire tap as usual.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Mar 09 - 03:02 AM

Ebbie The most important thing at the moment, is the "crisis of Capitalism", which has already affected taxpayers and will soon impact on the real economy....the very poor...public services etc.

In my view, neither the election of Mr Obama nor Mr Jesus H Christ could have stopped it happening..

The financial and social mess that most of the world will soon be immersed in, is not a crisis of the George Bush administration, but a crisis of the Capitalist system; and one which was forseen by perceptive people decades ago.

To imagine that this situation can be reversed and that we can return to the boom years, by way of Mr Obama, his rag tag backstabbing administration, or a wing and a prayer, is naivety in the extreme......even if it was desirable!!
To return to the Status quo which produced this mess, would in fact be an abject failure to grasp the chance to change society in a MEANINGFUL way..........Ake

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Mar 09 - 03:12 AM

Ake, I appreciate the tenor of your post and you may well be right. I agree that this mess is the result of the cumulative snowballing effect of deep rooted corruption, corrosive greed and misguided methods.

I do *not* expect President Obama to fix things back to whatever we considered normal. To my mind, the best we can hope for is that we can make incremental steps to stabilize the chaotic tumbling we are currently experiencing.

If we can get to a point in the next couple of years where we can point to such gains, at that point I hope that we rethink and revise our whole attitude regarding our country, our culture, our place in the world and what we want out of it.

It is a different world and we can't go back, even if we wished it.

May I say that I am grateful beyond words that it is Obama who is the head of this effort and not McCain.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Mar 09 - 03:26 AM

You're up far too late Ebbs.....You're starting to hallucinate..:0)

and don't ask me to "elucidate"...its much too early in the morning.

Night Night....A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 02 Mar 09 - 08:33 AM

Amos,

so, in spite of your promise, you will not apply the same standards to Obama that you applired to Bush?


About what I expected.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 02 Mar 09 - 08:43 AM

Buildings sprang up as donations rained down on Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion
BY Benjamin Lesser and Greg B. Smith
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

Updated Sunday, March 1st 2009, 1:35 PM


Watts/News

Bronx Boro President Adolfo Carrion on the roof of the Bronx Courthouse with the old and the new Yankee Stadium behind him.


JR/News
The man who is President Obama's newly minted urban czar pocketed thousands of dollars in campaign cash from city developers whose projects he approved or funded with taxpayers' money, a Daily News probe found.

Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion often received contributions just before or after he sponsored money for projects or approved important zoning changes, records show.

Most donations were organized and well-timed.

In one case, a developer became a Carrion fund-raiser two months before the borough president signed off on his project, raising more than $6,000 in campaign cash.

In another, eight Boricua College officials came up with $8,000 on the same day for Carrion three weeks before the school filed plans to build a new tower. Carrion ultimately approved the project and sponsored millions in taxpayer funds for it.

Carrion resigned as borough president effective Sunday and begins his new job as director of the White House Office on Urban Policy Monday.

Saturday Carrion declined to answer written questions about his receipt of timely campaign contributions. Instead, he issued a terse statement:

"Thousands of people who share the Borough President's vision for building a stronger Bronx and a stronger city have contributed to Carrion NYC. Teachers, parents, police officers, firefighters, members of the business community and concerned citizens have all contributed to the borough president's efforts to strengthen the Bronx and stimulate the local economy and he is proud to have such wide-ranging support."

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/bronx/2009/02/28/2009-02-28_buildings_sprang_up_as_donations_rained_.html

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Mar 09 - 09:43 AM

As he stood before Congress on Tuesday night, the new president was armed with new job approval percentages in the 60s. After his speech, the numbers hit the stratosphere: CBS News found that support for his economic plans spiked from 63 percent to 80. Had more viewers hung on for the Republican response from Bobby Jindal, the unintentionally farcical governor of Louisiana, Obama might have aced a near-perfect score.

His address was riveting because it delivered on the vision he had promised a battered populace during the campaign: Government must step in boldly when free markets run amok and when national crises fester unaddressed for decades. For all the echoes of F.D.R.'s first fireside chat, he also evoked his own memorably adult speech on race. Once again he walked us through a lucid step-by-step mini-lecture on "how we arrived" at an impasse that's threatening America's ability to move forward.

Obama's race speech may have saved his campaign. His first Congressional address won't rescue the economy. But it brings him to a significant early crossroads in his presidency — one full of perils as well as great opportunities. To get the full political picture, look beyond Obama's popularity in last week's polls to the two groups of Americans whose approval numbers are in the toilet. There is good news for Obama in these findings, but there's also a stark indication of the unchecked populist rage that could still overrun his ambitious plans.

The first group in national disfavor is the G.O.P. In the latest New York Times/CBS News survey, 63 percent said that Congressional Republicans opposed the stimulus package mostly for political reasons; only 17 percent felt that the Republicans should stick with their own policies rather than cooperate with Obama and the Democrats. The second group of national villains is corporate recipients of taxpayer money: only 39 percent approve of a further bailout for banks, and only 22 percent want more money going to Detroit's Big Three.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Mar 09 - 09:44 AM

Bruce:

Standards, yes; seeing them as the same person, never.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Mar 09 - 10:02 AM

Hey, Bruce! are you familiar with Tom Paxton's song about the New York Daily News ?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Mar 09 - 10:50 AM

Escalation in Afghanistan! Will this be Obama's Vietnam?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Mar 09 - 02:46 PM

HE completely sucks...as I told you before!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Mar 09 - 03:37 PM

Well, madam, tomorrow I will be sober, but tomorrow you will still be wrong about Mr. Obama.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Mar 09 - 07:08 PM

Every time he opens his mouth, the stock market drops 200 points.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Mar 09 - 07:13 PM

Rig, wouldn't you rather the market tumbles now while we are trying to regain our feet under the Democrats and Obama than tumble under Bushlite when the market/we discover down the road that we're digging ourselves in deeper? If McCain had got in, do you think we'd be closer to the light than we are now?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Mar 09 - 07:34 PM

Ebbie - I've been trying to get closer to the light for years; nothing seems to work:-)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Mar 09 - 07:37 PM

Don't give up- every once in awhile a glimmer shines through. :)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Mar 09 - 07:46 AM

I'll remember that!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 09 - 09:56 AM

The market is dropping steadily and has been since September or thereabouts. So if you are looking for causative links, that's the latest point of inspection to take up. The antecedent causes (IMHO) would have to include the "noble highwayman" mentality of the Cheny administration.

It has nothign to do with what happens when Obama opens his mouth. More like when GM and AIG open theirs.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Mar 09 - 10:44 AM

Staple everybody's mouth shut and watch the economy recover: that's what I always say!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 12:30 AM

Completely absurd, all the denial...and the beat goes on......

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 11:09 AM

-- The Wall Street Journal -- Obama is "more popular than ever": "President Barack Obama enjoys widespread backing from a frightened American public for his ambitious, front-loaded agenda, a new poll indicates. He is more popular than ever, Americans are hopeful about his leadership, and opposition Republicans are getting drubbed in public opinion, the new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll suggests. ... Overall, two-thirds of all Americans say they feel 'hopeful' about Mr. Obama's leadership and plans, compared with 28% who say they feel 'doubtful.'

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 03:52 PM

It's about to get nasty: time for Obama's movement to get moving
He has plans to stop the war, save the planet and redistribute wealth. If he's to overcome the lobbyists he'll need a new coalition
Gary Younge The Guardian, Monday 2 March 2009
         
Last week was a busy one for Barack Obama.

On Monday he held a bipartisan fiscal summit where he pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. On Tuesday he addressed both houses of Congress for the first time, promising the nation: "We will recover, we will rebuild." On Thursday he produced a budget that set out to redistribute wealth, heal the sick and save the planet. On Friday he stopped the war. On Saturday he threw down the gauntlet to special interests and lobbyists. And on the seventh day he rested.

In the course of a regular presidency, any one of these might be seen as a bold project. To tackle them all in one term seems ambitious to the point of foolhardiness. To announce them all in one week lies somewhere between the audacity of hope and the pugnacity of hubris. But then this is no regular presidency - a function not just of the man but the times. "You never let a serious crisis go to waste," his chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, told reporters after the election. And this crisis is serious. Comparisons with the 1930s are premature, but each release of data has the economy straining for historical commparison. February was the worst month on the stockmarket for 76 years, and saw the worst contraction of GDP since 1982, while California's unemployment is the highest since 1983. More often than not there is no comparison, because things have not been this bad since records began. Last week's flurry of activity marks an attempt to seize this moment, and in so doing reveals both the potential of the Obama administration at home and its limits abroad. Domestically he has committed himself to a paradigm-shifting budget that marks a decisive break with more than a generation of neoliberal policies. The notion that taxes can go up as well as down, that the government has the ability and duty to do good, and that tackling inequality has moral values challenge the core assumptions that have dominated political culture in London and Washington for almost three decades. It is an agenda that Labour had a mandate to deliver - and wasted. Abroad, his plans not so much break the mould as reset the one George Bush has damaged. His promise to bring all "combat troops" home from Iraq by August next year marks the end of a six year murderous folly that bitterly divided and alienated America. Those who point to the troop surge and recent elections in Iraq as evidence that the invasion was a success are trying to put lipstick on a pig that has been slaughtered, gutted and turned into chops. The war has killed more than 1 million Iraqis and caused 4 million to flee their homes - half displaced internally and half externally. It has strengthened Iran in the region and created a generation of Islamic fundamentalists worldwide. On every front, by its own tawdry standards, it has been an unmitigated disaster. Its failure is not just humiliating for America's neocons, militarists and Republicans but for the useful idiots who gave them cover, including the British government. There is barely a country in the world, including the US, that does not support its end. But welcome as it is, this step really marks a correction in American militaristic pretensions rather than an end to them. Bush certainly broadened and sharpened disdain for US foreign policy and mobilised huge numbers against it. But he did not invent American imperialism, he just revealed its limits. Those who claim he tarnished America's great reputation abroad were apparently unaware that in vast swaths of Central and South America, the Middle East (with the exception of Israel), the Arab world, and parts of Asia, Africa and the Caribbean, it was already pretty grubby. Obama's decision to extend the Iraqi occupation until 2011 with up to 50,000 troops, escalate the war in Afghanistan, bomb Pakistan and continue imprisoning "enemy combatants" in Afghanistan without trial returns us to the kind of American foreign policy we were used to before 9/11. These are small mercies. But given the last eight years, they are also significant. Paradoxically, given the contentious manner in which it was prosecuted, the war's end attracted limited fanfare or ferocity. By the time it came to make the declaration, the American polity had long reconciled itself to defeat. Obama's budget is a different matter entirely. Its signature elements involve tax increases on families earning more than $250,000 (£175,000), the introduction of a universal healthcare system, an economy-wide carbon-trading system, and grants for low-income students. In short, it intends to address the growing inequalities in American society. It is already clear this will unleash a political battle that will test the strength and scope of the president's support. Lobbyists in the financial, health and oil industries, not to mention Republicans, have promised to do everything they can to neuter or nix the budget as it makes its way through Congress. If Obama really did create a movement during his campaign, as his supporters claim, then now would be the time for it to get moving. This battle started and will end in Washington. But it won't be won there. Having built an electoral coalition to win power, he now needs to cohere a political one to defend it. This will be tough. We saw how effective and vicious the lobby industry could be when Hillary Clinton tried to reform healthcare in the early 1990s. But there are two reasons to believe that this time might be different. First, conservatives are in ideological retreat and organisational disarray. The system they cherish - capitalism - is collapsing around their ears and taking their mantras with it. This was patently clear last week when Louisiana's governor, Bobby Jindal, delivered his ill-received response to Obama's congressional address. The problem wasn't just the delivery, but the goods. At a time when one in five home owners believes they are in negative equity, and fear of unemployment is rising in every region and class, people don't want to hear about the perils of big government and the joys of low taxes. Particularly from a party fresh from bloating the deficit. Second, the left is better organised than it has been since the 1960s. It has a popular president, controls both houses of Congress, has a grassroots presence and - thanks to eight years of Bush - fire in its belly. A group of leftwing bloggers, unions and other activists have just teamed up to form a leftwing pressure group within the Democratic party. The blogosphere has done for the left what talk radio did for the right in the 1990s - provided the base with a platform and organising potential to put pressure on its leadership. "The battle had been lost by the time the progressive community and its allies began rallying around the Clinton bill," Ralph Neas, the chief executive of the National Coalition on Health Care, told the New York Times. "Now, people are prepared." During his weekly address, Obama made it clear he knows what's at stake. The lobbyists and special interests "are gearing up for a fight as we speak", the president said. "My message to them is this: so am I." This week was busy - the weeks to come may also get nasty.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 10:42 AM

Let Them Eat Wagyu

Everyone remembers the media's hysterics about the Bush Administration's response to Hurricane Katrina.

As Kentuckians and others were freezing in the winter storm that blew in the from Midwest last week, the president was cuddled up at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. unconcerned. He watched the Super Bowl. He hosted a "stimulus party."

According to The Associated Press, "more than half a million homes and businesses, most of them in Kentucky, remained without electricity from the Ozarks through Appalachia. …. Finding fuel — heating oil along with gas for cars and generators — was another struggle."

"Thousands of people were staying in motels and shelters, asked to leave their homes by authorities who said emergency teams in some areas were too strapped to reach everyone in need of food, water and warmth. The outages disabled water systems, and authorities warned it could be days or weeks before power was restored in the most remote spots."

At least 55 died in Ohio, Texas, Kentucky, Arkansas, Indiana, Oklahoma, Missouri, Virginia and West Virginia.

The storm, Kentucky's governor said, caused "the biggest natural disaster that this state has ever experienced in modern history." The spokesman for the Shenandoah Valley Electric Cooperative's local crew, which went to help, put it this way: "This is the worst they've ever seen."

Where were the calls for Mr. Obama to intervene? Why didn't he alight in Air Force One for a visit?

So as frozen Kentuckians wondered where their next meal would come from, Obama cranked up the thermostat so high, The New York Times reported, "you could grow orchids in there," and chowed down on Wagyu steak that costs $100 a pound.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 03:42 PM

COnsidering how swamped our economy is, in the aftermath of the ferocious irresponsibility manifested during the Bush years, it seems to me counter-productive and unhelpful to sling such mindless noise about denigrating the guy who's trying as hard as possible to put things right, Sawz.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 05:01 PM

Obama must have opened his mouth again, the Dow dropped almost 300 points.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 08:05 AM

Amos,

"it seems to me counter-productive and unhelpful to sling such mindless noise about denigrating the guy who's trying as hard as possible to put things right,"


As long as it is YOUR guy, that is. You are demonstrrating that YOU refuse to apply the same standards to Obama that YOU demanded of Bush.

Again.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 10:27 AM

Mommy Mommy! He started it he hit me first WAAAAAHHHHH

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 10:32 AM

There's a simple reason, Bruce. Obama is proceeding on a decent platform to improve civilization in a civilized way. Bush wouldn't know the difference. He was, at heart, a barbarian, no matter how cute he could get.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 11:31 AM

Washington Post:


George W. Obama?

By Jackson Diehl
Sunday, March 8, 2009; Page

Washington has spent the past couple of weeks debating whether Barack Obama's ambitious agenda and political strategy are more comparable to those of Franklin Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan. Oddly, hardly anyone is talking about the ways in which Obama is beginning to resemble the man who just vacated the White House.

Most Americans are eager to forget about George W. Bush. But just over seven years ago, Bush found himself in much the same position as the new president today -- leading the country through what was universally considered a national emergency. In the weeks after Sept. 11, 2001, Bush's approval rating soared above 80 percent at home. London, Berlin and even Moscow rallied behind him. A front-page analysis in The Post in late November said that "President Bush [has] a dominance over American government . . . rivaling even Franklin D. Roosevelt's command."

Then, according to today's established wisdom, Bush squandered his chance to lead. Three cardinal errors are commonly cited: The president failed to ask a willing nation for sacrifice, instead inviting consumers to shop and heaping on more tax cuts. Rather than forge a bipartisan response to the crisis, he used it to ram through big, polarizing pieces of the Republican Party's ideological agenda -- from asserting presidential powers to breach treaties to eliminating protections for federal workers. Worst, he chose to launch a war of choice in Iraq, thereby shredding what remained of post-9/11 national unity and diverting attention and resources from the fight against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.


That brings us to the first weeks of the Obama administration, set against the background of a scary and steadily deepening global economic crisis. Last month, in his first address to Congress, Obama warned the country that fixing the huge problems in the financial markets and housing and auto industries would require a historic effort. "None of this will come without cost, nor will it be easy," he said. "But this is America. We don't do what's easy. We do what is necessary to move this country forward."

Minutes later, Obama spelled out what he proposes this to mean for 98 percent of Americans: "You will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime. In fact, the recovery plan provides a tax cut . . . and these checks are on the way."

So much for summoning the country to sacrifice. Obama has been no more willing to ask average Americans to pitch in, even once the recession is over, than Bush.

What about bipartisanship? Like Bush, Obama offered a few early gestures. And like Bush, he has been unapologetic about using emergency measures like the stimulus bill to press polarizing Democratic priorities, such as the expansion of Medicaid benefits to the unemployed and union-friendly contracting provisions.

The Bush administration pushed through the USA Patriot Act in October 2001 by suggesting that opponents didn't want to stop another al-Qaeda attack. In his first news conference, Obama suggested that congressional opponents of the stimulus package "believe that we should do nothing" about the economic emergency. Last week his political team launched a concerted and ugly campaign to portray Rush Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican Party and "I want the president to fail" as its slogan. Republicans who have taken the crisis seriously, offered their own solutions and even supported the president on occasion -- Sen. John McCain comes to mind -- have been ignored.

So Obama hasn't strayed far from Karl Rove's playbook for routing the opposition. But surely, you say, he's planning nothing as divisive or as risky as the Iraq war? Well, that's where the health-care plan comes in: a $634 billion (to begin) "historic commitment," as Obama calls it, that (like the removal of Saddam Hussein) has lurked in the background of the national agenda for years. We know from the Clinton administration that any attempt to create a national health-care system will touch off an enormous domestic battle, inside and outside of Congress. If anything, Obama has raised the stakes by proposing no funding source other than higher taxes on wealthy Americans, allowing Republicans to raise the cries of "socialism" and "class warfare."

Just as Bush promoted tax cuts as a remedy for surplus and then later as essential in a time of deficits, so Obama has come up with strained arguments as to why health-care reform, which he supported before the economic collapse, turns out to be essential to recovery. Yet as he convened his "health care summit" at the White House on Thursday, the stock market was hitting another 12-year-low; General Motors was again teetering on the brink of insolvency and the country was still waiting to hear the details of the Treasury's proposal to bail out banks. George W. Bush might well be asking: Is the president taking his eye off the ball?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 11:45 AM

A "remedy" for the surplus he inherited? What an asinine comment. Surplus is not a malady requiring remedy unless you are cross-eyed. Furthermore it was exactly Bush's mismanaged tax policies and high-end coddling that started this house of cards going into thermal meltdown by taking the dampers off.

The arguments for health-care reform as necessary to the economic rehabilitation are not strained at all. Just look at the average costs of health care as a proportion of family income. How stupid can you get to not see the relationship?


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 04:07 PM

WSJ:


Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow

A financial crisis is the worst time to change the foundations of American capitalism.

By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN
It's hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the realization that our new president's policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis.


Martin KozlowskiThe illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown.

Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined. It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 04:14 PM

Was 'Lady Macbeth' behind Barack Obama's snub of Gordon Brown?

Posted By: James Delingpole at Mar 5, 2009 at 12:58:55 [General]
Posted in: Society

On US radio's Garrison show today, I was asked for my reaction as a true born Englishman to President Obama's double insult - first the sending back of the Winston Churchill bust, then his snub to Gordon Brown. "Tough one. Really tough one," I said, torn - as most of surely are - between delight at seeing Brown roundly humiliated, and dismay at having the special relationship so peremptorily, cruelly and bafflingly ruptured.

Iain Martin is quite right here: no matter how utterly rubbish we have become as a nation in the Blair/Brown years, Britain's friendship is something Obama will come to regret having dispensed with so lightly. This was not the act of a global statesman, but of a hormonal teenager dismissing her bestest of best BFs for no other reason than that she felt like it and she can, so there.

What was the guy thinking? In researching my new book Welcome to Obamaland, I discovered that Obama's judgment is pretty dreadful - but this? My favourite theory so far - suggested by presenter Greg Garrison - was that it was a move calculated to please his Lady Macbeth. At the moment in Britain, we're still in the "Doesn't she look fabulous in a designer frock" stage of understanding of Michelle Obama. Gradually, though, we'll begin to realise that she is every bit the terrifying executive's wife that Hillary Clinton was. Or, shudder, Cherie Blair.

We may just LURVE Michelle's fashion sense. But Michelle doesn't reciprocate our affection, one bit. Her broad-brush view of history associates Brits with the wicked white global hegemony responsible for the slave trade. Never mind that a white, Tory Englishman - William Wilberforce - brought the slave trade to an end. Judging by her record, Michelle does not make room for such subtle nuance.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/james_delingpole/blog/2009/03/05/was_lady_macbeth_behind_barack_obamas_snub_of_gordon_brown

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 04:30 PM

What "snub" are you posting about, Bruce?

What IS all this arm-waving and frothing at the mouth?



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 04:35 PM

I'm not sure how to take the snippiness. I've read that report and others and any "snub" is a reach. Perhaps the tradition of holding a full press conference for a visiting leader was not upheld but Brown did have a lengthy meeting with the president.

As for not having a state dinner, the man didn't bring his wife, so far as I can gather, so it doesn't appear to me that this first visit was more than as stated: a discussion on how to counter the worldwide recession.

And returning a lent Churchill bust was somehow loaded with meaning? Had it been a gift returning it would have been different.

Reading these articles and the bloggers' comments makes me painfully aware that the Brits are as juvenile and immature as anyone.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Mar 09 - 12:31 AM

"COnsidering how swamped our economy is, in the aftermath of the ferocious irresponsibility manifested during the Bush years, it seems to me counter-productive and unhelpful to sling such mindless noise about denigrating the guy who's trying as hard as possible to put things right, Sawz."

First of all what does Bush have to do with what Obama did during the disaster?

Did Bush leave instructions to crank up the heat to the level of a orchid hothouse and serve $100 per pound steak while lobbying for support for his "no earmarks pledge" Porkulus package while people in Kentucky and elsewhere were freezing to death and FEMA was nowhere to be found?

Heckuva job there Barry.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Mar 09 - 11:27 AM

I understand there are people out there who are calling this "the Obama recession". lol

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Mar 09 - 12:10 PM

"According to the most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, the percentage of Americans who view the Republican Party positively is at an all-time low. Meanwhile, President Obama's positive rating is at an all-time high, and the Democratic Party's positive rating is near its high.

Why? Because the Republicans have dissolved into a querulous lot of nags and naysayers without a voice, a direction or a clue, and we are not amused.

And who has surfaced as their saviors? Bobby Jindal, Michael Steele and Rush Limbaugh — the axis of drivel.

Let's start with Jindal, who delivered his now-infamous, numbingly rote response to Obama's national address in a kindergarten cadence. He fumbled his facts and sealed his fate. He then scurried off to Disney World to lick his wounds in a place where they appreciate a character and a fairy tale. Goofy. ..."

(NYT)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Mar 09 - 12:26 PM

The GOP's spokespersons are being exceedingly careful. I watched Gov. Pawlenty on the Rachel Maddow show and he tiptoed all around Limbaugh.

It is almost pitiful.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Mar 09 - 02:42 PM

Stage of Fools

By MAUREEN DOWD, Chile Rojo of the New York Times March 3, 2009

.....Before the Senate resoundingly defeated a McCain amendment on Tuesday that would have shorn 9,000 earmarks worth $7.7 billion from the $410 billion spending bill, the Arizona senator twittered lists of offensive bipartisan pork, including:

• $2.1 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in New York.

• $1.7 million for a honey bee factory in Weslaco, Tex.

• $1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa.

• $1 million for Mormon cricket control in Utah.

• $819,000 for catfish genetics research in Alabama.

• $650,000 for beaver management in North Carolina and Mississippi.

• $951,500 for Sustainable Las Vegas.

• $2 million "for the promotion of astronomy" in Hawaii

• $167,000 for the Autry National Center for the American West in Los Angeles.

• $238,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society in Hawaii.

• $200,000 for a tattoo removal violence outreach program to help gang members or others shed visible signs of their past.

• $209,000 to improve blueberry production and efficiency in Georgia.

"When do we turn off the spigots?" Senator McCain said in his cri de coeur on the Senate floor. "Haven't we learned anything? Bills like this jeopardize our future."

In one of his disturbing spells of passivity, President Obama decided not to fight Congress and live up to his own no-earmark pledge from the campaign.

He's been lecturing us on the need to prune away frills while the economy fizzles. He was slated to make a speech on "wasteful spending" on Wednesday.

"You know, there are times where you can afford to redecorate your house and there are times where you need to focus on rebuilding its foundation," he said recently about the "hard choices" we must make. Yet he did not ask Congress to sacrifice and make hard choices; he let it do a lot of frivolous redecorating in its budget.

He reckons he'll need Congress for more ambitious projects, like health care, and when he goes back to wheedle more bailout billions, given that A.I.G. and G.M. and our other corporate protectorates are burning through our money faster than we can print it and borrow it from the ever-more-alarmed Chinese.

Team Obama sounds hollow, chanting that "the status quo is not acceptable," even while conceding that the president is accepting the status quo by signing a budget festooned with pork.

Obama spinners insist it was "a leftover budget." But Iraq was leftover, too, and the president's trying to end that. This is the first pork-filled budget from a new president who promised to go through the budget "line by line" and cut pork.

On "Face the Nation" on Sunday, Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, dismissed the bill as "last year's business," because most of it was written last year.

But given how angry Americans are, watching their future go up in smoke, the bloated bill counts as this year's business.

It includes $38.4 million of earmarks sponsored or co-sponsored by President Obama's labor secretary, Hilda Solis; $109 million Hillary Clinton signed on to; and $31.2 million in earmarks sought by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood with colleagues.

(Even Barack Obama was listed as one of the co-sponsors of a $7.7 million pet project for Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational Institutions until he got his name taken off last week.)

And then there are the 16 earmarks worth $8.5 million that Emanuel put into the bill when he was a congressman, including money for streets in Chicago suburbs and a Chicago planetarium......

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Mar 09 - 03:12 PM

It paiins me, yes, pains me, to see Maureen's taent at roasting turned on Barack so soon.

But we all have a job to do.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ref
Date: 07 Mar 09 - 03:20 PM

You have to hold your nose and let stuff like this go to get bills through Congress. A little research will show you that the consistently worst offenders are Southern Republicans.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Mar 09 - 03:58 PM

Obama campaigned on ending pork.

He said he would got through the budget line by line" and eliminate pork.

This Bill has 9427 pork barrel items and he wants it passed using scare tactics and blame it on the Republicans who want to eliminate the pork.

Yes this is change we can believe in.

How long before the Awakening?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Mar 09 - 04:20 PM

Sawz, do you truly think that the reclamation of our country will be/should be seamless, painless and offend no one? Damn. I do wish that you and those like you would stick out your necks just once and say what you think should be done.

Sadly, you would rather poke sticks.

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

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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:00 PM

That's true, Greg. Earwigs make it hard for politicians to hear.

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: 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 - 05:19 PM

Lang may yer lum reek my dear......:0)

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Greg F.
Date: 17 Mar 09 - 10:06 AM

Good Night, and Good Luck.

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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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 - 11:38 PM

You found that hard to understand???? Figures!

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: 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: 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: 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: akenaton
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 04:37 AM

'Fraid not lads......Mr Obama is attempting to fix a broken system with your money, and in the process land your grandchildren with mountains of tax debt for rest of their lives.

Some day soon the euphoria will clear and people will realise how they are being conned, but in the meantime its the start of Spring, the whins are coming into bloom in Scotland, the daffodils are glorious.....and I'm sure I just heard the first cuckoo!!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 06:47 AM

Hi, Ake! Glad its well in Scotland, and spring is upon you.
As to the euphoria crowd,...Look, I'm NOT a political person.....so, it is actually easier for me to spot utter nonsense, in the political arena, when I hear, or see it,..I have NO political axe to grind. As stated, by me, MANY times, during the campaign, and after, that both sides, are so full of corruption, that it turns my stomach. They say one thing, and do the complete opposite..over and over and over. Why this is not obvious to you, defies gravity, itself. Did, or do, you actually believe Obama, is in charge here?? He's getting his strings pulled, by the same agenda driven corrupt, greedy, power mongering, traitors, that pulled, Bush's, Clinton's, and so on and so forth. I happened to tune into Fox 'News' this evening passed, and watched Hannity, and O'Reilly Factor.....Jeez!, you think I'm critical of Obama??!!??...They are reporting stuff on him, that makes what I say(however proven accurate), look like, ..umm...well, a lot softer(?), than you make my perception, on here, out to be. I stopped even paying attention to MSNBC, because its not even close to the 'news'...so when someone on here quotes them, its just a way of saying, that they are being deliberately stupid, and proud of it! Anyway, I just wanted to clear that up. Fortunately, I had a great education, for which I'm grateful for,....and that being said, come on guys, wake up....our country is getting the crap kicked out of it, and its happening from the top down. All we got is our personal integrity, to get us through, what these so called 'representatives' are dumping on us, and our families, and descendants. Are you going to just sit there, and play with it like 'mental chewing gum' while more and more people all around you are going broke, losing their incomes, homes, and hope, while this bullshit is going on???? I simply can't believe it of you. This 'politically correct' vomit, should have never replaced truth, especially by fellow musicians, and songwriters, who are abdicating their power to think independently, by buying into it! Methinks, that you've listened to too much Britney, and Madonna, and lost the edge of Woody, and Pete..Phil, and Bobby. You are making yourselves irrelevant, and powerless to influence anything, or anyone, with your spouting of the 'party line', at the expense of clear, and independent thinking, and have NOTHING to offer, as to a 'social commentary'....just manufactured from the cesspool of political 'talking points'!! Come on, wake up!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 08:36 AM

Amos: What do you mean by "remarkable upside-down fiscal accomplishment"?


Washington Post March 20, 2009:

Mr. Obama's budget predicted total deficits for the next decade of nearly $7 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office analysis of his plan put the figure at nearly $9.3 trillion, or a third higher.

First it is why quibble over a few Million?

Then it is why quibble over a few Billion?

Next phase is why quibble over a few Trillion?

Will we quibble over a few Quadrillion?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 11:32 AM

Your description of Obama is, I think, very short-sighted, DougR.

I think he's doing a lot of hard work -- these things don't get done by glad-handing.

Maybe you haven't been paying close attention.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 11:49 AM

[Obama] is like Frank Morgan in the Wizard of Oz. Lots of talk and glad handing but really is just a bag of wind.

Difference being Dumbya was,I the Wizard & Shotgun Dick the "man behind the curtain".

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 01:19 PM

"Finally, this budget must reduce that deficit even further. With the fiscal mess we've inherited and the cost of this financial crisis, I've proposed a budget that cuts our deficit in half by the end of my first term. That's why we are scouring every corner of the budget and have proposed $2 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade.

In total, our budget would bring discretionary spending for domestic programs as a share of the economy to its lowest level in nearly half a century. And we will continue making these tough choices in the months and years ahead so that as our economy recovers, we do what we must to bring this deficit down.

I will be discussing each of these principles next week, as Congress takes up the important work of debating this budget. I realize there are those who say these plans are too ambitious to enact. To that I say that the challenges we face are too large to ignore. I didn't come here to pass on our problems to the next President or the next generation - I came here to solve them.

The American people sent us here to get things done, and at this moment of great challenge, they are watching and waiting for us to lead. Let's show them that we are equal to the task before us, and let's pass a budget that puts this nation on the road to lasting prosperity."

Current discussion by Obama on his weekly address. BTW, why didn't Bushieboy speak regularly to the American people? Anyone remember?


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 01:21 PM

I mean, can you find out over which years this deficit was created, and by whom?


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 12:00 AM

6% point spread for Ohbummer

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 12:46 AM

Maria Shriver: Obama Special Olympics 'joke' hurts
The Associated Press

Maria Shriver says President Barack Obama's joke comparing his poor bowling score to that of a Special Olympics athlete was hurtful, although she is sure he didn't mean it that way.

California's first lady issued a statement Friday, a day after the president made the gaffe on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. Obama later called Maria's brother, Special Olympics Chairman Tim Shriver, to apologize.

The siblings' mother, Eunice Kennedy-Shriver, founded the Special Olympics and has championed the rights of the mentally disabled.

Maria Shriver says the reaction to Obama's joke shows there is still more work to do. She says laughing at such comments "hurts millions of people throughout the world."

Shriver, a Democrat, supported Obama's presidential campaign.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 04:52 PM

Amos: you don't have to remind me of what you think of our president. You obviously think he can walk on water. If he does, it's because he knows where the rocks are. Obama is in WAY over his head. As I said, I suspect maybe a committee headed by Rahm Emanuel and populated by such luminaries as Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, and the senior senator from Illinois (I think so little of him I can't even remember his name), is really running things. Obama is just the mouthpiece. Without a teleprompter he has as difficult of a time speaking off the cuff as Bush did.

DougR

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 05:24 PM

Amos: I know you would be interested in what Obama's Presidential Approval Index is. You may have already read this on the Rassmusson.com website though. Perhaps others haven't. Index is calculated as follows: the percentage of respondents polled who strongly approve of Obama less the percentage who strongly disapprove.
His Index rating on January 21, 2009 was +28%. Today it's +4%. It seems America is awaking from it's euphoric environment.

DougR

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 10:29 PM

Venezuela's Chavez calls Obama 'ignorant'
Associated Press

CARACAS, Venezuela – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Sunday called President Barack Obama "ignorant," saying he has a lot to learn about Latin America.

The Venezuelan leader said he had been ready to name a new ambassador in Washington when Obama took office, but put that on hold after the new U.S. president accused him of "exporting terrorism" and being an obstacle to progress in the region.

"At least one could say, 'poor ignorant person,'" Chavez said on his weekly television and radio program, adding that Obama "should read a little bit so that he learns about ... the reality of Latin America."

U.S. National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer declined to comment on Chavez's statements.

Chavez's relations with Washington grew increasingly strained under former President George W. Bush. The Venezuelan president expelled the U.S. ambassador and withdrew his envoy from Washington in September. Top diplomats have yet to be restored at either embassy.

Chavez and Obama both plan to attend a summit of leaders from across the Americas next month in Trinidad and Tobago. There, Chavez said he will make a case for Cuba to be included in regional talks, saying "we can no longer continue to accept the impositions of the U.S. empire."

"We ask only for respect for Venezuela, nothing else," Chavez said. "If Obama respects us, we'll respect him. If Obama tries to keep disrespecting Venezuela, we will confront the U.S. empire."

Chavez said he showed some of the U.S. administration's critical remarks about him to U.S. Rep. William Delahunt when the Massachusetts Democrat visited Caracas last week.

"They keep pointing to me as the bad boy, as the one who attacks," Chavez said. "Who started the attack first? Obama."

But Sawzaw, Hugo was "Tha Man" when he called Bush ignorant.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 11:15 PM

Wow, Sawz--so now you're promoting Chavez' PR stuff? What happened, the right wing get too crazy for ya?



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 11:27 PM

Amos:

You are the most knowledgeable person about the deficit that I know. I think you should explain it to us and compare it to Obama's deficit.

US Budget may triple 2008 deficit record

Agence France-Presse

March 21, 2009

THE US Budget deficit could hit $US1.845 trillion ($A2.7 trillion) this year under the Budget proposed by President Barack Obama, quadrupling the 2008 record shortfall, a new forecast showed.

The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan agency of Congress, said its latest Budget deficit estimate for fiscal 2009, which ends on September 30, would amount to 13.1 per cent of the country's entire economic output.

Since its early January estimate of a $US1.2 trillion ($A1.75 trillion) gap, the CBO said, the enactment of stimulus legislation such as the $US787 billion ($A1.15 trillion) stimulus plan and other measures to revive the economy, and other factors had added more than $US400 billion ($A580 trillion) to deficit projections for 2009 and 2010.

The new projections were based on a sweeping $US3.55 trillion ($A5.2 trillion) multiyear budget proposed by President Barack Obama's administration to Congress in February.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Mar 09 - 03:24 AM

The greatest Obama blunder to date is the upcoming announcment that 1 trillion is going to go towards buying toxic loans.


Nationalising the offending banks for a week is a quicker and chaper solution. Nationalisng like we have done 3 times before, is not as politically friendly to the rich as the toxic buy out plan but it would save 5 years of depression and alot of debt.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 23 Mar 09 - 01:43 PM

I dunno Donuel, the stock market sure liked what you criticize Obama for. it shot up over 300 points after opening today.

It must have helped Obama too, because today (drum roll) his Presidential Approval Rating Index is up a point to +5! Way to go Obama!

DougR

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 23 Mar 09 - 11:15 PM

I finally found out why Obama's Numero Uno Expert on taxes and financial manners, Tim Geithner, is called Turbotax Tim.

Seems like in addition to "accidentally" not paying taxes on the money he earned at the IMF, after signing an affidavit that he understood that had to pay taxes on the money and after getting a guidebook on how to address this tax matter, he tried to claim his kid's summer camp as a business deduction.

He blamed it on not being able to understand Turbotax.

It is idiotic for a person of his "stature" to not employ an accountant do his taxes.

I do and I have never had any trouble. I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer but possibly smarter than this goober.

This is the caliber of crooks and tax cheats that the Obama administration has brought on board to handle the nations business.

Yer doin' a heckuva job there Barry.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Mar 09 - 11:16 PM

Of course the "market" is happy!

When Hedge fund bilionaires are promised that they can buy back US property for 30 to 50 cents on the dollar, with goverment guarantees, their greed party is complete.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Mar 09 - 11:37 PM

Just to prevent the actual record from being wildly distorted, here are Obama's latest approval polls from Real Clear Politics aggregators:

RCP Average        03/09 - 03/22        --        61.2        30.5         +30.7
CBS News        03/20 - 03/22        949 A        64        20         +44
Gallup        03/20 - 03/22        1547 A        65        26         +39
Rasmussen Reports        03/20 - 03/22        1500 LV        56        42         +14
CNN/Opinion Research        03/12 - 03/15        1019 A        64        34         +30
NPR - POS/GQR        03/10 - 03/14        800 LV        59        35         +24
Pew Research        03/09 - 03/12        1308 A        59        26         +33

The approval ratings are 61.2, 64, 65, 56, 64, 59, and 59.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 24 Mar 09 - 01:45 AM

Excuse me, Amos, but you are confusing approval rating's with approval INDEX ratings. I'm sure you know that though.

DougR

P.S. you DO understand the difference, right? If not refer to my earlier definition taken from the Rassmussen Poll.

P.S.S.: I suspect, due to the announcement of the ambitious bailout plan introduced today by the "soon to be gone" Secretary of the Treasury, that Obama's Index rating will increase by another point or two.

DougR

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 09 - 12:35 PM

With Friends Like Pelosi . . .

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, March 24, 2009; Page A13

It is still early, not even two-thirds of the way through the vaunted 100 days, and we are all admonished not to make judgments or dire predictions. Yet enough has been done so that, without fear that history will someday mock me, I can state that Nancy Pelosi is off to one hell of a start. The president, alas, is a different story.

The tale of two political figures was written one day last week when Pelosi went down into the well of the House and pitched the bill to heavily tax the bad people at AIG who received big bonuses. Using the tax code to exact punishment for political reasons is both bad policy and bad law -- why not put gun-shop owners and cigarette manufacturers in the 100 percent bracket? -- but it hurtled through Pelosi's branch of the government with nary a hearing and few discouraging words, and only the mildest suggestion from the president that the bill was really a dumb idea.

The pressure for the legislation was great. In just a day, Charlie Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, went from opposing the idea to introducing the very bill he had earlier denounced. Rangel had all the stock phrases ready -- stuff about shattered dreams and greedy executives, which is all true enough -- but he was right when he first said that the tax code should not be used as a "political weapon." With such an about-face, it's a miracle he did not wind up in traction.


As for Obama, around the time this extremely ill-considered piece of legislation was flying through Congress and Pelosi was waxing very hot indeed on television, the cool president went on the Jay Leno show. His appearance was historic, we were solemnly told, but it also turned out to be useful for him to get out of town. The most toxic asset in Washington was fast becoming Congress, where the Democratic leadership was threatening to send him an awful bill that could be very hard to veto. With friends like these . . .

more

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 09 - 12:37 PM

For Russia, More Than A 'Reset'

By Anne Applebaum
Tuesday, March 24, 2009; Page A13

"Press the reset button." Is there any phrase more enticing in the modern lexicon? We all know what it means: Press the reset button, watch your computer reboot, and presto! A nice, clean screen appears, and you start again from scratch.

Yes, it's a wonderful feeling, pressing that reset button. Unfortunately, it is also a deeply misleading, even vapid, metaphor for diplomatic relations. First deployed by the vice president -- Joe Biden told a security conference in February it was time to "press the reset button" on U.S. relations with Russia -- it was then repeated by the president, who spoke of the need to "reboot" the relationship as well. Earlier this month, Hillary Clinton even presented her counterpart, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, with a red "reset button" to place on his desk. Despite an unfortunate mistranslation (the Russian word on the gift actually meant "overcharge," not "reset") they smiled and pressed the button together for the cameras.

It would be nice, of course, if U.S.-Russia relations really had been frozen as a result of irrelevant technical complications and could begin afresh. Unfortunately, while America may have a new president, Russia does not. And while America may want to make the past vanish -- as a nation, we've never been all that keen on foreigners' histories -- alas, the past cannot be changed. The profound differences in psychology, philosophy and policy that have been the central source of friction between the American and Russian governments for the past decade remain very much in place. Sooner or later, the Obama administration will have to grapple with them.

more

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 09 - 01:05 PM

The Toxic Assets We Elected

By George F. Will
Tuesday, March 24, 2009; Page A13

With the braying of 328 yahoos -- members of the House of Representatives who voted for retroactive and punitive use of the tax code to confiscate the legal earnings of a small, unpopular group -- still reverberating, the Obama administration yesterday invited private-sector investors to become business partners with the capricious and increasingly anti-constitutional government. This latest plan to unfreeze the financial system came almost half a year after Congress shoveled $700 billion into the Troubled Assets Relief Program, $325 billion of which has been spent without purchasing any toxic assets.

TARP funds have, however, semi-purchased, among many other things, two automobile companies (and, last week, some of their parts suppliers), which must amaze Sweden. That unlikely tutor of America regarding capitalist common sense has said, through a Cabinet minister, that the ailing Saab automobile company is on its own: "The Swedish state is not prepared to own car factories."

Another embarrassing auditor of American misgovernment is China, whose premier has rightly noted the unsustainable trajectory of America's high-consumption, low-savings economy. He has also decorously but clearly expressed sensible fears that his country's $1 trillion-plus of dollar-denominated assets might be devalued by America choosing, as banana republics have done, to use inflation for partial repudiation of improvidently incurred debts.

From Mexico, America is receiving needed instruction about fundamental rights and the rule of law. A leading Democrat trying to abolish the right of workers to secret ballots in unionization elections is California's Rep. George Miller who, with 15 other Democrats, in 2001 admonished Mexico: "The secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose." Last year, Mexico's highest court unanimously affirmed for Mexicans the right that Democrats want to strip from Americans.

Congress, with the approval of a president who has waxed censorious about his predecessor's imperious unilateralism in dealing with other nations, has shredded the North American Free Trade Agreement. Congress used the omnibus spending bill to abolish a program that was created as part of a protracted U.S. stall regarding compliance with its obligation to allow Mexican long-haul trucks on U.S. roads. The program, testing the safety of Mexican trucking, became an embarrassment because it found Mexican trucking at least as safe as U.S. trucking. Mexico has resorted to protectionism -- tariffs on many U.S. goods -- in retaliation for Democrats' protection of the Teamsters union.

more

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 24 Mar 09 - 02:48 PM

Today I read something in our local newspaper that I never thought I would see:Thomas Friedman, lefty columnist for the exalted New York Times actually mildly criticized Barak Obama. He didn't mention him by name, but it's pretty apparent who he means. The headline for the story (not written by Friedman of course) is "U.S. needs adult leadership." The whole article is available on line of course at several different sites, but the portion I refer to is:"Right now we have an absence of inspirational leadership."

Friedman goes on to write, "We're in a once-a-century financial crisis, and yet we've actually decended into politics worse than usual. There don't seem to be any adults at the top - nobody acting larger than the moment, nobody being impelled by anthing deeper that the last news cycle. Instead, Congress is slapping together punitive tax laws overnight like some banana republic, our president is getting into trouble cracking jokes on Jay Leno comparing his bowling skills to those of a Special Olympian, and the opposition party's only priority is to deflate President Barak Obama's popularity."

I rarely agree with Friedman but I think he pretty well nails it in this column.

DougR

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Mar 09 - 03:18 PM

"Right now we have an absence of inspirational leadership."

As opposed to the previous eight years, you mean?

Gimmie a fu$king break, will ya?

Oh, ye generation of morons....

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 09 - 03:58 PM

Greg F,

Perhaps you are having problems with reading comprehension:

"Thomas Friedman, lefty columnist for the exalted New York Times actually mildly criticized Barak Obama. ....."Right now we have an absence of inspirational leadership." "

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Mar 09 - 04:49 PM

No, BB, no problem with comprehension- I take issue to Douggies innuendo, tho.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 09 - 04:53 PM

The point is that it is NOT "Douggies". Nor is it Greggies.

It is the published statement of one of those that, when he was critical of Bush, seemed to be raised on high by many here, who now have to decide if he was wrong about Bush, or is right about Obama.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 24 Mar 09 - 05:16 PM

BB: don't confuse Greg F. with facts. It hurts his head.

DougR

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 09 - 05:57 PM

Shesshe!! That takes some brass given the immaturity wqe have suffered under for eight long years, I must say.

Furthermore, this is all smoke and arm-waving. Are therespecific acts of immaturity, or more important, identifiable omissions of maturity you think should be addressed, DougR? Or are you all at sea in the swamp of unspecified opinionation?



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 09 - 05:58 PM

Amos,

Why aren't you asking the person whose word you took about Bush, since HE made the comments?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 09 - 05:59 PM

excuse me...

...Unsupported word...

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Mar 09 - 07:51 PM

Apparently Obama is not merely adopting the Bush toxic buy back scheme but is doing both toxic buy backs and nationalising select firms.

Geither is not calling it nationalising, he is calling it reorganising acquisions. I would call it a Chinese menu aproach.
One from column A and one from column B.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 09 - 08:36 PM

Bruce:

Come down off your Trojan Horse, buddy. I just want to know what he is talking about.

I consider THomas Friedman an intelligent man...


but I think we have to see how this scene untangles. I don't know enough about the interdependencies involved to be able to pass judgement, personally, and while I don't trust any of the executives with vested interests in the bailout, I trust Obama to bring some intelligence to bear on the issue. I don't know enough about his Cabinet members to have an opinion yet.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 01:31 AM

Amos: If you are an admirer of Thomas Friedman (no surprise there), why don't you read the article for yourself. Perhaps I am misinterpreting it. Perhaps he was talking about someone else who is president that I don't know about.

As to "opinionation," you got me there. I know you have a penchant for big words in your posts, but inventing words is something else. I can't help you there.

DougR

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 06:25 AM

"Shesshe!! That takes some brass given the immaturity wqe have suffered under for eight long years, I must say."

"I consider THomas Friedman an intelligent man..."

These statements prove something about your posts...




"but I think we have to see how this scene untangles. I don't know enough about the interdependencies involved to be able to pass judgement, personally, "

Yet you have been passing said judgement.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 06:42 AM

Amos,

"Furthermore, this is all smoke and arm-waving. Are therespecific acts of immaturity, or more important, identifiable omissions of maturity you think should be addressed, DougR? Or are you all at sea in the swamp of unspecified opinionation?"

Sort of like your postings abouty Bush- so, since you never answered questions of this sort, why should he? Are you becoming one of the Bobert Ubermensch, now?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 06:56 AM

"The stakes are too high for Democrats to fear a policy debate. Such debates produce better legislation. On nearly all important votes, a supermajority of 60 senators will be needed to pass legislation. Without Democratic moderates working to find common ground with reasonable Republicans, the president's agenda could well be filibustered into oblivion.

Beyond the chessboard of the Senate, nearly half of the U.S. electorate calls itself moderate, and more than half of the rest identify themselves as conservative. That means Democrats could capture every liberal vote and half of the moderates and still lose at the polls. Many independents voted for President Obama and the contours of his change agenda, but they will not rubber-stamp it. They are wary of ideological solutions and are overwhelmingly pragmatic. Many of them live in our states and in the states of the other senators who have joined our group. "

from this commentary

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 06:59 AM

"Is stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons really like improving health care or advancing the Middle East peace process? I would have thought not. The American (and European) position -- and the position of candidate Obama -- has been that this Iranian regime acquiring nuclear weapons is "unacceptable." If that's so, then there's a deadline, so to speak, to all the incremental efforts. And since, by all accounts, that deadline is fast approaching, there would have to be a certain speed to the hoped-for "steady progress." President Obama seems to evince no sense of urgency about Iran's nuclear program. Did his relaxed statement about Iran tonight suggest he has quietly decided to accept the previously unacceptable?"

from here

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 08:02 AM

""One of AIG's largest Financial Products offices is located in Dodd's home state of Connecticut. President Obama runs a close second to Dodd having received $101,332 in campaign contributions from AIG, according to OpenSecrets.org. As confusing as that appears on the surface, the picture comes more into focus when you note that Dodd is the single recipient of the largest amount of campaign cash from AIG in the 2008 election cycle having received $103,100 in contributions

Suddenly desiring to shun the klieg lights, Dodd told a Fox News reporter off camera that he did not put that language into his own amendment, it must have happened later in conference. Yet a contemporaneous report from Politico in February reports on the Dodd amendment passage and specifically notes the exemption Dodd claims he didn't know was in his own amendment:

"The new rules, introduced by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) mark one of the major concessions Obama made in the last days of wrangling over the stimulus package he is expected to sign into law on Tuesday in Denver. … Additionally, the rules in the stimulus bill apply not only to companies that receive bailout funds in the future, but also to those that have received TARP money in the past -- although executive bonuses doled out in contracts signed before February 11 would not be impacted."

Not a peep from Dodd or his staff at the time objecting to or asking for a retraction for any of the amendment language or information in this high-profile, cap on executive legislation story.

Further, any sort of suggestion that this was done without the knowledge of Democrat leadership or the White House is belied by that news story. No Republicans were allowed to participate in earnest in the "conference" process for the "stimulus" bill. The entire process was secreted by Democrat leadership and the White House, paraded before cameras with the House Republicans sitting at the "conference" table for a photo-op, and followed by Speaker Pelosi shoving it through the full House for a majority vote. No Republicans voted in favor of the legislation. None other than Democrat leadership had been given the time to actually read the bill -- not Republicans, not the public. The Democrats own this scandal outright."

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 09:08 AM

The Real AIG Scandal: It's not the bonuses. It's that AIG's counterparties are getting paid back in full.
By Eliot Spitzer March 17, 2009

Everybody is rushing to condemn AIG's bonuses, but this simple scandal is obscuring the real disgrace at the insurance giant: Why are AIG's counterparties getting paid back in full, to the tune of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars?

For the answer to this question, we need to go back to the very first decision to bail out AIG, made, we are told, by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, then-New York Fed official Timothy Geithner, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke last fall. Post-Lehman's collapse, they feared a systemic failure could be triggered by AIG's inability to pay the counterparties to all the sophisticated instruments AIG had sold. And who were AIG's trading partners? No shock here: Goldman, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, UBS, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Barclays, and on it goes. So now we know for sure what we already surmised: The AIG bailout has been a way to hide an enormous second round of cash to the same group that had received TARP money already.

It all appears, once again, to be the same insiders protecting themselves against sharing the pain and risk of their own bad adventure. The payments to AIG's counterparties are justified with an appeal to the sanctity of contract. If AIG's contracts turned out to be shaky, the theory goes, then the whole edifice of the financial system would collapse.

But wait a moment, aren't we in the midst of reopening contracts all over the place to share the burden of this crisis? From raising taxes—income taxes to sales taxes—to properly reopening labor contracts, we are all being asked to pitch in and carry our share of the burden. Workers around the country are being asked to take pay cuts and accept shorter work weeks so that colleagues won't be laid off. Why can't Wall Street royalty shoulder some of the burden? Why did Goldman have to get back 100 cents on the dollar? Didn't we already give Goldman a $25 billion capital infusion, and aren't they sitting on more than $100 billion in cash? Haven't we been told recently that they are beginning to come back to fiscal stability? If that is so, couldn't they have accepted a discount, and couldn't they have agreed to certain conditions before the AIG dollars—that is, our dollars—flowed?

The appearance that this was all an inside job is overwhelming. AIG was nothing more than a conduit for huge capital flows to the same old suspects, with no reason or explanation.

So here are several questions that should be answered, in public, under oath, to clear the air:

    What was the precise conversation among Bernanke, Geithner, Paulson, and Blankfein that preceded the initial $80 billion grant?

    Was it already known who the counterparties were and what the exposure was for each of the counterparties?

    What did Goldman, and all the other counterparties, know about AIG's financial condition at the time they executed the swaps or other contracts? Had they done adequate due diligence to see whether they were buying real protection? And why shouldn't they bear a percentage of the risk of failure of their own counterparty?

    What is the deeper relationship between Goldman and AIG? Didn't they almost merge a few years ago but did not because Goldman couldn't get its arms around the black box that is AIG? If that is true, why should Goldman get bailed out? After all, they should have known as well as anybody that a big part of AIG's business model was not to pay on insurance it had issued.

    Why weren't the counterparties immediately and fully disclosed?

Failure to answer these questions will feed the populist rage that is metastasizing very quickly. And it will raise basic questions about the competence of those who are supposedly guiding this economic policy.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 09:22 AM

Bonuses for Freddie and Fannie Fat Cats

Fannie Mae reported a loss of $58.7 billion for 2008 and has requested another $15.2 billion from the U.S. Treasury. Freddie Mac reported a loss of $50.1 billion for 2008, and has requested an additional $30.8 billion from the U.S. Treasury.

According to a report in USA Today, "In securities filings, Freddie said it will pay a retention award of $1.5 million to Executive Vice President Michael Perlman by March 2010. Perlman, whose base salary is $500,000, already collected $300,000 of his bonus. Interim CFO David Kellermann will get an $850,000 bonus, and Senior Vice President Michael May will get $700,000."

Top Two Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions:

Christopher Dodd.....$165,400         
Barack Obama.........$126,349

Top Two Recipients of AIG Campaign Contributions:
Obama, Barack      $104,332
Dodd, Chris            $103,900

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 11:30 AM

EU presidency: US economic plans 'a road to hell'
         

AP – Raf Casert, Associated Press Writer – 56 mins ago

STRASBOURG, France – The president of the European Union on Wednesday slammed U.S. plans to spend its way out of recession as "a road to hell."

Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, whose country currently holds the rotating EU presidency, told the European Parliament that President Barack Obama's massive stimulus package and banking bailout "will undermine the liquidity of the global financial market."

A day after his government collapsed because of a parliamentary vote of no-confidence, Topolanek took the EU presidency on a collision course with Washington over how to deal with the global economic recession.

The blunt comments pushed other European politicians into damage control mode, with some reproaching the Czech leader for his language and others reaffirming their good diplomatic ties with the U.S.

Most European leaders say the focus should be on tighter financial regulation, while the U.S. is pushing for larger economic stimulus plans — but nobody has so far escalated the rhetoric to such strident levels.

Topolanek's words are the strongest criticism so far from a European leader as the 27-nation bloc bristles from recent U.S. criticism that it is not spending enough to stimulate demand.

They also pave the way for a stormy summit next week in London between leaders of the Group of 20 industrialized countries.

more here

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 02:31 PM

Well, it appears even the Democrats in Congress are growing a bit leery of Obama's fantasy figures in the budget he presented to that body. They are making sensible slashes in spending and reduction of taxers and we may end up with a budget that makes more sense. I believe this is primarily based on the growth figures the Obama administration projected to justify the big budget increases. Growth figures that even the majority in Congress find unreasonable.

DougR

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 03:33 PM

Commentary: Obama a one-term president?

Story Highlights
Alex Castellanos: President criticizes AIG bonuses made legal by his stimulus bill

He says President Obama blaming George W. Bush, Wall Street for all economic ills

Castellanos: Obama's spending plans will lead to enormous debt

He says Obama's plans could sink House Democrats and make him a one-termer

By Alex Castellanos
CNN Contributor

(CNN) -- Things I learned Tuesday night from President Obama's press conference:

Obama and congressional Democrats are angry that greedy Wall Street executives took $165 million in bonuses that the president and congressional Democrats gave them.

We have made them give it back, but they have to keep the trillion-dollar bailout.

Apparently, our education system is worse than we thought. Neither the president nor Democrats in Congress actually read the bailout-bonus bill.

Per-family household debt more than doubled from 1989 to 2007, going from $42,000 per family to $97,000 per family, in inflation-adjusted dollars. Most of it, 85 cents of every dollar, is home equity or mortgage debt. This is not the consumer's fault for borrowing it, nor Congress' fault for legislating it, nor the Fed's fault for enabling it, nor Fannie Mae's or Freddie Mac's fault for packaging it. This is all Wall Street's fault.

It is also all George W. Bush's fault.

If there were an inheritance tax on problems, Obama could pay off any deficit.

Taxpayers living next to a toxic waste dump is a bad idea. Taxpayers buying a trillion dollars worth of toxic assets is good idea.

Taxpayers borrowing a trillion dollars to buy those toxic assets is an even better idea. Though it is still Bush's fault.

Obama isn't on the ballot next year, but Democrats in Congress are. You can make money betting they will lose more than 25 seats, but not as much money as by purchasing toxic assets with taxpayer dollars.

The problem with America's economy is that the last bubble, the "home-mortgage, derivative, credit default swap bubble" popped, as all economic bubbles eventually do. We must never let that happen again.

It is imperative that we re-inflate this bubble immediately.

If we all loan a lot of money we don't have to each other, we will all be more prosperous.

An Obama press conference offers hope to everyone. Both those who want to drive the deficit up and drive it down receive encouragement.

A dollar when given to failed auto companies or hollow banks has great stimulative value for the economy, but there's almost no dampening cost to the economy when the dollar is taken from taxpayers, who will have to pay our debt back.

If he does not drive the deficit down, within this decade, interest on the Obama debt will total more than a trillion dollars a year.

Bush was laughed at for saying, "Yes, we are getting the job done. It's hard work," though it's OK for Obama to say only hard decisions reach his desk.

Enhanced border security was a bad idea when Sen. John McCain and Republicans proposed it but a good idea now that Obama is for it.

Trickle-down economics from Republicans got us into this mess. Trickle-down government from Democrats will get us out of it.

Washington was doing such a great job making things work before the meltdown that we should give it more to do, like running health care, the energy industry, banks, Wall Street and the car business.

Our economy is so complex that millions of Americans can't plan for it, but Timothy Geithner and a couple of other smart guys in Washington can.

Political greed is more noble than corporate greed.

We have to short-change charities that help people, so government can help people.

Wall Street and the U.S. government are too big to fail though the American taxpayer isn't.

The Barack Obama experiment, conducted by this 47-year old man, is the riskiest economic wager the world has ever seen.

Next year, when this experiment in European-style socialism isn't working, the Democrats up for re-election will panic and make the spending this year look like an appetizer. To appear responsible, they then will raise taxes on "upper-income taxpayers" to the stratosphere, paralyzing investment and the economy.

Obama's communications gifts are powerful and poetic -- but round-the-clock campaigning on "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno," "60 Minutes" and this press conference won't save bad policy. Nothing kills a bad product quicker than good advertising.

Obama has never built a business, created real wealth or produced tangible prosperity. His understanding of our economy is theoretical and academic.

Obama is a privileged young man who has not yet made many mistakes in his life. Having a president who belongs to the Harvard elite and the community-organizer streets is not the same as having a president who has lived a long life among middle-class Americans and understands them.

Impatience lies not deep beneath the surface of Obama. There is no shortage of self-confidence in this young man. It is a short step from such confidence to arrogance.

Arrogance in a politician is not healthy. Hubris, combined with inexperience, can be fatal. Obama could be a one-term president.

Obama is looking a little older. There would be nothing wrong with acting like it.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 04:34 PM

Amos,

I posted this at the time, but it was ignored. Want to look at the names now, and tell me about how you trust Obama?

_-------------------------------------------------------
Big Donors Among Obama's Grass Roots
'Bundlers' Have a Voice in Campaign

By Matthew Mosk and Alec MacGillis
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, April 11, 2008; A01

Sen. Barack Obama credits his presidential campaign with creating a "parallel public financing system" built on a wave of modest donations from homemakers and high school teachers. Small givers, he said at a fundraiser this week, "will have as much access and influence over the course and direction of our campaign that has traditionally been reserved for the wealthy and the powerful."

But those with wealth and power also have played a critical role in creating Obama's record-breaking fundraising machine, and their generosity has earned them a prominent voice in shaping his campaign. Seventy-nine "bundlers," five of them billionaires, have tapped their personal networks to raise at least $200,000 each. They have helped the campaign recruit more than 27,000 donors to write checks for $2,300, the maximum allowed. Donors who have given more than $200 account for about half of Obama's total haul, which stands at nearly $240 million.

Obama's success in assembling bundlers offers another perspective on a campaign that promotes itself as a grass-roots effort. While the senator from Illinois has had unprecedented success generating small donations, many made online, the work of bundlers first signaled the seriousness of his candidacy a year ago and will be crucial as he heads into the final Democratic primaries with a lead against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.).

The bundler list also sheds light on those who might seek to influence an Obama White House. It includes traditional Democratic givers -- Hollywood, trial lawyers and Wall Street -- and newcomers such as young hedge fund executives, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, Chicago-based developers and members of the black business elite. One-third had never contributed to a presidential campaign, much less raised money.

The list includes partners from 18 top law firms, 21 Wall Street executives and power brokers from Fortune 500 companies. California is the top source, with 19 bundlers. Both Illinois and Washington, D.C., have six, and five hail from New York.

Among the group are businessmen such as Kenneth Griffin, a famously private 39-year-old billionaire who threw his support behind Obama's presidential campaign just as he hired a team of lobbyists to urge Congress to preserve a lucrative tax loophole.

A year ago, Griffin invited Obama to speak to employees of his Chicago hedge fund, Citadel Investment Group, and in subsequent months, employees and their families gave the candidate nearly $200,000. Griffin had previously backed Republicans, including Obama's initial U.S. Senate opponent.

Obama resisted Citadel's lobbying push, but a hedge fund executive who knows Griffin said he suspects Griffin's continued support owes to more than a desire to sway the senator on the tax issue. "Ken's a smart guy, and I guess he's done the math and decided that Barack is the best candidate," said Daniel Loeb, the chief executive of Third Point Management in New York.

Several on Obama's list at least appear to have interests in conflict with his platform. There is the billionaire casino developer who plans to put a slot parlor in Philadelphia; Obama has decried gambling for its steep "moral and social cost." And there is the director of General Dynamics, the military supplier that has seen profits soar since the onset of the Iraq war and that has benefited from at least one Obama earmark.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 04:43 PM

"I trust Obama to bring some intelligence to bear on the issue..."


                But where would it come from?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 04:44 PM

What the fuck is this!....the Republican backlash??

Your man McCain was well stuffed at the election by a cartoon politician...get used to it!
Most people who use their brains for thinkin' with know what Obama is underneath all the hype.....a band aid for the stinkin' system.

That doesn't let you fuckers off the hook. The financial sector went down on your watch and it's taking most of the Western world with it.
You have no right to bitch at anyone, the last thing on earth that you want is a different kind of society and without systemic change there can be no change at all.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 04:51 PM

"What the fuck is this!....the Republican backlash??"

No, not at all. As the liberals did during the Bush administration, we are only pointing out the clay feet of their god.


If they don't like it, they can just vote Republican next time, so that THEY can complain...

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 11:54 PM

..but doing it in the best Republican style--vindictively and exaggeratedly, in the belief that bitterness is a fine rook, and the merit of play is only in the winning.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 08:40 AM

..but doing it in the best AMOS style--vindictively and exaggeratedly, in the belief that bitterness is a fine rook, and the merit of play is only in the winning.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 03:17 PM

n the Bush administration, the Office of Legal Counsel gave a green light to many objectionable policies, from a lawless expansion of executive power to the use of torture. President Obama has nominated Dawn Johnsen to lead the office, but her nomination is being attacked by Republican senators who still prefer the Bush approach. Ms. Johnsen is superbly qualified and has fought for just the sort of change the office needs. The Senate should confirm her without further delay.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
Times Topics: Dawn E. Johnsen

The Office of Legal Counsel is little known to the public, but it plays an important role in guiding national policy. As the legal adviser to the executive branch, it informs the White House and the agencies about what the law requires — and what it prohibits. The office was thrust into the limelight a few years ago when word leaked out of an O.L.C. torture memo that cleared the way for horrific forms of interrogation.

Ms. Johnsen, a law professor at Indiana University, spent five years in the office under President Bill Clinton, including a stint as its acting chief. In response to the abuses of the Bush years, she joined in a much-needed statement of principles, signed by 19 former lawyers from the office. It called for the office to be more transparent and to show greater respect for Congress and the courts.

Republican senators' harsh criticism of the nomination is groundless. They have questioned Ms. Johnsen's commitment to fighting terrorism, but their main complaint seems to be her opposition to torture and to extreme views on presidential power. Her critics are outraged that early in her career, Ms. Johnsen worked for an abortion-rights advocacy group, but her views on abortion are hardly unusual.

Senator John Cornyn, a Republican of Texas, has made the bizarre accusation that despite her impressive legal record, Ms. Johnsen has not demonstrated the "requisite seriousness" for the job. It is an odd charge coming from someone who was a staunch defender of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, to whom that description actually applied.

Ms. Johnsen made it through the Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote, and there is talk that Republicans may try to filibuster her nomination. That would be an outrage. There is no corner of the executive branch in greater need of a new direction than the Office of Legal Counsel. The impressive Ms. Johnsen is an excellent choice to provide it. (NYT Editorial)

---

Can you spell "obstructionism"???? SUUUURE you can!!!!



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 05:05 PM

BB:

I have mentioned this before, but when you take my expressions, which are original with me, and try to make points by throwing them back at me, you end up looking puerile and slightly at a loss for words, as well as discourteous in the extreme because I have asked you several times not to steal my writing and you choose to ignore that. I just want to call your attention to the fact that ir makes you sound something like a grade-school lad in a recess mob.

In other news:

" In a lighthearted moment, the president said that the White House had received many questions about the potential economic upside of legalizing marijuana. Obama did not display any of the questions, but he did briefly address the topic.Video Watch Obama say legalizing marijuana 'not a good strategy' »

"This was a fairly popular question. ... I don't know what this says about the online audience," the president joked. "No, I don't think this is a good strategy to grow our economy." (CNN)

Sommeone better tell Bobert. I just hope West Virginia doesn't try to secede over this.



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 10:40 PM

Rahm Emanuel's profitable stint at bailed out mortgage giant.
      Rahm Emanuel. was named to the Freddie Mac board in February 2000 by Clinton, whom Emanuel had served as White House political director and vocal defender during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky scandals. The board met no more than six times a year. Unlike most fellow directors, Emanuel was not assigned to any of the board's working committees, according to company proxy statements. Immediately upon joining the board, Emanuel and other new directors qualified for $380,000 in stock and options plus a $20,000 annual fee, records indicate.
      On Emanuel's watch, the board was told by executives of a plan to use accounting tricks to mislead shareholders about outsize profits the government-chartered firm was then reaping from risky investments. The goal was to push earnings onto the books in future years, ensuring that Freddie Mac would appear profitable on paper for years to come and helping maximize annual bonuses for company brass. The accounting scandal wasn't the only one that brewed during Emanuel's tenure. During his brief time on the board, the company hatched a plan to enhance its political muscle. That scheme, also reviewed by the board, led to a record $3.8 million fine from the Federal Election Commission for illegally using corporate resources to host fundraisers for politicians. Emanuel was the beneficiary of one of those parties after he left the board and ran in 2002 for a seat in Congress from the North Side of Chicago.
      The board was throttled for its acquiescence to the accounting manipulation in a 2003 report by Armando Falcon Jr., head of a federal oversight agency for Freddie Mac. The scandal forced Freddie Mac to restate $5 billion in earnings and pay $585 million in fines and legal settlements. It also foreshadowed even harder times at the firm. Many of those same risky investment practices tied to the accounting scandal eventually brought the firm to the brink of insolvency and led to its seizure last year by the Bush administration, which pledged to inject up to $100 billion in new capital to keep the firm afloat. The Obama administration has doubled that commitment.
      Freddie Mac reported recently that it lost $50 billion in 2008. It so far has tapped $14 billion of the government's guarantee and said it soon will need an additional $30 billion to keep operating. Like its larger government-chartered cousin Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac was created by Congress to promote home ownership, though both are private corporations with shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange. The two firms hold stakes in half the nation's residential mortgages. Because of Freddie Mac's federal charter, the board in Emanuel's day was a hybrid of directors elected by shareholders and those appointed by the president.
      In his final year in office, Clinton tapped three close pals: Emanuel, Washington lobbyist and golfing partner James Free, and Harold Ickes, a former White House aide instrumental in securing the election of Hillary Clinton to the U.S. Senate. Free's appointment was good for four months, and Ickes' only three months. Falcon, director of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, found that presidential appointees played no "meaningful role" in overseeing the company and recommended that their positions be eliminated.
John Coffee, a law professor and expert on corporate governance at Columbia University, said the financial crisis at Freddie Mac was years in the making and fueled by chronically weak oversight by the firm's directors. The presence of presidential appointees on the board didn't help, he added.
      "You know there was a patronage system and these people were only going to serve a short time," Coffee said. "That's why [they] get the stock upfront." Financial disclosure statements that are required of U.S. House members show Emanuel made at least $320,000 from his time at Freddie Mac. Two years after leaving the firm, Emanuel reported an additional sale of Freddie Mac stock worth between $100,001 and $250,000. The document did not detail whether he profited from the sale. Sarah Feinberg, a spokeswoman for Emanuel, said there was no conflict between his stint at Freddie Mac and Obama's vow to restore confidence in financial institutions and the executives who run them. At the same time, Feinberg said Emanuel now agrees that presidential appointees to the Freddie Mac board "are unnecessary and don't have long enough terms to make a difference." Former President George W. Bush voluntarily stopped making such appointments following Falcon's assessment of their uselessness.
      In an interview, Falcon said the Freddie Mac board did most of its work in committees. Yet proxy statements that detailed committee assignments showed none for Emanuel, Free or Ickes during the time they served in 2000 or 2001. Most other directors carried two committee assignments each. Contrary to the proxy statements, Feinberg said she believed that Emanuel served on board committees that oversaw Freddie Mac's investment strategies and mortgage purchase activities. But Feinberg acknowledged she had no official documents to back up that assertion. The Obama administration rejected a Tribune request under the Freedom of Information Act to review Freddie Mac board minutes and correspondence during Emanuel's time as a director. The documents, obtained by Falcon for his investigation, were "commercial information" exempt from disclosure, according to a lawyer for the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
      Emanuel's board term expired in May 2001, and soon after he launched his Democratic congressional bid. One of Emanuel's fellow directors at Freddie Mac was Neil Hartigan, the former Illinois attorney general. Hartigan said Emanuel's primary contribution was explaining to others on the board how to play the levers of power. He was respected on the board for his understanding of "the dynamics of the legislative process and the executive branch at senior levels," Hartigan recalled. "I wouldn't say he was outspoken. What he was, was solid."
      By the time Emanuel joined Freddie Mac, the company had begun to loosen lending standards and buy riskier sub-prime loans. It was a practice that later blew up and contributed to the current foreclosure crisis. In his investigation, Falcon concluded that the board of directors on which Emanuel sat was so pliant that Freddie Mac's managers easily were able to massage company ledgers. They manipulated bookkeeping to smooth out volatility, perpetuating Freddie Mac's industry reputation as "Steady Freddie," a reliable producer of earnings growth. Wall Street liked what it saw, Freddie Mac's stock value soared and top executives collected their bonuses.
      Another focus of Freddie during Emanuel's day—and one that played to his skill set—was a stepped-up effort to combat congressional demands for more regulation.
During a September 2000 board meeting—midway through Emanuel's 14-month term—Freddie Mac lobbyist R. Mitchell Delk laid out a strategy titled "Political Risk Management" aimed at influencing lawmakers and blunting pressure in Congress for more regulation. Through Delk's initiative, Freddie Mac sponsored more than 80 fundraisers that raised at least $1.7 million for congressional candidates despite a federal law that bans corporations from direct political activity.
Emanuel spokeswoman Sarah Feinberg said Emanuel "can't remember the meeting or topic" but might have been in attendance when Delk outlined his plans. Feinberg downplayed the significance of the fundraiser thrown for Emanuel, which brought in $7,000, stressing that it was but one of many hosted by Delk. The event stood out in at least one respect, however.
      The Freddie Mac-linked events were mostly for Republicans, and only a handful benefited Democrats like Emanuel. "Rahm was a good friend of mine. He was on Freddie Mac's board. He was very much supportive of housing," said Delk, who resigned under pressure in 2004.Then-Freddie Mac CEO Leland Brendsel also hosted a fundraising lunch for Emanuel's 2002 campaign that netted $9,500 from top company executives. Brendsel was later ousted in the accounting scandal.
      Federal campaign records show that Emanuel received $25,000 from donors with ties to Freddie Mac in the 2002 campaign cycle, more than twice the amount collected that election by any other candidate for the U.S. House or Senate.Emanuel joined the House in January 2003 and was named to the Financial Services Committee, where he also sat on the subcommittee that directly oversaw Freddie Mac. A few months later, Freddie Mac Chief Executive Officer Leland Brendsel was forced out, and the committee and subcommittee launched hearings to sort out the mess, spanning more than a year. Emanuel skipped every hearing, congressional records indicate.
      Feinberg said Emanuel recused himself "from deliberations related to Freddie Mac to avoid even the appearance of favoritism, impropriety or a conflict of interest."

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 07:08 AM

Amos,

And I am just pointing out that your comments apply to your own distortions. Why do you think you have some superiour status? Who died and made you God?

Isn't one Ubermensch here enough?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 07:20 AM

"The goal of socialism is communism" -Vladimir Lenin

Just think of all the 'new progressive freedoms' you can all look forward to!..Like China has, and the USSR enjoyed! ..And all the wonderful support for folk music, and openness to all the different musics of the world, and unblocked new websites you can go to!! All the 'uncensored' new things you can all lavish in! And all the new things you can think up, and express, to anyone, anytime. This new administration is going to bring all those wonderful things to us! I can hardly wait!..and just think,..if you write a new song, or piece of literature, as long as the state approves it, they will also own it! Can't you just anticipate how wonderful that will be?!?! They will even tell you were you can work, and what you'll be allowed to do, so you won't have to waste all that time on the internet out of boredom, too! What a wonderful world it will be!!..and the immigration problem will go away too, because no one will be fleeing here, anymore..oh goody!..and just think, the song 'Kumbayah' won't be sung anymore, because of its antiquated religious overtones! ..and women won't have to worry about being fat anymore...because there won't be that much 'extra' food to stuff their faces with!..and men, won't be getting loaded all the time, unless its some cheap crap made from potatoes, hidden away in their cellars. And there will be housing for everyone!!!...they will even house those who criticize and oppose them, even house them together, in large camps, so they can frolic together, and not argue. I could go on and on...but i guess I won't have to!!..You already know this and are working so hard to promote it! Keep up the great work....comrades!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 08:40 AM

Well use your own goddamned words to do it, you surly poltroon. What I am asking for is common decency, and you are snarling like a rabid sewer-rat.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 08:51 AM

Sorry, Amos,

I take my lead from your comments, and when I see some common decency there about something you dislike, I will try to emulate you. Until then, I guess you will have to suffer what you made those who disagreed with you suffer through.

And ad hominem attacks just lead us to think you have no support for your viewpoint.

Try attacking the content of what I say, and not me personnally. You might even find that you learn something, by addressing facts instead of attacking people.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 09:39 AM

Amos, that's a hell of an insult to rats.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 10:22 AM

Commentary: Obama is flunking economics

By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Special to CNN
   
SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- Welcome to March Madness on the Potomac.

Many Americans are so emotionally invested in the Obama presidency that they consider it too historic to fail.

They won't tolerate any criticism of the president or his administration, finding it easier to simply attack critics. And whatever goes wrong that they can't defend or deflect, they just blame on George W. Bush.

But to many of the rest of us, it's clear that President Obama is flunking economics. He is trying to do too much at once, and so he is not doing any of it well. He vows to cut the federal deficit while proposing an avalanche of new spending that will -- says the Congressional Budget Office -- increase it by as much as $9.3 trillion over the next decade.

Here's the really bad news, though. No matter what else goes awry, Obama's strong suits are supposed to be communications and marketing. Yet, this week we learned that this isn't the case when he has to communicate and market his message on economics.

It doesn't help matters much that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner seems too small for his chair. When he needs to inspire confidence, Geithner does the opposite. Whenever he speaks and comes up short on specifics, the Dow plummets. And when that happens, the Obama supporters don't care and insist that Wall Street is part of the problem and thus can't recognize the solution.

This week, after learning of the Treasury Department's plan to help banks unload so-called toxic assets, the market bounced back a bit. And now the Obama supporters are singing a different tune.

But here's the big question: When Wall Street smiles on a government bailout, is it a good or bad thing for average Americans? It depends on how much is being given away and who has to pay the bill.

This much is indisputable: The administration's economic plan is so sweeping, and our financial situation so precarious, that the administration needs nothing less than a master salesman for its economic agenda. Clearly, Geithner isn't up to the job. The sooner he steps aside, the better it will be for the administration.

According to the pundits, Obama is supposed to pick up the slack and seal the deals that Geithner can't seem to close. However, anyone who tuned into this week's press conference has to wonder whether the president hasn't lost his touch. The popular narrative from conservatives -- that Obama stumbles when he is off the teleprompter -- is becoming more believable.

When asked by a reporter about whether his budget would blow up the deficit and stick future generations with the bill, Obama got defensive and turned his answer into a slam against Republicans and then obfuscated his way through the rest of the question.

When CNN's Ed Henry asked the president why it took him so long to publicly condemn the more than $150 million in AIG bonuses, as opposed to New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo who turned the issue into a national outrage, Obama appeared to take a swipe at Cuomo, a fellow Democrat, by saying: "I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak."

Or maybe it's just that Obama realized that his administration wasn't guilt-free in the AIG debacle. There are many unanswered questions. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, told CNN last week that someone at the Treasury Department told him to put in the language in the bailout bill allowing for executive bonuses.

If he's telling the truth (and really who knows, given that CNN caught Dodd being untruthful on the subject earlier) we need to know who in the Obama administration ordered the loophole. And that person needs to be removed.

This week's news conference wasn't exactly Obama's finest hour. Still, it wasn't as bad as making a mocking reference to the Special Olympics on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" or joking about the recession on CBS' "60 Minutes."

How is it possible that someone who was so likeable and so inspiring while running for president could, day by day, be so unlikable and so uninspiring as president?

It's become more common for people to say that they want President Obama to fail. I don't want him to fail. I want him to succeed. I just don't see how we get there from here.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 10:44 AM

Wow! For years, the only time you heard from Ruben Navarrette Jr. was when he was banging the drum for illegal immigrant rights. It seems like he's moved on from there. Or maybe illegal immigrants have given up on Obama already as well.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 02:33 PM

In Banking, Emanuel Made Money and Connections
New York Times December 3, 2008
      In late 1998, while Washington was in the throes of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Rahm Emanuel, a departing senior political aide to President Bill Clinton, ventured out to an elegant restaurant in Dupont Circle for something of a job interview. John Simpson, who ran the Chicago office of the investment banking boutique Wasserstein Perella & Company, had flown to Washington to meet with Mr. Emanuel at the behest of Mr. Simpson’s boss, Bruce Wasserstein, a major Democratic donor and renowned Wall Street dealmaker who had gotten to know Mr. Emanuel. "I had this idea that this could work and that it had upside," said Mr. Wasserstein, now chairman and chief executive of Lazard, the investment bank. It worked out better than I could have hoped.â€쳌 And better than Mr. Emanuel could have imagined as well. Over the course of a three-hour-plus dinner, Mr. Simpson and Mr. Emanuel discussed how they might work together. Shortly afterward, Mr. Emanuel accepted an offer, nudging him down what has by now become a well-trodden gilded path out of politics and into the lucrative world of business.
      Mr. Emanuel, who was chosen last month to become President-elect Barack Obama’s White House chief of staff, went on to make more than $18 million in just two-and-a-half years, turning many of his contacts in his substantial political Rolodex into paying clients and directing his negotiating prowess and trademark intensity to mergers and acquisitions. He also benefited from the opportune sale of Wasserstein Perella to a German bank, helping him to an unusually large payout. The period before he was elected to a House seat from Illinois is a little-known episode of Mr. Emanuel’s biography. Former colleagues said the insight it afforded him on the financial services sector is invaluable especially now. But Mr. Emanuel built up strong ties with an industry now at the heart of the economic crisis, one that will be girding for a pitched lobbying battle next year as the incoming Democratic administration considers a potentially sweeping regulatory overhaul.
      After Mr. Emanuel left banking to run for Congress, members of the securities and investment industry became his biggest backers, donating more than $1.5 million to his campaigns dating back to 2002, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Mr. Emanuel also leaned heavily upon the industry while he was chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee during the 2006 midterm elections. Financial industry donors contributed more than $5.8 million to the committee, behind only retirees. Friends of Mr. Emanuel’s from his private-sector days said he still checks in with them regularly to plumb their insights on economic issues. "He asks me what am I seeing, what business is like, what’s the climate, where are the weak spots," said John A. Canning Jr., chairman of Madison Dearborn Partners, a Chicago private equity firm that is in the same building as Wasserstein’s offices.
      Mr. Canning was one of many financial executives Mr. Emanuel met with soon after he left the White House to discuss job prospects, with Mr. Emanuel’s political connections often opening doors. Mr. Canning agreed to sit down with Mr. Emanuel at the recommendation of several friends, including Stanley S. Shuman, an investment banker at Allen & Company and a major Democratic donor who once stayed in the Lincoln Bedroom at the White House as a guest of President Clinton’s. Mr. Canning could not offer him a job, but Mr. Emanuel came to pitch deals to him and they became friends. Employees of that particular firm became Mr. Emanuel’s biggest financial supporters in Congress, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
      When the House was weighing a measure last year to significantly increase the tax rate on profits earned by private equity firms, Mr. Canning said Mr. Emanuel attended a luncheon with Madison Dearborn executives, first reported by Bloomberg News, to listen to their arguments against the changes.
Mr. Emanuel, however, wound up joining other Democrats in voting for the measure. In an interview, Mr. Emanuel, pointed to other actions he had taken over the objections of the financial industry, including sponsoring a bill last year to curb the ability of hedge fund managers to defer paying taxes on compensation they stashed in offshore tax havens and another measure that imposed new reporting requirements on financial firms for what investors pay on stocks and mutual funds.
      "I would say I’ve been as tough on my friends as others," Mr. Emanuel said. "I call it like I see it." Confidants of Mr. Emanuel’s said he decided to try his hand at business because he wanted financial security for his family, before eventually returning to public service. " He had a number in his head to make enough for the family," said Ezekiel J. Emanuel, one of Rahm’s two brothers and a prominent bioethicist at the National Institutes of Health. It was Morton L. Janklow, the literary agent for several former presidents, who introduced Mr. Emanuel to Mr. Wasserstein. Erskine B. Bowles, the White House chief of staff and a former investment banker, also said he recommended Mr. Emanuel. Mr. Emanuel met in Mr. Wasserstein in his New York office, where they had a wide-ranging discussion about the future of financial regulation, as well as Mr. Emanuel’s plans.
      Jeffrey A. Rosen, now deputy chairman of Lazard and a former managing director of Wasserstein Perella’s international practice, said Mr. Emanuel was "both a developed and a raw talent.â€쳌 "His years in the White House and what he’d done before that really honed what I’d call deal-making instincts, which could be easily translated into the business arena," Mr. Rosen said. "Plus, he was someone who was well connected in Chicago and highly respected." Mr. Emanuel turned out to be an effective banker, proving a quick study with financial concepts, even as he relied on others in his office for heavy number crunching, former colleagues said. He worked 12-hour days and was known among clients for his relentlessness, constantly on the phone or sending e-mail, and being unafraid to pitch deals. Revenue in Wasserstein’s Chicago office climbed significantly after his arrival.
      There is no evidence Mr. Emanuel used his political clout on behalf of his clients, but his connections certainly helped drum up business and contributed to his hiring, former colleagues said. Indeed, a partial list of clients from Mr. Emanuel’s Congressional financial disclosure in 2002 is easily linked up to the various strands of his political career, including his time as a fund-raiser for Mayor Richard M. Daley of Chicago and then for Mr. Clinton’s first presidential run. The clients included Loral Space & Communications, run by Bernard L. Schwartz, one of the Democratic Party’s biggest donors, who said he got to know Mr. Emanuel while he was in the White House; the Chicago Board Options Exchange, whose chairman and chief executive, William J. Brodsky, became friends with Mr. Emanuel while he was working for Mayor Daley; and Avolar, a business aviation company whose top executive, Stuart I. Oran, was formerly in charge of governmental affairs for United Airlines, a role in which he said he interacted with Mr. Emanuel at the White House.
      One of Mr. Emanuel’s major deals was the purchase in 2001 of a home alarm business, SecurityLink, from SBC Communications, the telecommunications company that was run by William M. Daley, the former secretary of commerce in the Clinton administration and the brother of Chicago’s mayor. Mr. Emanuel represented GTCR Golder Rauner, a Chicago private equity firm that was buying the business for an affiliate. Bruce Rauner, the firm’s chairman, had first met Mr. Emanuel when he was still exploring job prospects in Chicago after getting a call from Mr. Bowles, an old friend. Instead of private equity, Mr. Rauner advised Mr. Emanuel to pursue investment banking, where his political experience might be more valuable in landing deals in regulated industries.
      Mr. Emanuel called him back after starting at Wasserstein and asked if he could take over coverage of GTCR for his new employer. That eventually led to the nearly $500 million SecurityLink deal. Mr. Emanuel’s biggest transaction came in late 1999 when he landed an advisory role for Wasserstein in the $8.2 billion merger of two utility companies, Unicom, the parent company of Commonwealth Edison, and Peco Energy, to create Exelon, now one of the nation’s largest power companies. John W. Rowe, the former chief executive of Unicom who now holds the same position at Exelon, sought out Mr. Emanuel after he went to Wasserstein. Mr. Rowe said he believed Mr. Emanuel would offer a different dimension, providing wisdom on what might pass muster at the governmental level.
      "You can’t understand utility transactions without thinking about whether they’ll play or not play in legal and political circles," said Mr. Rowe, who was first introduced to Mr. Emanuel by Lester Crown, the billionaire scion of Chicago’s influential Crown family. Tax returns Mr. Emanuel released while first running for office and reported in news articles, along with Congressional financial disclosures, reveal his steep financial ascent while working at Wasserstein. He earned more than $900,000 in 1999, his first year at the firm; nearly $1.4 million in 2000; and $6.5 million in 2001, when he left the firm in midyear to run for Congress. He collected $9.7 million more from the firm in deferred compensation in 2002.
      Mr. Emanuel’s annual salary was not especially large but his hefty paydays came from bonuses for the business he brought in, as is customary in investment banking, along with the company’s sale in 2001 to the German Dresdner Bank, which allowed him to benefit from an equity stake, as well a large retention bonus paid to him based on his prior performance. The bonanza Mr. Emanuel reaped would come in handy when he ran for the House seat vacated by Representative Rod R. Blagojevich, now governor. Mr. Emanuel contributed $450,000 out of his own pocket to his campaign in the primary, and his leading rival accused him of trying to buy a seat in Congress.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 02:34 PM

Bruce:

As far as I am concerned, you are non grata if you insist on justifying this bad habit of yours. And I think I am within my rights to label your ill-mannered conduct as surly and poltroonish if it is; you have personally earned it. Furthermore, when you use my language to assert your obsessibe rationalization against me, without bringing any sense of differentiation or distinction to bear on the issues, you are already setting the framework as having nothing to do with issues, since you reduce the dialogue to playground-level mockery.

You have made the point that you did not like my frequent forwarding of reports about Bush's inadequacies, idiocies, and criminality, and I am sorry if I stepped on your toes. If you cannot see why he was a bad leader for this nation, despite all the reports both in the Bush threads and since then, then your nose for competency, decency and straight-forward thinking is badly bent.

As far as the critics' attitudes toward the Obama efforts to repair the Bush catastrophe, I can not make an informed judgment. I see a lot of hypotheticals and dire predictions being used as rhetorical devices, but few actual data points being offered. Like Bush, Obama is wading into a very tricky situation and using the best judgement he can make. Unlike Bush he is not resorting to insane violence or cronyism, is not performing in secret, and is not hiding either is decisions or his rationale from the people it will effect.
These things alone make him a better leader, let alone the difference in character. That's my perspective. The actual roll-out of our economic future seems to me to be something we will have to watch as it happens, as I see no-one in all the critical noise who seems qualified or able to offer a fact-based critique combined with pro-active suggestions for improvement.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 02:53 PM

Amos,

"Unlike Bush he is not resorting to insane violence or cronyism, is not performing in secret, and is not hiding either is decisions or his rationale from the people it will effect."

I do not think the violence that Bush "resorted " to was insane- if it had been Clinton, he would have sent over cruise missiles before even talking to the UN ( BAsed on Clinton's actions while president).

As for cronyism, I see far more in the present administration than was in the Bush one. Obama made great promises about having the legislation available for all to see for 48 hours before votes- then pushed votes through when even congresscritters had not had the chance to read what they were voting on. How long will you claim that the problems are "all Bush's fault" when the Obama administration is taking suc major actions, whithout either accountability or oversight?

You said you would be as observant of Obama as you were of Bush- but I cannot see that- EVERY criticsm of Obama is met with a blanket denial, regardless of the facts.

If in acting half as adversarial to Obama as you were to Bush is something you find to be objectionable, why do you think that those who disagree with you were NOT supposed to find YOUR efforts to be offensive?

You "can not make an informed judgment. (you) see a lot of hypotheticals and dire predictions being used as rhetorical devices, but few actual data points being offered. "

Sort of like what we saw in much ( not all, but much) of your comments about Bush.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 03:11 PM

Which proposal are you referring to where you assert that President Obama "then pushed votes through when even congresscritters had not had the chance to read what they were voting on."??

As for your hypothetical scenario about Bill Clinton, let me suggest you have no basis for comparison, first of all, and second of all even with such a base, no grounds fro making the extrapolation you have made as a probable response. Third of all, it is conceivable that if such a course of action had occurred--a well placed cruise missile taking out Saddam pere et fils at a critical moment--the nation would have had a much less bloodthirsty path to reconstruction.

But this is just an example of armwaving hypotheticals being used as a substitute for data. It has no rational bearing on the situation.

As for your question of when it becomes Obama's economy rather than Bush's catastrophe, certainly not in the first 100 days, given the inertial mass of the beast. I don't have a fair answer--I am in no wise an economist. Maybe the right answer is when you get over the offense you felt I perpetrated on you with my long threads on the Bush Administration. You do know the day will come when you have to let go of that upset, don't you?


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 03:17 PM

Amos,

Are you claiming that Clinton did not launch a cruise missile against what turned out to be an aspirin factory in Afghanistan? He was getting a lot of political pressure for having been caught in lying to Congress and the grand Jury, and was trying to take some heat off.

You know, lying under oath ( unlike Bush, who even you admit was NOT under oath when you claim he lied ( that "impeachable" offense you keep convicting him of, without trial or examination of the evidence))

And do you know that you will have to give up blaming Bush for the state of affairs in this country SOMETIME before Obama runs for re-election, right????

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Acorn4
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 03:36 PM

Does Bob the Builder write Obama's speeches for him:-

"Can we fix it?"
"Yes we can!"

Sorry, it's all getting a bit bitter and thought a lighter note might be a change.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 04:33 PM

Obama: Anti-terror plans focus on Pakistan, Afghanistan

Story Highlights
Intelligence shows al Qaeda planning attacks on U.S., President Obama says

Part of Afghan strategy is $1.5 billion annually for five years in aid for Pakistan

U.S. to send 4,000 more troops to Afghanistan as well as 17,000 announced earlier

Hundreds of civilian specialists also to be deployed

   
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- More troops, new legislation, improved troop training and added civilian expertise highlight President Obama's strategy to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Obama on Friday announced his plan to tackle what he called an "international security challenge of the highest order."

Stressing soberly that "the safety of people around the world is at stake," Obama said the "situation is increasingly perilous" in the region in and around Afghanistan, where the United States has been fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban for more than 7½ years after attacks in New York and at the Pentagon.

"The United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan. Nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on September 11, 2001, for doing nothing more than going about their daily lives," said Obama, who has vowed to make Afghanistan the central front in the fight against terrorism.

"So let me be clear: Al Qaeda and its allies -- the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks -- are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the U.S. homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan.

"And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban -- or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged -- that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can."

more

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 04:43 PM

No, I am not. Extrapolating a probable hypothetical course of action from one instance is scarcely reliable thinking, in my opinion. As for your question of when it becomes Obama's economy rather than Bush's catastrophe, certainly not in the first 100 days, given the inertial mass of the beast. I don't have a fair answer--I am in no wise an economist.

And let me just add that if you see no difference in moral dimension between Clinton covering up a blow job and Bush covering up a national wreckage job, I can only shake my tired head sadly.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 04:57 PM

"I am in no wise an economist."

If you were you would be blasting Obama and Bush would be a distant memory like Clintoon.

Ignorance is Bliss.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Mar 09 - 10:40 AM

They won't tolerate any criticism of the president or his administration, finding it easier to simply attack critics.

Ruben is apparently confused; he's describing the BuShite tactics of Rove, Limblagh, Cheney, et. al.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 09 - 01:27 PM

Swzawl:

You have made it clear you are not one, either.

Your predisposition to pass severe judgement on subjects about which you know nothing is unbecoming. I suppose, though, that my own is also.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 09 - 02:11 PM

"ECONOMY -- REPORT: OBAMA'S BUDGET WILL HELP SMALL BUSINESSES: A common attack refrain by conservatives on President Obama's budget proposal is that tax increases will hurt small businesses. Beginning in 2011, Obama's plan would slightly increase taxes on households earning more than $250,000 and individuals earning over $200,000. In defending the Republican's alternative budget proposal that offers a large tax cut to businesses, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) said, "Republicans know that raising taxes on small businesses will only result in more workers losing their jobs." However, a new study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities finds that "under the Clinton Administration, when the tax treatment of high-income families was very similar to what President Obama has proposed, small businesses generated jobs at twice the rate as under the Bush tax code."

During the Clinton years, small businesses generated 756,000 new jobs, versus only 367,000 new jobs under the tax conditions set by Bush, which Republicans seek to replicate. Further, "more small business owners would receive tax cuts" under Obama's plan because they do not fall into the $250,000-plus tax bracket. "Most small business owners aren't in the top two marginal tax rates," said Benjamin Harris of the Tax Policy Center. "In my opinion, there's some misunderstanding in these political debates that the people who'll be affected are middle-income Americans who run mom-and-pop stores."

(The Progressive)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Mar 09 - 11:39 PM

Amos, I don't think quoting a source 'The Progressive' is going to be a fair source to quote, being as it is so far left, it might be a foul ball, and no play is called. However, that being said, I've noticed something for a long time, which has even spread it's tentacles, even on to here..and that is, the 'presses' all seem to be polarized, to the left or the right...such as 'Fox' to 'MSNBC', and so on and so forth. Depending on who we watch, will support our slant, as it does the rest of the country. It's done subtly, through which stories they carry, which ones they don't, and even down to tone inflections, as to how, 'indignant', or 'hopeful',..or whatever we are 'supposed' to be and feel, by the time we listen,..(or read), their slant on the 'news' being reported. Rarely , if ever, do we get the whole story, as it is to ALL the facts! Could all this be a DISTRACTION, to the reality that is, and HAS been going on. This bailout thing, started during GWB's term, and carried right through to Obama's. We now find out that Geithner was the architect of the first, under GWB, and now the rest, as well. The war policy was the same way. GWB announces a pullout, and withdrawal, and reinforcement, to Afganistan, and a distancing alliance with Pakistan, and sure as God made little green apples, Obama is doing just that....(hold on, gotta check the oven)......(ok, back)....Geithner is back, now as Treasurer, the policies are virtually the same, but now under a different face, and further along, at what very much looks like, not a different agenda, but an agenda moved further along, possibly the very same agenda. Such as Poppa Bush, advanced the idea, and term ' New World Order', and now its just progressed, to where Obama is 'considering' a global currency, allegedly based on what the Chinese, and Russians, 'suggested'. The only 'Change', I can detect at this point, is that the countries, (and not just this one), are now even more polarized, people split, angry, 'helpless'(?), and 'pre-informed', as to where it is going. To effect any massive Change out of our form of government, based on the Constitution, the country MUST be divided, to achieve their goals. Could it be that a huge portion of this, is nothing more that high level 'street theater', when all of it is blatantly stupid? Did you happen to see Geithner's expressions on his face, while Michelle Bachmann, questioned him on the legality of his actions, and policies, before the hearings? If not, I'm sure Youtube, or somewhere, you can find it. He was ANNOYED, PUZZLED, AND TOTALLY OBLIVIOUS, to what she was asking him, and if you look at his face, rather surprised, as to the relevance, to it all. These people, from the last few administrations done give a rat's ass about the Constitution! GWB's Presidential orders, are clear evidence of that, and so are Obama's! It is ONLY AN ILLUSION, given to us, that there is a difference...The only 'Change' is that the whole country is at odds with each other, such as seen by you, DougR, Sawzaw Bruce, Greg, and the rest!(I just covered the ones on this page.) I'm willing to bet, that if we all sat down together, broke out the instruments, and played our asses off, nobody would give a flying fuck, about these issues. What makes that reality different than the rest of the time we spend,...thinking of 'righteous division'?? Very few, in Washington are concerned with preserving our freedoms, and our well being...just who, or what controls the money, and who is going to be controller of the people...and honestly, does any one on here, need to be controlled????......and if so, be whom, other than your own self determination. Folks, they are trying to deceive this country, as to the real thing going on...all their 'benefactors' are the same people!!!! All the bailout recipients got their money, and left the auditorium....before this became such a controversial issue, in regards to the bonuses. Am I wrong?? Uh-Uhh!...But go ahead and keep arguing(therefore, doing nothing)...but keep one eye open,..and watch this coming to fruition, as I posted before..."The goal of socialism is communism" -Vladimir Lenin .(Refer to my earlier post). I think most all on here are sincere, but also, sincerely deceived, and because of it, sincerely wrong! Yes, you are all right, in your sides, but it takes two sides to make sense of the whole.
Warmest Regards, to all of you..........................(even you, Amos)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 12:30 AM

"The goal of socialism is communism"

Obama is not a socialist in the sense that Lenin was using the wqord, and he is surely not a communist.

Regardless, he does believe in a compassionate intervention to reduce the bloodletting in an untrammeled capitalist structure. I think a reasonable intervention is necessary because of the power-concentration inherent in the capitalist system. I think it needs to be minimalized so as not to breed an excess of Federalism. But it needs to exist to preserve the minimum necessary democracy.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 01:02 AM

That silent post may be the first of yours that I have fully agreed with, GfS!!


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 01:28 AM

Jeez!, messed up my 'entering' twice..(hit the wrong key)

You think???? and how do you know that??..and how do you know that what he is feeling, is 'compassion'?? It seems 'interesting' that Timmy 'tax cheat', said that, 'it would be a shame to waste a good crisis'??..sounds more like exploitation to me, doesn't it?...and as far as Lenin's statement, could it be, that we are clearing the first hurdle, of getting to a global socialist society first, to get to the final goal??...a global totalitarian state..call it what you want..but, who would you rather be controlled by??..a capitalist?..a socialist?..a Nazi?, a communist?...a Muslim??...etc, etc...OR, the freedom of being CONTROLLED by anyone?...except yourself, and the freedom to exercise, your will, and aspirations, without any outside 'supervision', 'regulation', or 'prohibitions'?? These lousy lots of politicians, past and present, are so full of shit, corrupt, paid off, that they are just doing the bidding of their puppet masters! Do you feel like you are being 'represented', or being sold on liking, and accepting the very limited choices, they present?
Now, I'm only asking questions, that I think we all need to ask ourselves....but they are certainly worth asking...then, ask yourselves, 'Are the things they are proposing, furthering to the agenda of freedom, and self determination, or are they offering us a flawed solution, to a problem, that the last flawed 'solution' and irresponsibility, gave us...which by the way, was also 'Constitution bending'? Look up Machiavellian principle! (Nixon was a master of it!)
Anyway, think about it with an open mind. This doesn't only apply to Amos, btw,....think deep into it...GWB was also doing the same thing..as was Clinton, Carter, Reagan, to a degree...Poppa Bush, all the same thing. Pelosi? Frank? Dodd?..all of them, so full of shit, I don't see how they could sit in the same room, without contaminating it! Cheney? Rove?? Rohm Emmanuel??, Geithner?? Newt??..who?? Paulsen??..a in veritable rogues gallery of traitors, and crooks! Obama has already been caught in so many lies, instead of his nose growing, like Pinocchio, I think his ears are getting so big, he could fly!..and you know its true, as utterly sad, that it is. Just who of this lot can you TRUST!???.....Actually, I trust YOUR sincerity, far more than theirs.....don't you??
Regards!
GfS

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 12:22 PM

"A shame to waste a good crisi9s" has nothing to do with exploitation, silly. It is a humorous phrase reflecting a truth--that when a system crumbles, it's a good opportunity to do a deep overhaul rather than just prop and patch it up. I think it's a smart observation, not a sneer. YMMV, because one thing is for sure: where there's room for interpretation, each of us brings our own filters and prejudgements to bear to erect our own misasma of half-truths.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 12:58 PM

"Without an investigation, the reform effort will be at best, hit or miss, and at worst, a charade. Congress should start now to gear up for an investigation, using as its model the 1930s Pecora inquiry into the stock market crash, or the Watergate hearings of the 1970s. The investigation should not be performed by outside experts, like the 9/11 commission, whose report Congress is free to accept or reject. It should be part of the Congressional process and include an investigator with subpoena power and the right to participate in the questioning of witnesses, as well as to prep lawmakers for the hearings.

A real investigation might serve as a channel for the public anger now used by politicians to score quick populist points on television without tackling the real issues.

Who is to carry out the reforms? Any serious call for reform has to acknowledge the severe institutional damage that has been done to the nation's regulatory agencies. For 30 years, the political tide in this country has run against regulation and for deregulation. In the last 10 years, opponents of financial regulation have been especially successful in dismantling and undermining regulation — putting their faith and the nation's future in the hands of a market discipline that turned out not to exist and can't-miss financial products that missed, big.

There is not an agency that has not suffered a diminution of expertise or reputation.

Recent examples include the Federal Reserve's repeated failures to use its consumer-protection authority to stop unfair mortgage lending; the Securities and Exchange Commission's failure to heed repeated warnings about the Madoff Ponzi scheme; the efforts by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, a bank regulator, to block state regulators' efforts to police lending violations; and the utter failure of the Office of Thrift Supervision, A.I.G's federal regulator, to understand — or, even worse, care about — what was going on at that company.

Unfortunately, there are many, many more examples. Advocates of deregulation point to the failures as evidence that the government has no intrinsic ability to police markets. That is incorrect. The nation's regulatory agencies have been allowed to languish, underfunded, understaffed — and too often headed by political appointees who are true believers only in the dogma of deregulation and not in their agencies' missions.

If the United States is going to have meaningful reform of its out-of-control financial system, new rules will only be a first step." NYT

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 01:36 PM

..a humorous phrase??...Well, I suppose you took it that way. If it was supposed to be funny, who's laughing?..(Another failed attempt by 'Timmy Tax Cheat'?? I think it probably best, if you stopped making excuses for their exceedingly poor judgments, and ineptness...and look at it clearly!. I find nothing humorous about having our next generation 'enslaved' by the deficit debt, that these destructive clowns are conjuring up, 'allegedly' trying to 'cure' the effects from, yet, another set and series, of lowest common denominator, of intelligence coupled with greed and control. Personally, I think that high crimes were committed, on Wall Street and in Washington, but because of political payoffs, these rat scumbags, will probably go Scot free..just like Mark Rich..(remember him?)..another forerunner, of what we are seeing now!..Besides, how is the Obama administration, (or any other, for that reason) going to make any of us a better anything?? This is not about us, it's all about them..their slight of hand, their greed, their 'power',.. and need for adulation!! Stop giving it to them..and get into the quality of person you can achieve..without these psychic vampires!!!!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 01:44 PM

and P.S. ..you pulled out just one phrase to comment on..what about the rest of the FACTS???? Why do you always skip over them?? Most far left loonies do..they bang on the 'emotional' hot topics, and avoid the meat of the facts. They avoid logic, and common sense, and harp on some emotional crap associated with the 'ideological' side, which has very little to do with substance?? Get real! There is probably a wonderful person in there, that is hiding behind someone else's bull crap. For Pete's sake, these are scumbag lawyers turned politician, and greedy pieces of shit business swindlers you are making excuses for!..Wake up!!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 01:48 PM

I can't hear you clearly when your arms wave that fast, lass. Your sweeping assertions of opinion-as-fact just don't give me anything to hang an understanding on. My opinion of Obama is pretty well-recorded--he seems to me to be intelligent, well-informed, and trying to make a positive difference in the way the Federal government works--not a change "in us", except possibly to stimulate a bit more responsibility for the larger well-being of the country as a whole. I don't know how effective that will be, since we are so wrapped up in semantics and local pressures, but it is an honest effort, anyway.

You speak as though you have certain specific information of duplicity and corruption, in an Administration that hasn't even finished its first quarter. I am not privy to that kind of information and you seem reluctant to share specifics. Too bad, because it doesn't leave a lot of bandwidth for communication.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 02:01 PM

Well recorded????..Who? The guy typing his answers, as what to lie, and tell the public on his teleprompter?? Hiring a tax cheat to run the treasury?? One third of his appointees are tax cheats?? Hiring lobbyists, on his cabinet, after sounding so noble, assuring us that wouldn't happen??..HEY, pal, get real, ok?? Lying as to the bailout dates and knowledge of who knew what when???? They are pandering to the lowest common denominator of intelligence of the public!! Are you telling us, that that is why you embrace that jerk so much??

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 02:52 PM

...and another P.S. ..Stop your whining! Address the FACTS!!! PERHAPS YOU'D LIKE TO RATIONALIZE RUNNING UP A 10 TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS, FOR STARTERS! ...in just your first quarter...as they say in Chicago, "You've been chumped!"

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 06:46 PM

Uh- what about the LARGER deficit run up over the LAST 8 years....

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 06:49 PM

Look it up..Obama has run up a higher budget, than ALL the presidents from Washington to Bush, combined! True story...look it up!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 07:38 PM

Here, Greg, this is 3 days old...

Thursday, March 26, 2009

The Republicans' Budget   [David Freddoso]

"It spends too much. It taxes too much. It borrows too much."

Someone, somewhere, must have a poll that shows voters react to this particular formula. I have heard dozens of Republicans use precisely those words in describing President Obama's massive budget proposal, and probably many more have as well.

More than a few conservatives wish that the Republicans had thought of this line in 2005 or 2006. But that doesn't mean they are wrong to use it now. Obama's budget, a $3.6 trillion version of which passed the House last night, is simply gargantuan by historical standards. The president's budget accumulates as much debt as did the first 43 presidents combined. The deficit for each and every year is larger than any of the deficits that President Bush ran when he had a docile Republican Congress, as Democrats complained loudly that those relatively small deficits endangered our future.

Obama's annual deficits for the next decade add up to a staggering $9.3 trillion, for a total debt greater than $23 trillion by 2019. That includes the savings brought about by withdrawing from Iraq. The president talks about including the Iraq War in his budget as a more honest way of presenting costs. It's really a clever way of masking, in part, the size of the new spending that will replace the disappearing costs of war.

In about an hour, Republicans will present their alternative budget on Capitol Hill. As President Obama pointed out in his news conference on Tuesday night, the Republican alternative will have to deal with many of the same realities that make the Obama budget so large — particularly the trillions of dollars committed in the form of long-term entitlements.

In a few minutes, I'll post a summary of Republicans' plans based on the materials they have distributed. They will be adding more details and answering reporters' questions later this morning.

03/26 10:52 AMShare

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 10:16 PM

Mr. Freddoso has had a bug up his ass about Obama since before he was elected. He made up his mind back in August 2008 or before.

try again

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 11:16 PM

Well, if you want it in depth..there's this:....
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1424

Don't or didn't know whomever the other writer was, or what bug existed where..but this is from the Center of Budget Policies

I hope this will suffice, but just in case you wanted to know..the cable news media has been reporting it for the last couple of days.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 11:47 PM

The piece cited above was last updated in 2004 and is a reflection of the fiscal polciies of the President in 2004-2005, whoever that was.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 01:05 AM

http://vitalsignsblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/obamas-budget-adds-more-to-national.html

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 08:53 AM

Blog as reality. Right.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 09:02 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/03/21/GR2009032100104.html

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beeardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 09:05 AM

Amos, Greg F.

In cas you missed it on the clickey-

"SOURCE: CBO, White House Office of Management and Budget | The Washington Post - March 21, 2009"

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: TIA
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 09:39 AM

Look at the "Actual" numbers on that graph. Can we spare a little of the outrage for those?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 09:42 AM

Only if you spare proportional outrage when the Obama numbers become actual.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: TIA
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 10:08 AM

In the words of Everlast "You know where it ends, yo, it usually depends on where you start..."

Are Bush and Obama starting at the same spot?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 10:50 AM

No. Obama campaigned on NOT having a deficit.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 10:55 AM

"Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan

Restore Fiscal Discipline to Washington

Reinstate PAYGO Rules: Obama and Biden believe that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue.

Reverse Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy: Obama and Biden will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but they will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers.

Cut Pork Barrel Spending: Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks. Obama and Biden believe that spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified. Obama and Biden will slash earmarks to no greater than year 1994 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public.

Make Government Spending More Accountable and Efficient: Obama and Biden will ensure that federal contracts over $25,000 are competitively bid. Obama and Biden will also increase the efficiency of government programs through better use of technology, stronger management that demands accountability and by leveraging the government's high-volume purchasing power to get lower prices.

End Wasteful Government Spending: Obama and Biden will stop funding wasteful, obsolete federal government programs that make no financial sense. Obama and Biden have called for an end to subsidies for oil and gas companies that are enjoying record profits, as well as the elimination of subsidies to the private student loan industry which has repeatedly used unethical business practices. Obama and Biden will also tackle wasteful spending in the Medicare program. "


http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: TIA
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 11:25 AM

And George Bush campaigned on...

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."

{October 11, 2000}

I can play internet gotcha with anyone.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 12:52 PM

Tia, For once you're right! Obama's agenda is just an extension of Bush's. Both have been lying to the country!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 01:14 PM

Well, GfS, so have you, for that matter. Do you have specifics in mind?


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 01:16 PM

Amos: You know nothing but you disparage me, claiming I know nothing.

Even your ignorance is superior to the supposed ignorance of others.

I am merely agreeing with you and explaining why you are not alarmed.

Typical of your logic or lack thereof.

National Debt as per the US Treasury:

09/29/2000......$5,674,178,209,886.86
09/29/2008......$9,945,578,231,981.59
03/26/2009.....$11,046,247,657,049.48

Up $1.1 trillion in 6 months

Now we have an idiot (or tax cheat) that can't figure out how to file income taxes correctly, is in charge of the IRS.

The same person that was in on the decision to bail out AIG and preserve their bonus payments is trying to figure out how to damage control for that disaster.


In Crucible of Crisis, Paulson, Bernanke & Geithner Forge a Committee of Three

By David Cho and Neil Irwin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 19, 2008; Page A01

Global stocks have experienced wild fluctuations this week in the wake of the U.S. government's seizure of insurance giant American International Group, the failure of Lehman Brothers, the disappearance of Merrill Lynch as an independent company and reports the U.S. government will set up a government entity to take on bad debts from financial institutions.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 01:19 PM

Bullshit! Amos!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 01:44 PM

You guys are just full of conclusions and opinions aimed at disparaging the new President, based on a lot of scarey opinions from others, and I am not buying it. SOmehow the wonderful extravagances of our unwarranted and murderous expedition to Iraq are blessed and forgotten. The fact that trillions of the current deficit is to salvage organizations that went criminal and dragged the national economy into the sewer during the Bush years is ignored. But the plan to invest in productive areas of infrastructure, energy restructuring, transport modernization, and other areas which produce long-term growth and employment for widely beneficial results somehow seems wasteful to you. I think you may be built upside down.

I am not asserting that this is the wisest plan possible--it would be foolish of me or anyone to say so without providing a wiser one. If you have particular ideas that would be a better path to reversing the national decline, by all means let's hear about it!!

IF you do not have specifics and suggestions, then QYB.



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 02:03 PM

You are so full of it!...I asked you repeatedly, to address the FACTS that I posted...instead you picked out one phrase, from Lenin, to give your interpretation of what you thought he might have meant...AND AVOIDED ADDRESSING THE FACTS! You do this all the fucking time! So scroll down re-read the other posts, and address them, or STFU! I'm getting quite convinced that the reason you don't, and have such a blind love for this guy, is because it resembles more of a homosexual attraction you have to him, rather than taking an objective look at his policies, and the deficits he is running up, and the economic chaos that will be the result. PUT YOU BRAIN BEFORE YOUR 'POLITICS'! Btw Zogby now has him at 49%...so it sounds like I'm not alone. That is a tremendous drop, in that short of time...But, let's not get off on that...ADDRESS THE FACTS!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 02:33 PM

..and GregF, in the link I posted was a link to the New York Times, article......lazy!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 03:08 PM

Look, fellas: the economy started into a slump, a collapse of a house of cards, late in Bush's term as large numbers of screwy, unethical manipulations began to come home to roost. These criminal schemes were the direct outcome of the atmosphere of laissez-faire and deregulation which began with ROnald Reagan, and multiplied into madness under GWB. But the point is not how this catastophic economic situation came about; to hell with that. The point is that you are in no position to act surprised that remedying the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression is a very expensive task. It would be cheaper, probably, to put a bunch of bandaids and then ride your term out in the interim calm, until the underlying flaws re-asserted themselves.   It is far more responsible, if more expensive, to face up to the WHOLE problem and try to redesign our systems of management so that we cure the situation at the root instead of at the leaf.

Them's the fax, ma'am.

I would like to know specifically what it is Obama seems to be doing that he should not. Gradual back off in Iraq? Focusing on key factors in Afghanistan?    Seeking to shift our energy economy toward renewables? SHifting the tax profile to reduce the burden on middle class incomes? Get going on projects that create jobs to end the breadline atmosphere? What do you think he should not be doing he is, or do that he is not?

As for your other crap, GfS, I am not even going to dignify it, it is so full of wild-eyed impossibles. Suggest you find a small square of reality and settle down on it.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 03:55 PM

The reason you can't 'dignify' it is because you use that subterfuge, to steer away from answering it at all!!! ..because you can't. Nice try! Obama is invading all sorts of areas into our personal lives and business, that the Federal government has no business in....unconstitutional,(remember that??..the supreme law of the land??? And GWB is out of office, we already know he was another disaster. Two wrongs don't make a right! If he (Obama)persists, maybe you should call him up, and have him adjust your butt plug!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 04:17 PM

"All kinds of areas....". What a mindless generalization. How about figuring out, in the quiet of your own bed, what it is that is bothering you specifically, then, and stating as much. You keep waving your arms like that, you know, you're likely to fly off the edge of the world. And THEN where would you be?


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 04:32 PM

Another character slam..why don't you just answer the questions? Bailouts? Taking over private businesses. hiring tax evaders? pork barrel spending he said he would go through to insure there would be NONE! Hiring lobbyists, when he lied about that too. Signing bill he claims now, he didn't even read. Lying about who knew what when, about the bailout. Hiring Libby to 'replace' the head of AIG, AFTER THE BAILOUT, then taking aim at him, and the CEO's, for bonuses, when they weren't even there, before the bailout. Making a big deal over the bonuses, when the pork in the bill he signed was far larger. Voiding personal contracts, within businesses, beyond his authority, under the constitution. Refusing to let Geithner resign, or take his resignation....is that a foreshadowing of what he has for us???..This guys is trying to be a fucking dictator, pal...and you just let it slide, because you swoon over how 'cute' he is! Now, if you don't address the issues, then you are just too full of shit to even bother with!..and try to steer away from party line propaganda talking points...and by the way, your supposed 'interpretation' of Lenin's Quote, 'The goal of socialism is communism', is equally full of shit! The cracks in your whole rap are beginning to be all too apparent, and just too full of holes. IT AIN'T WORKING, COWBOY!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: TIA
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 04:43 PM

Yes, we certainly are hearing a lot of "party line propaganda talking points."

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 05:39 PM

On Feb. 26, President Obama delivered an ambitious $3.6 billion budget that would "finance vast new investments in health care, energy independence and education by raising taxes on the oil and gas industry, hedge fund managers, multinational corporations and nearly 3 million of the nation's top earners." Obama acknowledged that the proposal would "add to our deficits in the short term to provide immediate relief to families and get our economy moving," but he said that these investments had been put off for too long and could not face more delays. Republicans immediately attacked the plan. "The era of big government is back, and Democrats are asking you to pay for it," said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH). "The administration's plan, I think, is a job killer, plain and simple." When a recent National Journal poll asked how Congress should "respond to the recent deficit projections," zero percent of Republican lawmakers said that Congress should pass "something close to President Obama's budget." So what is their alternative? As the AP summarized, it's "a glossy pamphlet short on detail and long on campaign-style talking points."

THE GLOSSY PAMPHLET: Last week, reporters excitedly gathered for a GOP press conference where House leaders said they would announce their alternative to Obama's budget. The proposal that GOP leaders presented, however, was a huge disappointment; basically, it was nothing more than a "brochure." Annoyed at being summoned for this non-event, reporters quizzed Boehner on specifics of the plan: "Are you going to have any further details on this today?" "What about some numbers? What about the out-year deficit? What about balancing the budget?" Reporting on MSNBC, host Contessa Brewer exclaimed, "Give me some substance!" The GOP "budget," in fact, contains almost no numbers -- except where they criticize the Obama administration's figures. The few ideas their plan does have include undoing the economic recovery package (which would be hard to do since some of the money is already out the door), and lowering the 35 percent, 33 percent, and 28 percent income tax brackets to 25 percent (regressive cuts that would gut government revenue). According to a Citizens for Tax Justice analysis, more than a quarter of all taxpayers -- mostly low-income families -- would pay more in taxes under this plan than they would under Obama's. On the other hand, "the richest one percent of taxpayers would pay $100,000 less, on average, under the House GOP plan." Additionally, although Republicans claim to be so concerned about the rising deficit, their income tax proposals "would cost over $300 billion more than the Obama income tax cuts in 2011 alone." "The party of 'no' has become the party of no new ideas," quipped White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs in response to the GOP proposal.

TAX WINDFALL FOR CORPORATE EXECUTIVES: According to the Republican leadership, the reason that lawmakers didn't release numbers last week is because they intend to do so this week. "The numbers will come next week with a multi-hundred page piece of legislation" that Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is currently drafting, Boehner's office told First Read. Ryan's bill will still likely be short on new, deficit-cutting ideas though. As the Wonk Room's Pat Garofalo has noted, his plan "consists almost entirely of massive tax cuts for corporations and the rich," including lowering the top marginal tax rate to 25 percent, lowering the corporate tax rate to 25 percent, and completely eliminating the capital gains tax. Not only are these tax cuts regressive, but they will result in significant lost government revenue. According to a Center for American Progress Action Fund analysis, Ryan's plan gives the average CEO a $1.5 million tax break, while doing nothing for minimum wage workers.

THE RECONCILIATION HYPOCRISY: Republicans are also standing firm against allowing Obama to use the reconciliation process to pass key parts of his budget, such as health care and energy reform. This 25-year-old procedure "allows for the passage of a budget by a simple majority vote rather than the usual 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster." Republican senators have said that they are prepared to go "nuclear" -- essentially shutting down the Senate through the use of parliamentary maneuvers -- if budget reconciliation is pursued. Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) compared reconciliation to "an act of violence" against the GOP. However, Republicans employed the same procedure to pass major Bush agenda items, including the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, and the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005. In fact, in 2005, Gregg defended using the reconciliation procedure, arguing, "The president asked for it, and we're trying to do what the president asked for."

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 05:45 PM

What private businesses has he taken over?

This whole list you offer of "specifics" is a lot of context-free hogwash,, as far as I am concerned. Ignore the context and turn it into a handful of radioactive bullets, and use them as suppositories and start screaming. Do you have a reasoned and complete statement to make on any of these points? Sheeshe. Never mind the rest of your bizarre polemic.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 06:06 PM

ok, that's a lot better...but(always a 'but')..I agree with you on the Republicats stuff, being short on numbers(they are not exempt from being deceitful assholes, either), we'll see what they have. How about, the other lying, about lobbyists in his cabinet, and 1/3 of his appointees being tax cheats, and all the pork that he promised would not go through his bill signing, firing the CEO of GM, and threatening taking over private corporations,,that were NOT part of the bailouts? ..But, I'll say, that your response was a tad bit better than your earlier posts...just for that, and keeping with your global vision...I'll give you a link, to warm your heart.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAqj9NVsjf4

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 07:46 PM

And the CEO of GM gets a 20 million dollar pay off, just for leaving. That's the kind of shit that pisses people off!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 08:24 PM

Here's one solution.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 10:26 PM

"NEW YORK (Reuters) - Some frustrated taxpayers cheered President Barack Obama's tough steps to shore up the reeling auto industry on Monday but critics called his decision to fire General Motors' chief a heavy-handed power grab.

Obama forced out General Motors (GM.N) chief executive Rick Wagoner, pushed Chrysler LLC toward a merger with Italy's Fiat SpA (FIA.MI), and threatened bankruptcy for both, marking an escalation in Washington's involvement in rescuing the faltering economy.

Skeptics asked whether it was an early sign of a more activist administration or an isolated example. GM shares tumbled 30 percent on the news and the Dow Jones Industrial average.DJI sank nearly 4 percent.

Experts called it potentially the most significant presidential intervention in the private sector since Harry Truman tried to seize the steel industry during the Korean War in 1952, only to be rebuffed by the Supreme Court.

"I don't think the president should be running the economy. They should have let the company go bankrupt. The guy would have lost his job anyway," said Edward Prescott, a 2004 Nobel laureate in economic sciences.

As a candidate last year, Obama supported rescuing the financial sector, and since then he has shifted to attacking the bonuses and corporate jets for companies taking taxpayer money to pushing out a CEO and replacing members of the board of directors.

"Politics is certainly entering the process. GM should have gone into bankruptcy in the fall. We would be much further along with the workout by now," added Randall Filer, a professor of economics at Hunter College in New York.

Stephen Schork, editor of an industry report on the energy and shipping markets, feared Obama was trying to engineer a hasty conversion to green energy. "They are expressing abject hostility toward the hydrocarbon industry," Schork said.

WILL POPULAR SUPPORT HOLD?

At the same time, Obama's approval ratings have held firm above 60 percent in most public opinion polls. In a Cincinnati coffee shop, retiree Sharon Schmidt, 74, said she supported the decision to push Wagoner out.

"If GM is going to take a big bailout from the federal government, the people who brought it to this state should probably go," Schmidt said. "These bankers and so on are making million dollar bonuses? They should be gone, too."

In a Dallas suburb, accountant John Shaffer, 47, also approved. "I feel he was fired to force the unions and bond holders to seriously negotiate with the company. So I think it was good," he said...."

Reuters

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 11:50 PM

"If you have particular ideas that would be a better path to reversing the national decline, by all means let's hear about it!!"

I'd say stick to his campaign promises to begin with.

No Earmarks

No lobbyists

Strict requirements for being in the Obama administration

Eliminate all capital gains taxes on investments in small and start-up firms.

Enforce pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budget rules

Create a $3,000 tax credit for companies that add jobs

Crack down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 02:33 AM

"Experts called it potentially the most significant presidential intervention in the private sector since Harry Truman tried to seize the steel industry during the Korean War in 1952, only to be rebuffed by the Supreme Court."....Gosh, why did they do that??? You mean, because it was unconstitutional?
   Anyway, that being said, (or asked)the thread is about Obama's ADMINISTRATION...so, other than the Fact, that he chose them(we are told), and he is in charge, and he has broken promises, I've shifted my total dislike for the character, to just a firm distrust!..and only he can change that. So as far as his administration goes, I think they are totally a bunch of unqualified, corrupt, sleazy, tax cheatin', hypocritical, left wing loonies!..Him, I'm going to actually cut a little slack to...FOR THE TIME BEING! I know his devotees, are optimistic about 'his' plan, and after LISTENING to some of their raps, and being fair, in looking at it from their 'Kumbayah' point of view, and having LISTENED to Rush, Hannity, ..even Maher, and their panels of guests, plus a bit of research on my own, I once again allowed myself to be, neutral, the best I could be, just to see. So, Amos, your decent reply(finally), gave me my first pause..and though I still have my doubts, I'm trying my best, to embrace the other point of view, which in my mind, is still quite faulty....but, I'm giving it my best, overlooking all the dishonesty, this administration has brought with it. Fair enough?...and, that being said,..I hope you, and even others, will take pause, and consider the 'other' side as well! I, myself am not a complete right wing nut...in fact, in so many places(that I need not enumerate on here, a lot of you make me look like I'm so 'liberal' that you look like Nazis!
Now, Sawzaw, brought up some VERY valid points, that always seem to be avoided. If the rest of the country, is going to be divided, over this stuff, why do we..IF...we hash them out, and get to the bottom of this crap. Certain things are givens, though. Dodd, Pelosi, Frank, and Geithner, and Maxine Waters more than likely, should be facing criminal charges. If you don't know why, yet, I think if you keep your ears open, you'll find out why. (Though, I personally think that through our governments corruptness, they'll probably walk, Scot-free!)
   Fair enough, Amos??...(Though I think you're pom-pomness, has gotten out of hand).
   Hope you enjoyed the link I gave you.
P.S. With me, its not a 'right vs. left' issue. Its Governing within the bounds of the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, and upholding it, as these guys took an oath to do...including Bush, Clinton, Carter, Reagan, Bush, again, and Obama. They cross that line (again), then, as far as I am concerned, they are traitors!..to us all!
Regards, GfS

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 04:33 PM

U.S. and Iranian diplomats took baby steps toward thawing tensions between their countries Tuesday, at an international conference on Afghanistan put together by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

In a significant move, Iran's deputy foreign minister, while criticizing U.S. plans to send more troops into Afghanistan, said Iran is "fully prepared" to help fight the drug trade in Afghanistan -- a campaign the U.S. wants to escalate.

The U.S. is planning to send of surge of narcotics agents into Afghanistan to help stem the opium trade, which is a goal Iran shares.

Iran's Mehdi Akhundzadeh also met with Richard Holbrooke, Clinton's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, on the sidelines of the conference, held at The Hague in the Netherlands.

Holbrooke's meeting "did not focus on anything substantive. It was cordial, it was unplanned and they agreed to stay in touch," Clinton told reporters as the day-long conference was winding down.

The gathering was being closely watched for signs that the U.S. and Iran can work together on a common problem after years of hostility. The two countries cooperated in 2001 and 2002 after U.S.-led forces ousted Afghanistan's Taliban government.

But relations were frozen during the administration of George W. Bush, who referred to Iran as part of the "axis of evil," although Bush's former Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell had informal contacts with Iranian foreign ministers.

---

Gee--maybe Barak really knows something George did not.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 04:42 PM

Of course, it's hard for Barak to know anything until his handlers tell him.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 04:56 PM

He has taken bold steps to fulfill his promises; but6 rather than accept these in context, Sawz and his cohorts wish to beef about the progress being insufficient. This kind of thoughtless absolutism is just unrealistic.

I appreciate your reasonable approach. My view is that rhetoric aside, changiung things in the real world always happens on a gradient, whether steep or slow, and absolute conditions are unobtainable. ALl I can say is, so far, I am grateful for the huge improvements.

As for his hard stance vis-a-vis Detroit, maybe he is drawing a line int he stand because they have NOT corrected their inherent rot for so long and have become a public problem of national scale. Sure lkooks that way to me.

I can tell you this much--he has taken on more than any President in my lifetime, head on, explicitly and overtly, and is far less slimey in his operations than any of his predecessors in my memory (well, to be honest, I wasn't paying much attention to Ike, or even to KEnnedy before he got assassinated).

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 05:04 PM

In one of the first major environmental acts of his presidency, President Barack Obama on Monday signed a far-reaching measure to provide wilderness protection to 2.1 million acres of federal land and restore salmon to California's second-longest river, the San Joaquin.

The law will put billions of gallons of fresh water back into the river, potentially improving drinking water quality for large sections of the Bay Area, including Silicon Valley.

"This legislation guarantees that we will not take our forests, rivers, oceans, national parks, monuments, and wilderness areas for granted," Obama said at a White House ceremony. "But rather we will set them aside and guard their sanctity for everyone to share."

The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, co-written by Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Sen. Barbara Boxer, is the largest wilderness preservation bill since President Clinton signed the Desert Protection Act in 1994.

---

Your mythology about handlers is still unsubstantiated, Rig, and still smells bad.



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 05:57 PM

If he wanted to do something about the environment, he'd crack down on illegal immigration.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 08:29 PM

Jaysus, Rig, you are a cracker sometimes...



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: TIA
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 10:08 PM

"Of course, it's hard for Barak to know anything until his handlers tell him."

Awk Riggy want a cracker. Awk.


He learns to speak from Rush Limbaugh.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 12:33 AM

(Gritting my teeth)..I'm trying, I'm trying!! Hey, did anyone hear the speach(or letter) Benjamin Netanyahu, sent to Obama. It was read today on the radio..but I can't find the text anywhere. It had to do with telling Obama to deal with Iran's nukes, before they become a firm threat to Israel, or he will. (I know this is slightly off topic, but not by much) It was quite eloquent, and to the point. Actually, quite sobering!..If so can you post a link?..Would prefer text, not commentary. Thanks

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 07:17 AM

Actually, it's not off topic at all. Obama's handlers will tell him to deal with Iran's nukes. That's what they're there for.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 08:27 AM

USA Today leads with a look at some of the first projects funded by the stimulus package and notes that the federal money appears to be creating jobs, as intended. State highway departments have been able to take advantage of the package the quickest by pumping money into "shovel-ready" projects. In an unscientific review of 16 construction projects, the paper found that all of them will start by summer, and the vast majority would not have been carried out without the stimulus cash...

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 11:10 AM

"... Many people were wringing their hands about the president forcing the resignation of Wagoner, whose G.M. lost $82 billion in the last four years, took $13.4 billion in bailout money and asked for $16.6 billion more, even as the carmaker's market share melted from 33 percent to 18 percent and its stock slid from more than $70 a share to less than $4 — about the price of a couple gallons of gas.

But Mr. Obama's move was bracing, a sign, at long last, that the president will not tolerate failure, not when he has to print all the money in the universe to underwrite obtuseness. Wagoner showed no foresight or willingness to curb an unhealthy appetite for the big. He failed to eliminate brands and launched the Hummer line in 2001. (Hummers remain icons of power in Iraq.)

"I thought it was absolutely bizarre," said Maryann Keller, an independent automotive analyst, adding that "it was aimed at people who didn't know what to do with the money they had. It was discretionary spending by males who clearly had other cars in their garages."

Wagoner stuck to gas-guzzling pickups and S.U.V.'s long after it was clear that higher gas prices meant he should vary the fleet with more fuel-efficient vehicles.

The Iran hostage crisis in 1979 put America on notice that future relations with the Middle East would be volatile and that we had better get some methadone or ethanol or switch grass or something and get over our addiction to oil.

But Detroit defiantly stuck its head in the sand. A lot of longtime auto watchers felt relief and excitement at Wagoner's crisp dismissal, knowing that the reckoning is at last here. The problems in the car industry have been so apparent for so long, and the failure to face up to them and move into a greener future has been so frustrating.

President Obama must nurse us through our affluenza, addressing both our visceral need to be big and our cerebral decision to be leaner — and much, much smarter. " (Maureen Dowd)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 11:40 AM

"Senate Republicans are struggling to adapt to an altered political world when it comes to candidates for federal courts and senior Justice Department posts.

No longer able simply to defend choices made by a fellow Republican, as they did under President George W. Bush, Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have turned into vocal critics of many of President Obama's legal nominees. They complain that several are committed liberal ideologues, much in the way Democrats complained that Mr. Bush's choices were committed conservative ideologues.

But so far, facing a solid Democratic majority in the Senate, they have been able to do little beyond briefly delaying confirmation. Now they are weighing whether to use the filibuster — a threat of extended debate, the tool many Republican senators regularly denounced when it was used by Democrats to block some Republican nominees. These are certainly different times.

The current Republican focus is on a pair of nominees: Mr. Obama's first selection for a federal appeals court seat, David F. Hamilton, and his choice to head the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, Dawn Johnsen. (By coincidence, the two are in-laws.)

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the Judiciary Committee's ranking Republican, has complained that the Democrats are moving too quickly to consider Mr. Hamilton, a federal trial judge in Indiana since 1994. The committee has set for Wednesday the confirmation hearing on Judge Hamilton, who was nominated only in mid-March.

But the attacks on the nomination of Ms. Johnsen, who is married to Judge Hamilton's brother, have been more severe. Ms. Johnsen, a law professor at Indiana University, was an unsparing critic of memorandums, written by lawyers at the Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush administration, that said the president could largely ignore international treaties and Congress in fighting terrorists and that critics have portrayed as allowing torture in interrogation.

The broad reading of presidential authority was "outlandish," and the constitutional arguments were "shockingly flawed," Ms. Johnsen has written. While her language was harsh, the memos have largely been withdrawn, and among lawyers a consensus agreeing with her views has emerged.

Nonetheless, Republicans have denounced her comments. Senator John Cornyn of Texas, a member of the committee's minority, said Ms. Johnsen lacked the "requisite seriousness" to head the Office of Legal Counsel.

A committee Democrat, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, said he was astonished by the attacks. After the "long, dark days of degradation" of the office, Mr. Whitehouse said, it is hypocritical of Republicans who were then silent to complain now about partisanship.

"Now suddenly they come forward with concerns," he said. "Where were you when those incompetent, ideological opinions were being issued?" ..."

---

Sounds like the trumpets of surrender are still ringing in the red-faced camp. Irrational partisan loyalty at the expense of reason has finally come home to roost.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 12:27 PM

That is all fine Amos, except for the Constitutionality of it...you know, that stupid little paper that guarantees us, that the government, cannot intrude on our rights, of..what?..free speech, search and seizure, the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the freedom of religion, without government intervention, the right to bear arms, if need be, from a government that over reaches its limitations..etc..etc. Before this is over, if our country can avoid a mega-clash over this, while half the country feels their government, is going tyrannical, and the other half pushes through a socialist agenda, I'll be amazed! I think it high time, for those promoting either the agenda of greed, either for political power, or money, through corruption, and greed, and return to the PRINCIPLES of what this country is about, the better off we'll be. What we are bearing through now, is abuse, or abusive 'remedies' from both sides....that is, if you want to look at it 'sanely'!! So let, at least us, go off the 'deep end' one way or the other!!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 01:49 PM

" Conservative leader David Cameron has said US President Barack Obama is "incredibly impressive" after meeting him for the second time in London.

Describing their meeting at the US ambassador's residence as "productive", Mr Cameron said Mr Obama was "extremely personable" and "easy to get on with".

The two first met when the then Senator Obama visited the UK last summer.

Earlier, in Parliament, Mr Cameron said "everyone" wanted G20 leaders to agree reforms on trade and tax reforms.

'Productive'

But he attacked Gordon Brown for leaving the British economy "exposed".

President Obama's meeting with Mr Cameron, which lasted about 30 minutes, came between his high-level one-to-ones with the Russian and Chinese presidents.

        
He is a very easy person to talk with and exchange views with
Cameron on Obama

Obama praises Brown's integrity

Mr Cameron said the private meeting - which covered economic and foreign policy matters - was "excellent".

Asked if Mr Obama was a man he could "do business with" - echoing Margaret Thatcher's famous comment about Mikhail Gorbachev in 1984 - Mr Cameron replied: "He is a very easy person to talk with and exchange views with.

"He is an incredibly impressive politician and leader but he is also an extremely personable human being and someone it is easy to get on with and strike up a relationship with."

There was much "common ground" between the Obama administration and the Conservatives, he added, stressing there was a "wide range of agreement" on many issues. ..."(BBC)

---

GfS, the executive who had driven GM into stagnation resigned at the request of the Obama administration. By implying or making it a condition of bail-out funding they put him in a position where he would have looked a real ass had he not cooperated.

But bear in mind the man was asking for billions in Federal funds. The government did not fire him. The corporation was not prevented from saving itself, ever. So where is the constiututional compromise, here? Seems to me this is just prudence in the management of taxpayer money.

You may recall that the Bush administrations bailout money went down the rathole with no accountability or stipulations on its use.

Is that your idea of constitutional process?

At no point was anyone in GM prevented from speaking freely, associating freely, bearing arms, or required to house soldiers in their domiciles or incriminate themselves by enforced testimony.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: heric
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 01:57 PM

""The truth is that that's just arguing at the margins," Mr. Obama said at a joint press conference Wednesday in London with Mr. Brown. "The core notion that government has to take some steps to deal with a contracting marketplace and to restore growth is not in dispute."

That's what Obama said in response to Sarkozy. That's our man. An American President fit for the world stage again, at last.


(Sarkozy: "I will not associate myself with a summit that would end with a communiqué made of false compromises that would not tackle the issues [of stricter regulation, more than stimulus] that concern us.")

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 02:08 PM

"Obama praises Brown's integrity" of course he does.......click the link
!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 03:58 PM

PROMISES, PROMISES: Obama tax pledge up in smoke

Apr 1 11:55 AM US/Eastern
By CALVIN WOODWARD
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - One of President Barack Obama's campaign pledges on taxes went up in puffs of smoke Wednesday.
The largest increase in tobacco taxes took effect despite Obama's promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000.

This is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich.

To be sure, Obama's tax promises in last year's campaign were most often made in the context of income taxes. Not always.

"I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

He repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."

Now in office, Obama, who stopped smoking but has admitted he slips now and then, signed a law raising the tobacco tax nearly 62 cents on a pack of cigarettes, to $1.01. Other tobacco products saw similarly steep increases.

The extra money will be used to finance a major expansion of health insurance for children. That represents a step toward achieving another promise, to make sure all kids are covered.

Obama said in the campaign that Americans could have both—a broad boost in affordable health insurance for the nation without raising taxes on anyone but the rich.

His detailed campaign plan stated that his proposed improvement in health insurance and health technology "is more than covered" by raising taxes on the wealthy alone. It was not based on raising the tobacco tax.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 05:03 PM

Wait till the carbon TAX takes effect!!...I thought trees, and plants take in CO2..what?..he has something against trees?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 05:06 PM

Of course, you can't take anything Obama lip-synched off his teleprompter during the campaign seriously.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 05:24 PM

Though I'm gritting my teeth, I'm giving him, a 'new-found break'! ..and Amos, It is unbecoming for one man to drool over another man, in public!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 06:14 PM

Just correcting the balance, dearie--there's entirely too much opportunistic snarling going on, not to mention whinging. Raising the cigarette cost to support health care for children--a terrible, unconscionable tradeoff, innit? Tsk, tsk. It's drawing a long bow to construe this as a violation of a promise concerning personal taxes. This is a life-style tax.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 07:29 PM

Yeah!!! Trees don't need to breath!..Besides, 95% of all forest fires are caused by them!!!!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 08:57 PM

HEy, if you're really not in good shape financially, why are you catering to an addiction to tobacco?

Sheeshe.

It's a sin tax.



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Apr 09 - 10:21 PM

NYT Reports:

WASHINGTON — The House approved a $3.6 trillion federal budget on Thursday with no Republican support, a sign of deep partisan tensions likely to color Congressional efforts to enact the major policy initiatives sought by President Obama.

The Senate was moving toward passing a similar $3.5 trillion budget, solely on the strength of Democratic votes as well, after a day spent laboring over amendments that did little to change a fiscal blueprint generally in keeping with Mr. Obama's ambitious agenda.

Democrats said the two budgets, which will have to be reconciled after a two-week Congressional recess, cleared the way for health care, energy and education overhauls pushed by the new president. The Democrats said the budgets reversed what they portrayed as the failed economic approach of the Bush administration and Republican-led Congresses.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said Democrats would like to find consensus with Republicans, but not at the expense of the infusion of federal money that the majority calls crucial in a time of economic distress...."

---

I believe he is getting it going. The man has his game on, yes indeedy.



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Apr 09 - 11:29 PM

So, did GWB *not* use a teleprompter, and *not* have handlers. He did it all on his own did he?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 10:43 AM

DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Friday, April 3rd 2009, 7:42 AM

WASHINGTON - Other heads of state found in President Obama a guy who could take "No" for an answer Thursday at the world economic summit, and that's what they liked best.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev raved about "my new comrade," and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reinforced Obama's rock star status by asking for Obama's autograph - he said it was for his daughter!

This came after Obama backed off in the face of French and German resistance on his push for developed nations to embrace big spending plans similar to the $800 billion program adopted by the U.S.

Instead, the G-20 nations agreed to pump $1 trillion into the International Monetary Fund rather than prime the pumps in their various home countries.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy gushed that Obama was "a very open man, very open-minded, entirely in line with what we want - namely that politicians shoulder their responsibilities and face up to them."

Sarkozy had threatened to walk out if Obama didn't back off on stimulus, but "things went very well, very smoothly. We are going to do good things together."

Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel got what they wanted: tighter regulation of world markets in the form of blacklists for tax havens and a new international oversight body.

Medvedev and other leaders contrasted Obama's easygoing style with the with-us-or-against-us stance of former President George Bush.

Obama was "totally different" and exuded the humility Bush only preached, Medvedev said. "He can listen," Medvedev said. "We now see a completely different approach, and this suits me."

At a rambling news conference, Obama disputed that he had been rolled by European leaders, adding he expects other nations to "give us the benefit of the doubt. They're still going to have their interests, and we're going to have ours."

The British especially liked Obama's aura of calm. A commentary in the Daily Mail noted: "He came across as a President who would consult and think thrice before bombing the smithereens out of a foreign capital. This can be counted progress."

---

That's a change I can believe in. Whatever that means.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 10:54 AM

April 2, 2009.

"This has most likely been President Obama's best single day since inauguration.

His and first lady Michelle Obama's first foray onto the world stage since being elected cannot be dubbed anything but successful. Obama appeared to be quite comfortable and confident as president of the United States at the G-20 summit that produced an unprecedented global economic recovery package.

The president's polling numbers at home are coming in at an impressive rate. A Democracy Corps poll taken this week found that the percentage of likely voters saying the country is going in the right direction is up to 38 percent, the highest level recorded in more than three years."

(JAmes Carville, CNN)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 08:26 PM

Sorry, forgot to post name...again....


"(JAmes Carville, CNN"...Well, that's a reliable source, when it comes to reporting, about the Democrats!!!..Jeez!

'Comrade?'...Well, that I can believe!

Pumping money into the IMF??..Hey wasn't that's who Timmy Tax Cheat was working for, when he was cheating on his taxes???

'...and now for the rest of the story....'(P.H.)

And Amos, I'm still just observing, but your fawning over Obama, still is a bit over the top......(maybe just a wee bit?)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 04:46 AM

Carville is known to be a registered Democrat and Obama supporter.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 08:14 AM

I know, Amos..but what else is he??..Jeez, don't take us all to be stupid! By the way, it looks like your pal Rahm is highly involved with the Blago scandal..sort of a corruption thing. On the other side, so far, it looks like Obama has done pretty good in some areas with the trip to Europe..not all, but some really good..ok?(I'm trying to be fair here)...Let's see where he is going with it.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 10:28 AM

"Carville is known to be a registered Democrat and Obama supporter."

               The intense light reflecting off Carville's head has been known to blind people from the facts.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 11:28 AM

600! My assessment of his ADMINISTRATION is still the same...a buch of cheats and swindlers, hiding behind the 'nobility' of a political, patriotic, cover!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 12:15 PM

A new thread on "if it is political then it must be delusional" might be in order just for you I am sure that some of the members of his administration match your criteria, but I don't think as a group they do.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 12:40 PM

Too much control, either religious, or political, is both destructive, and delusional. So, if I may again reference someone, that seems to get everyone's knickers in a twist..."Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, (religious leaders), and Caesar(Political)."..Jesus of Nazareth. They are the blind, leading the blind! The founding Fathers of this country were certainly aware of this, and formed a government, which limited CONTROL, or being CONTROLLED, by either one!! How this escapes those who claim to be the 'astute' is mind boggling! It is not a matter of right vs. left, Rebulicats or Democans...they are both part and parcel of government control. Same as Capitalists, Communists, Fascists, Socialists, and the rest!!! True Freedom, and Liberty, have very little to do with these agents of control...Meanwhile, CREDIT is a way, to be controlled into slavery..either by corporations, or government 'programs'! Right now we are seeing us sold into debt(slavery), without ANY SAY, whatsoever!..Whereas, that is being entered into a contract, without consent,(coercion), it is high time we take a closer look, and maybe re-think all this nonsense going on! Fortunately, this 'administration' isn't about that! They are so corrupt, I don't think they even care to regard any of those factors, except using a crisis, to con the public!..That being said, I'm still giving Obama, the benefit of the doubt, because he is more of a political animal, than the others, I believe..and the others are using him as a smooth talking front man, and hiding behind him. Just ask Axelrod, or Rahm. Time not only will tell, but the obvious will be written off, by the blind followers, and explained away, enough to where THEY feel comfortable...even if they aren't fooling, or convincing anyone, but themselves!! You too!
Regards,
GfS

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 01:42 PM

Meanwhile, CREDIT is a way, to be controlled into slavery..either by corporations, or government 'programs'!

And eating is a way to die, if you are stupid about it. Well-managed credit is a path toward growth and without it we would not have rail lines, hot and cold water systems, highways, sewers, electrical grids or large buildings.

Credit doesn't enslave people. People enslave people--often themselves.



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 01:59 PM

Amos..I agree with you!..That being said, do you think that that has, or is the case now?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 02:04 PM

There is no single case that describes "credit" anymore than there is a war on "terror". These are conditions, not individuals.

The present economic downturn has developed from a corruption of a major credit market such that the major institutions of credit have gone haywire. This is not a reflection on credit, but on its abuse.



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 02:06 PM

Amos, there you are in error. Clinton pressured the mortgage bankers, and Freddie and Fannie to make easy credit to those who could not afford it..and you know that!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 02:14 PM

The pressure may have accelerated the corruption by presenting an irresistible opportunity, but the blind ambition and greed of the actual managers and sales personnel is what built the thing into insane porportions. The mortgages themselves were bad enough, but then they were sliced and diced into complex debt packages that were sold as safe instruments with good ratings when they were rotten.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 02:18 PM

Agreed. Also the public's greed as well. Hey, you weren't trying to paint Clinton as corruption free, were you?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 04:13 PM

Hell, I wouldn't have trusted him if he were corruption free... ;>)



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 06:53 PM

Shit Amos! I almost trust you..because you ARE S-O-O-O corrupted!..Just check out you political slant...(wink!)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Apr 09 - 10:30 AM

A French correspondent writes in the NYT:

":...Envy is a complex passion. It engenders both love and hate. Many French intellectuals hate Barack Obama because they feel that too many people adore him, and with too much ardor. But by and large, the optimism and excitement that the majority of French people felt during Mr. Obama's presidential campaign and at the moment he was elected have not diminished.

We had a chance to appreciate Mr. Obama's spirit of cooperation with Europe at the G-20 summit meeting. It came almost as a surprise, for we are no longer accustomed to such things after years of George W. Bush's isolationism. Mr. Obama's position on Iran has provoked a more-than-favorable reaction all across Europe, and particularly in France, and nothing seems to be clouding the blue skies of the old continent's love story with President Obama. Mr. Obama's anger is portrayed here as something holy. And when he laughs, we laugh.

When our president, Nicolas Sarkozy, gets angry, on the other hand, we laugh. When he laughs, we wonder why. We feel that Mr. Obama confers dignity on his country and its people. We, too, would sorely like to feel dignified."

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Apr 09 - 10:59 AM

Thomas Friedman of the Times offers an interesting analysis of what Obama is doing.

HIs thesis:

"While campaigning for the presidency in 1932, in the midst of the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt gave a commencement address on May 22 at Oglethorpe University in Atlanta that probably describes President Obama's strategy today — and the big bet he has made — as well as anything could.

"The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation," said Roosevelt. "It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something."

When you total up all the emergency economic policies that Mr. Obama has now put in place — a nearly $800 billion stimulus, mortgage relief, a private-public program for buying up toxic assets and a huge capital injection into the banking system by the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates and expand credit — they constitute one big experiment."

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Apr 09 - 11:07 AM

Maureen Dowwd, referring to Obama as "First Shrink", draws an interesting contrast between him and his predecessor on their diplomatic sensibilities:

"...Bush and his inner circle were extraordinarily obtuse about reading the motivations and the intentions of friends and foes.

How could it never occur to them that Saddam Hussein might simply be bluffing about the size of his W.M.D. arsenal to keep the Iranians and other antagonists at bay?

W. bristled at French and German leaders because he thought they were condescending to him. He thought he saw into Vladimir Putin's soul until the Russian leader showed his totalitarian stripes.

W. and Condi were so clueless about the mind-set of Palestinians that Condi was blindsided by the Hamas victory in 2006, learning the news from TV as she did the elliptical at 5 a.m. in the gym of her Watergate apartment.

The Bush chuckleheads misread the world and insisted that everyone else go along with their deluded perception, and they bullied the world and got huffy if the world didn't quickly fall in line.

President Obama, by contrast, employed smart psychology in the global club, even on small things, like asking other leaders if they wanted to start talking first at news conferences.

With Anglo-American capitalism on trial and Gordon Brown floundering in the polls, Mr. Obama took pains to drape an arm around "Gordon" and return to using the phrase "special relationship." He gave a shout-out to the Brown kids, saying he'd talked dinosaurs with them. He won points with a prickly Sarkozy when he intervened in an argument about tax havens between the French and Chinese leaders, pulling them into a corner to help them "get this all in some kind of perspective" and find a middle ground. Mr. Obama also played to the ego of the Napoleonic French leader, saying at their press conference, "He's courageous on so many fronts, it's hard to keep up."

Soon Sarko was back gushing over his charmant Americain ami.

Having an Iowa-style town hall in Strasbourg with enthusiastic French and German students was a clever ploy to underscore his popularity on the world stage, and put European leaders on notice that many of their constituents are also his.

Like a good shrink, the president listens; it's a way of flattering his subjects and sussing them out without having to fathom what's in their soul. "It is easy to talk to him," Dmitri Medvedev said after their meeting. "He can listen." The Russian president called the American one "my new comrade."

Mr. Obama, the least silly of men, was even willing to mug for a silly Facebook-ready picture, grinning and giving a thumbs-up with Medvedev and a goofy-looking Silvio Berlusconi.

Now that America can't put everyone under its thumb, a thumbs-up and a killer smile can go a long way...."

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Apr 09 - 03:29 PM

Well, America has long been producing really great stuff...even out classing a lot of Europe!(Not to mention a lot of the rest of the world!) You want bullshit, at the G20, wait till they get a load of this guy!!! Obama going over their completely outclasses even their own! Look how he is head and shoulders above them!Once again, we've outclassed them! His ability to bullshit them, and have them adore him, while he's doing it!!!! Yes, Get a load of this!
P.S. Amos, Sometimes you've just gotta be proud to be an American!!!!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: number 6
Date: 05 Apr 09 - 03:59 PM

"Now that America can't put everyone under its thumb, a thumbs-up and a killer smile can go a long way.."

It sure can!

smile

smile 2

and finally smile 3

"Smile though your heart is aching
Smile even though its breaking
When there are clouds in the sky, youll get by
If you smile through your fear and sorrow
Smile and maybe tomorrow
Youll see the sun come shining through for you"

biLL

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 09:10 AM

Look Who's Politicizing Justice Now

By Edward Whelan
Sunday, April 5, 2009; Page B03

Intense controversy has flared in recent years over a previously obscure but high-powered office in the Department of Justice -- the Office of Legal Counsel. OLC has traditionally provided the final word to executive branch officials on the meaning of the Constitution and federal statutes. Disputes over whether it faithfully carried out its assigned role in national security matters during the Bush administration have erupted on newspaper front pages. Whatever the merits of those disputes, virtually everyone has agreed that it is imperative that OLC provide high-quality legal advice that is not slanted to advance a president's policy agenda -- and that the president and his top advisers respect that advice.

But now it appears that we have an attorney general who is himself running roughshod over OLC.

During Eric Holder's confirmation process, his tenure as deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration sparked serious concerns among senators. In scandals involving Clinton's pardons of Puerto Rican nationalists and fugitive Marc Rich, Holder had violated departmental protocols, ignored the views of victims and law enforcement professionals, colluded with Rich's attorneys, undermined prosecutors and circumvented DOJ's pardon attorney. A congressional investigation in 2002 called his conduct "unconscionable."


At his recent confirmation hearing, a chastened Holder assured senators that he had learned from the past and was committed to upholding the department's high standards. He specifically promised not to politicize DOJ's legal positions: "We don't change OLC opinions simply because a new administration takes over," he said. Any review "will not be a political process, it will be one based solely on our interpretation of the law."

Alas, less than two months into his tenure as attorney general, according to accounts in The Post last week, Holder has abused OLC for partisan political purposes. The facts, admittedly, are somewhat sketchy -- largely because Holder isn't complying with President Obama's promise of transparency. But here's what they show.

In the course of its usual task of reviewing pending legislation to identify constitutional problems, OLC determined that the D.C. voting rights bill, which would give the District of Columbia a voting member in the House of Representatives, is unconstitutional. The acting head of OLC, David Barron -- a liberal Harvard law professor appointed by Holder -- signed an opinion setting forth OLC's conclusion. That conclusion is no surprise, as it has been the Department of Justice's consistent position, under presidents of both parties, at least as far back as Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy in 1963 and as recently as two years ago.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/03/AR2009040302835.html?hpid=opinionsbox1





Alas, less than two months into his tenure as attorney general, according to accounts in The Post last week, Holder has abused OLC for partisan political purposes. The facts, admittedly, are somewhat sketchy -- largely because Holder isn't complying with President Obama's promise of transparency. But here's what they show.

In the course of its usual task of reviewing pending legislation to identify constitutional problems, OLC determined that the D.C. voting rights bill, which would give the District of Columbia a voting member in the House of Representatives, is unconstitutional. The acting head of OLC, David Barron -- a liberal Harvard law professor appointed by Holder -- signed an opinion setting forth OLC's conclusion. That conclusion is no surprise, as it has been the Department of Justice's consistent position, under presidents of both parties, at least as far back as Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy in 1963 and as recently as two years ago.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 09:50 AM

Right- impartial observer Ed Whalen, author of such statements as

"...Democrats have displayed no real interest in judicial ethics but instead seek to use ethics charges as a partisan club against President Bush's judicial nominees..."

head honcho at the Ethics and Public Policy Center "dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy" & poo-bah at the National Review.

Equating Holder's actions with Ashcroft's is simply absurd.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 09:55 AM

ad hominem, GregF.

If you can't address the facts presented, you have no arguement at all.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 10:28 AM

IF a hominem makes a groundless sweeping generalization about a large class of individuals and presents it as a fact, the hominem should be subtracted from the conversation.

There is probably no statement you can make decrying the habits of "all Democrats" that could conceivably be called a fact. They tend to be a varied lot.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 11:03 AM

Amos,

I know you rread the article, right?

"In the course of its usual task of reviewing pending legislation to identify constitutional problems, OLC determined that the D.C. voting rights bill, which would give the District of Columbia a voting member in the House of Representatives, is unconstitutional. The acting head of OLC, David Barron -- a liberal Harvard law professor appointed by Holder -- signed an opinion setting forth OLC's conclusion. That conclusion is no surprise, as it has been the Department of Justice's consistent position, under presidents of both parties, at least as far back as Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy in 1963 and as recently as two years ago.

When Holder, a longtime supporter of the voting rights bill, learned of the OLC determination, he acted to override it. He contacted another of his appointees, deputy solicitor general Neal K. Katyal, to ask whether Katyal's office could, under its usual standards, defend the bill in court. Katyal said it could, and Holder then overruled OLC.

Now, it's legitimate, if exceedingly rare, for an attorney general to contest OLC's advice. The office is, after all, exercising the advisory function the attorney general has delegated to it. But there's a right way to overrule OLC, and then there's Holder's way. The right way would have been for Holder to conduct a full and careful formal review of the legal question. If that review yielded the conclusion that Holder's position was in fact the best reading of the law -- an extremely unlikely conclusion, in my judgment -- then Holder would sign a written opinion to that effect.

Holder instead adopted a sham review that abused OLC's institutional role. In particular, the answer he solicited and received from Katyal was virtually meaningless. Holder didn't ask for Katyal's best judgment as to whether the D.C. bill was constitutional. He instead asked merely whether his own position that the bill is constitutional was so beyond the pale, so beneath the low level of plausible lawyers' arguments, so legally frivolous, that the Solicitor General's office, under its traditional commitment to defend any federal law for which any reasonable defense can be offered, wouldn't be able to defend it in court.

Holder hasn't signed an opinion setting forth his grounds for reversing OLC, and he also refuses to make the OLC opinion available.

To test whether your own politics color your perception of Holder's action, consider this hypothetical: It's 2001, and pro-life Republicans in Congress introduce a bill that would purport to overturn Roe v. Wade by declaring that the unborn are "persons" under the 14th Amendment. The Bush administration official heading OLC issues an opinion, consistent with the longstanding position of the Justice Department, that the bill is unconstitutional. Attorney General John D. Ashcroft consults with a lawyer in the Solicitor General's office, who tells him that the office could defend the bill in court. Ashcroft informs OLC that he is overriding its opinion. Wouldn't there be ample reason to be alarmed that Ashcroft was politicizing DOJ's legal positions? Can you imagine the ensuing scandal?

Of course, Ashcroft never did anything like what Holder has done. "

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 11:20 AM

"There is probably no statement you can make decrying the habits of "all Democrats" that could conceivably be called a fact. They tend to be a varied lot."

And you made many of them, talking about Republicans...

It seems that when a member of the Obama administration does what you claim was impeachable ( to Bush) you find it to be justified- when you said that there could be no justification for the act.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 11:29 AM

Bruce, you've done good!! This thing is huge....and all one can do is point to the 'lesser', more obvious things, which are, of course, just the tip of the iceberg!!!!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 12:25 PM

THe issue of Holder and OLC is debatabler in my opinion, but if Holder abused the process in fact, rather than just in someone's opinion, then he should not have done, and he should answer for it just as plainly as anyone has to.

The reason the bill could be said to be constitutional is that the Constitution gives Congress complete power over the District, which would include granting it representation. The counter-argument is that the Constitution does give representation to the several States, of which D.C. is not one.

I may have spoken with excessive energy in the heat of battling the right wing's attacks on the Constitution in much more far-reaching ways, but in general the Republican forces during the Bush regime were much more monolithic and ditto-headed than Democrats seem to be, IMHO. They were tightly briefed on talking points and discouraged from exceeding that line.

THis is, of course a general impression, and I am not going to dig into those awful years to find the reports from which my impressions are drawn. So feel free to ignore it! :D


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 01:13 PM

Obama Saves NATO Governments from Summit Shame

By Matthias Gebauer (der SPIEGEL)

A call made by Barack Obama helped end the impasse. The Turkish government has given up its opposition and Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen will now become the new head of NATO. By doing so, Obama saved Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy from deep embarrassment at the summit.

Delays in the agenda are part of the routine at NATO summits. When it comes to ending them, though, countries tend to be very punctual. By the last day, most are keen to return home and meetings are shortened and important issues sometimes delayed until the next summit.

On Saturday, though, the decision to be made was too important -- and the summit was forced to go into overtime. Instead of holding a joint press conference at 1 p.m. as originally planned, Secretary General Japp de Hoop Scheffer was only able to appear before journalists after a two-and-a-half hour delay. It was easy to guess what he was going to say, too, given that has successor, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, was already standing next to him.

Presidents Sarkozy and Obama with Chancellor Merkel in Strasbourg: The French and German leaders owe a debt to the new American leader.
AFP

Presidents Sarkozy and Obama with Chancellor Merkel in Strasbourg: The French and German leaders owe a debt to the new American leader.

Scheffer and Fogh Rasmussen both beamed from the stage. Scheffer said he was proud. Fogh Rasmussen congratulated his predecessor on his work. A short time later, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy also joined in. Sarkozy grinned broadly and could hardly contain his excitement. For her part, Merkel smiled a bit more reservedly.

The reactions underscored what a tour de force NATO had just undergone. By Friday evening, when Turkey repeated its threat to veto any decision to appoint Fogh Rasmussen as the next secretary general, it became clear that a NATO summit being held to celebrate its 60th anniversary threatened to end in fiasco. "

---

It's nice to see the American voice serving to improve international relations rather than worsen them.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 01:17 PM

"It is gratifying to see that good work has been done here," Obama began. "Ten, 20, 30 years ago, it was not a matter of course that countries which were traditionally enemies solved problems together. After the Great Depression, a similar group did not convene until 1944. Also in 1982, following the Mexico Crisis, it took seven years before the problems were tackled together." Now he spoke with urgency: "It is important that we do not sell short the results of this summit. The press would like us to have conflicts. Instead we have attained great achievements. And it is important that we exude confidence."

He then lowered his voice: "It is true, as my Italian friend has said, that the crisis began in the US. I take responsibility, even if I wasn't even president at the time." And he underscored how important it is for him "that we now genuinely make progress. Thank you." Applause.

The others couldn't believe their ears. Was that really a confession of guilt from the US? Was it a translation error, or at least an inaccuracy? Afterwards, this sentence fueled long discussions among the members of the German delegation. German Chancellor Angela Merkel was so impressed by Obama's statement that she rushed to tell her finance minister, Peer Steinbrück. Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso reacted immediately: The proposal to hold the next summit not in Japan, but rather in the US, is something that he no longer rejects, he says, "now that the US has shouldered responsibility."

Obama's confession may go down in world history as one of the greatest statements ever made. The US president is accepting responsibility for the beginning of one of the worst economic crises of the last century. By doing so, he has admitted that one of the excesses of the American way of life -- the insatiable craving for huge profits -- has brought the world to the brink of disaster. The others may have played their part, but the origins lie in the US. The fact that Obama has now admitted this sends a strong signal of hope to the world, perhaps the strongest to emerge from the G-20 summit in London last Wednesday and Thursday. Such an admission could begin to pave the way towards rectifying the situation...."

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 01:36 PM

Amos, ..you must save a lot, from not watching any porno..You get so hot, watching Obama on the news!...You're drooling, again!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 03:06 PM

"but in general the Republican forces during the Bush regime were much more monolithic and ditto-headed than Democrats seem to be, IMHO"


That may certainly have been your opinion, but the facts do not support you. It seems to me ( and perhaps others here) that the present Obama supporters are at least as monlithic and ditto-headed, as well as being hypocritical, and applying a standard to Obama that they denied to Bush.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 03:21 PM

....and during the Bush administration, the conservatives, who he pandered to, were pissed off, that he(Bush) was being way to liberal!! I'm telling you, it's a big fake show!! The agenda has been hidden for so long..I think with Obama, they feel safe for it to surface, and show its ugly head!....only for us to demand, 'More, more More!!' Stupid media raised, nonthinking, consumers of more than you make! Forget it...its OVER!!!! DON'T YOU GET IT????? Do you actually think this is to re-capture your old consumer habits, AND enjoy the luxury, of being free??? You think this is going to 'build' ON your existing 'lifestyle', that you've taken for granted, for so long???? These guys are out front crooks!!! Obama is the smooth front man....his administration is Clinton's..who is political buddies with Bush!! BIG FUCKING CHANGE!!!! Oh, well....you can lead a horse to water, but you can make him play a banjo!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 03:41 PM

There is a clear and simple reason: Bush was consistently self-serving, secretive, deceptive, and incoherent in his communications. Obama has consistently been the opposite, as far as I've seen so far.

I see no reason to assume these guys", whoever you are counting into that generality, are "crooks", GfS. What specific acts of crookedness are you pointing to here? By whom?

And your assessment of what the facts support or do not seems to be just as skewed, Bruce, as you imply mine to be.

And, GfS, just to make it clear, the above raves came from European reporters; my comments are just the one-liners at the end.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 06:11 PM

"Popular Views: the Obama Administration..."


                         YIKES!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 07:28 PM

Rig:

Was that brainless remark devoid of meaning altogether? Or just so inept as to be totally obscure?

Why do you not speak plainly, say what you mean, and try to communicate instead of just slanging?


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 06:46 AM

So, Obama has moved us from 1933 to 1939.....




A World Without Nukes -- Just Like 1939

By William Kristol
Tuesday, April 7, 2009; Page A23

In Prague on Sunday, President Obama committed his administration to putting us on a "trajectory" toward "a world without nuclear weapons."

Of course, we had a world without nuclear weapons not so long ago -- say, in 1939. The war that began in that nuclear-free world led to a crash project to develop nuclear weapons. It ended with America's use of them -- something Obama alluded to: "As a nuclear power, as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act."

It is not clear whether this statement implies disapproval of our use of nuclear weapons in 1945. It's telling, however, that Obama never referred in his Prague speech to the Second World War. Instead, he called the existence of thousands of nuclear weapons "the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War." This framework makes it possible to think of the elimination of nuclear weapons as a logical response to the end of that conflict: "Today, the Cold War has disappeared but thousands of those weapons have not."

Yet to justify a world without nuclear weapons, what Obama would really have to envision is a world without war, or without threats of war. That's an ancient vision. It's one reason American presidents have tried to encourage the spread of liberal democracy and responsible regimes around the world.

Of course, there are all kinds of practical things we can do about the nuclear problem -- seek agreements to regulate the deployment of nuclear weapons, reduce their number and limit their production, regulate the export of nuclear materials, secure vulnerable nuclear material, and the like. We should pursue such agreements as long as they are sensible, verifiable and enforceable, as long as they promote stability and reduce the risk of war.

But we have a long way to go before achieving a world of pacific liberal regimes. George W. Bush's hope for a world without tyranny is the necessary -- though perhaps still not the sufficient -- precondition to a world without nuclear weapons. The danger is that the allure of a world without nuclear weapons can be a distraction -- even an excuse for not acting against real nuclear threats.

Consider Obama's speech. Referring to North Korea, which a few hours earlier had taken a break from six-party talks to test a rocket that could be used for long-range missiles, Obama said: "Now is the time for a strong international response. . . . All nations must come together to build a stronger, global regime. And that's why we must stand shoulder to shoulder to pressure the North Koreans to change course."

In other words: We'll all huff and puff about North Korea, and standing shoulder to shoulder we can pat ourselves on the back for our commitment to a world without nuclear weapons. In the meantime, the United States will do nothing to destroy North Korea's nuclear or missile capability, or to topple its political regime.

Obama also addressed Iran, saying that country's "nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat," which justifies some (limited) missile defense efforts in Europe. But Obama's real hope is for dialogue with Iran, in which he will present the regime with "a clear choice":

"We want Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations, politically and economically. We will support Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy with rigorous inspections. That's a path that the Islamic Republic can take. Or the government can choose increased isolation, international pressure, and a potential nuclear arms race in the region that will increase insecurity for all."

Obviously, Obama recommends the first path. But notice what he didn't do:

He didn't say that a nuclear-armed Iranian regime is unacceptable. He didn't express a commitment to preventing such an outcome, or confidence that the United States and international community would prevent such an outcome. He simply suggested that it wouldn't be optimal for Iran to choose that outcome. And if the rulers of the Islamic republic disagree? In the very speech in which Obama outlined his vision of a world without nuclear weapons, he weakened America's stand against Iran's nuclear weapons program.

So while Obama talks of a future without nuclear weapons, the trajectory we are on today is toward a nuclear- and missile-capable North Korea and Iran -- and a far more dangerous world.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 06:48 AM

Yes, We Can . . . Disarm?
Obama's Quixotic Rallying Cry for the World

By Anne Applebaum
Tuesday, April 7, 2009; Page A23

It is no fun to be the one who rains on the parade, and, if nothing else, President Obama's trip to Europe has been quite a parade. Or maybe "sold-out concert tour" is the better metaphor. There was a jolly town hall meeting in Strasbourg, France; a wonderful encounter between Michelle Obama and Carla Bruni, spectacular street scenes in Prague. The world's statesmen fell over themselves to be photographed with the American president. During one photo session, the Italian prime minister, Sylvio Berlusconi, howled so loudly for Obama's attention, that the queen of England was visibly unamused. ("Why does he have to shout?" she declared.)

Still, someone has to say it: Although some things went well on this trip, some things went badly. The centerpiece of the visit, Obama's keynote foreign policy speech in Prague -- leaked in advance, billed as a major statement -- was, to put it bluntly, peculiar. He used it to call for "a world without nuclear weapons" and a new series of arms control negotiations with Russia. This was not wrong, necessarily, and not evil. But it was strange.

Clearly, the "no nukes" policy is one close to the president's heart. The Prague speech even carried echoes of that most famous of all Obama speeches, the one he made after losing the New Hampshire primary. "There are those who hear talk of a world without nuclear weapons and doubt whether it is worth setting a goal that seems impossible," he told his Czech audience. (Recall: "We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics.") "When nations and peoples allow themselves to be defined by their differences, the gulf between them widens," he continued. ("We are not as divided as our politics suggests.") He didn't say "Yes, we can" at the end, but he did say "human destiny will be what we make of it" -- which amounts to the same thing.

The rhetoric was Obama's -- and so was the idea. Look at his record: One of the few foreign policy initiatives to which Obama stuck his name during his brief Senate term was an increase in funding for nuclear nonproliferation. One of the few trips Obama managed as a senator was a nuclear inspection tour of Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan.

Which is all very nice -- but as the central plank in an American president's foreign policy, a call for universal nuclear disarmament seems rather beside the point. Apparently, Obama's intention is to lead by example: If the United States cuts its own nuclear arsenal and bans testing, then, allegedly, others will follow.

Yet there is no evidence that U.S. nuclear arms reductions have ever inspired others to do the same. All of the world's more recent nuclear powers -- Israel, India, Pakistan -- acquired their weapons well after such talks began, more than 40 years ago.

As for the North Koreans, they chose the very day of the Prague speech to launch (unsuccessfully) an experimental missile. In its wake, neither China nor Russia wanted to condemn the launch, since doing so might set a precedent that would be uncomfortable for them. "Every state has the right to the peaceful use of outer space," said a Russian envoy to the United Nations. His government does want arms reduction talks, but only because its nuclear arsenal is rapidly deteriorating. By agreeing to start them, we've unnecessarily handed Moscow a bargaining chip.

More to the point, nuclear weapons, while terrifying in the abstract, are not an immediate strategic threat to Europe or the United States -- even from Iran. Biological weapons are potentially more lethal. Chemical weapons are far cheaper to produce. Within the United States, ordinary bombs and rogue airplanes have already caused plenty of damage.

Conventional weapons, meanwhile, have not gone out of fashion. The most recent use of military force in Europe -- the Russian-Georgian conflict last August -- involved tanks and infantry, not nukes. Even if Russia sold its remaining nuclear weapons for scrap metal, its military would still pose a threat to the country's neighbors, just as a China without nukes could still invade Taiwan.

In other words, ridding the world of nuclear weapons would be very nice, but on its own it won't alter the international balance of power, stop al-Qaeda or prevent large authoritarian states from invading their smaller neighbors. However unsuccessful the promotion of democracy has been, it is, ultimately, the only way to achieve these goals. Plus I'm not sure the French, however much they loved Michelle's flowery dress, have much interest in giving up their force de frappe. Ditto the British. And since they don't pose a threat, to us or anyone else, it's not clear why we should waste diplomatic capital trying to make them do so.

It could be, of course, that the Prague speech represented a holding pattern: Obama will talk about "no nukes" until he finds a more satisfying idea on which to hang his foreign policy. And if not, all of that goodwill, so much in evidence last week, might well go to waste.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 07:22 AM

"The pride among African Americans in having one of our own as president is understandable. As Gene Robinson noted in his column last week, it just makes you feel good to see him not only represent you as a black American, but also represent the United States of America as he's done in Europe. But it does him no good and does the nation a disservice if he is not made to answer tough questions about his policies and decisions. Black reporters fought hard to get into positions from which they can hold the president to account. That cannot change now that the president himself is black. "


article

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 07:50 AM

"...The recent headlines about Lawrence Summers had it all wrong. They announced with an implied breathlessness that he earned around $8 million last year - much of it from the hedge fund D.E. Shaw. Here's what I would have written: "Man Takes More Than $7.9 Million Cut in Pay." Somewhere in the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders," the bible of shrinks, there should be an entry for "public servant." They are all, bless their hearts, a little nuts.

Mine, of course, is not an approach Screaming Cable TV takes to such people. They are all crooks, up to here - wherever "here" may be - in conflicts of interest and perks, and too dim to succeed in the vaunted private sector. But the truth is otherwise. There are, it turns out, successful people who would give up big bucks and much of their privacy to work for you and me. It's virtually un-American.

Summers is clearly one of these people. D.E. Shaw paid him $5.2 million last year to meet with important clients. In addition, he lent the firm his expertise as a crack economist and it, in turn, provided him with an idea of how a wildly successful hedge fund works. At the same time, Summers made around $2.7 million in speaking fees from other organizations and companies. He was, to use a technical (micro) economic term, on easy street.

Yet he chucked it all for an office on the street of broken dreams, Pennsylvania Ave. So did national security adviser James Jones, who was earning about $2 million a year. David Axelrod, who had been running public affairs firms before going into the White House, kissed away at least the $1.5 million he earned last year and sold his stake in his companies. Other members of the Obama team similarly unburdened themselves of excess wealth, spare time and privacy, proving that money is not everything.

This is the dirty little secret of Washington. I don't mean to characterize these or other administration aides as the functional equivalent of Trappist monks, since they enjoy the attention, the power and - above all - the action. They are doing something substantive, important - sometimes making life-or-death decisions. It is not a life without any compensation.

There are few among us who would take a multimillion-dollar pay cut. Yes, you could say, someone like Summers could make it back, but that's not really - or always - the case. Take Tom Daschle. Here was a man who was not trying to build a career. He is 61, and his career was largely behind him. Yet he was willing to give up a lucrative lobbying practice to go back into government as secretary of health and human services. It turns out he cared more about reforming health care than he did about building a fortune. He didn't make it into the cabinet, foiled by a humiliating spot of trouble about taxes.

In Ronald Reagan's famous formulation, "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." This statement, at the very heart of the so-called Reagan Revolution, denigrated government and the people in it. Reagan's statement withdrew John F. Kennedy's invitation to the intellectually gifted to come to Washington and see what they could do for their country. Reagan sent a different message. Government service is for the lame, the cautious. If you really want to do something for your country, shun Washington and make money.

It is to Barack Obama's immense credit that he has reversed Reagan's reversal. Washington crackles with people on a mission. Brains are once again back in vogue if only because Obama has them in abundance. Not for him the aw-shucks affectation of the previous eight years, when instinct was extolled and ideology trumped analysis. We are in a mess, and one of the reasons is that people who might have noticed or done something about it had been told to stay out of government."

R. Cohen in the Daily News

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 08:35 AM

Gotcha, BB- the fact of the obvious bias of Mr Whalen is irrelevant.

No wonder you vote Republican.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 08:46 AM

Greg F.

ad hominem.

No wonder you vote Democratic.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 08:51 AM

Good to see your Magic Mirror is still working, Froggie...



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 09:27 AM

More like ad homminy BB

Your objection is corny & irrelevant.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 09:36 AM

The most recent New York Times/CBS poll -- conducted during the president's overseas trip -- shows Obama with a 66% overall approval rating (his highest as president), 59% approving his handling of foreign policy, and 56% approving his handling of the economy. "By contrast," the New York Times writes, "just 31 percent of respondents said they had a favorable view of the Republican Party, the lowest in the 25 years the question has been asked in New York Times/CBS News polls."

"Also, the number of people who said they thought the country was headed in the right direction jumped from 15 percent in mid-January, just before Mr. Obama took office, to 39 percent today, while the number who said it was headed in the wrong direction dropped to 53 percent from 79 percent. That is the highest percentage of Americans who said the country was headed in the right direction since 42 percent said so in February 2005, the second month of President George W. Bush's second term." (MSNBC)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 12:16 PM

"ISTANBUL, April 7 -- President Obama closed out his eight-day tour of Europe and Turkey on Tuesday by reaching across cultural barriers -- meeting with Jewish, Christian and Muslim leaders, slipping off his shoes to tour a 400-year-old mosque and urging an audience of university students to "build new bridges instead of new walls" throughout the world.

"The world will be what you make of it," Obama said in the town hall-style meeting, where he emphasized, as he has in several earlier forums, the growing power of the world's youth to change politics and policies around the world..."

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 12:50 PM

"    Obama is popular because of his charisma, and also because of his policies.

Barack Obama's trip in Europe went very well. In France particularly, he is more popular than President Sarkozy. For many here, he is practically considered the leader of the opposition, which has become so feeble in terms of ideas and leadership.

The policies Mr. Obama has implemented since his election are an alternative to Mr. Sarkozy's policies, which are perceived here as being too favorable to the wealthy. The reaction to President Obama is a resumption of a love relationship, which existed during the Clinton presidency and was interrupted during George W. Bush's time in the White House. The fact is (some Americans may find this difficult to believe) the French like Americans, and have for a long time. Most just didn't like Mr. Bush.


Still, Barack Obama's popularity goes well beyond that of Bill Clinton's. Bill Clinton was popular because of his charisma, not for his policies. Mr. Obama is popular because of his charisma, his way of speaking to the citizens of the world — but also because of his policies, because of the way he is grappling with the financial and economic crisis.

The extent of the current crisis (and the reorganization of the world financial system it will imply), its consequences (a huge rise in unemployment) and its context (an environmental revolution) together might well lead to the abolishing of the old divisions between a social democrat Europe and a free-market America.

Solutions to this world crisis will need common innovative policies, solidarity, but above all an intellectual frame (or script), which Barack Obama started to deliver during his trip. " (NYT, by a French columnist)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 10:55 AM

I would agree that solutions to the world financail crisis will need innovative policies, but the people now in place to deal with it do not seem to be innovative people. It's seems to me that the president needs to broaden his search for personnel to fill some of the vacancies in Treasury.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 07:32 PM

Rig, ..I thought appointing a Tax Cheat to head the treasury was not only 'innovative' it was a downright parody of itself!! something you'd see on 'Monty Python', or 'Black Adder'!!!!!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Apr 09 - 10:38 AM

Who Pays Taxes
The super-rich can't plug the budget gap on their own.

Friday, April 10, 2009; Page A16

THE CONGRESSIONAL Budget Office recently released some details of U.S. tax liabilities that should dispel myths on both sides of the budget debate. The numbers will be particularly useful in informing the discussion when tax increases for households other than the super-rich are finally on the table -- and like it or not, once the economy has recovered, they will be.

In 2006, the top 20 percent of earners paid 70 percent of all federal taxes. On average, they paid 26 percent of their income to the government. The very richest -- the top 1 percent of taxpayers, with household incomes of over $332,000 -- paid 28 percent of all taxes, with an effective tax rate of 31 percent. The middle three quintiles paid rates of 10, 14 and 18 percent. The lowest 20 percent of households paid only 0.8 percent of all federal taxes -- and the bottom 90 percent of households paid only 45 percent.

Based on these numbers, it would be hard to argue that the country doesn't already have a significantly progressive tax system. Taxes aren't just for suckers, with cashiers paying more of their income than corporate chief executives. Nor is the system egregiously stacked against the wealthy -- who, after all, receive the bulk of the income. The top quintile earned over 55 percent of the income, and the top 1 percent earned a full 19 percent of all income.

This matters because the simple truth is that in the coming years, taxes will have to go up to help close the government's gaping fiscal hole. Much of the budget gap should be covered by spending cuts, but judging from recent budget proposals by both parties, neither has an appetite for reductions anywhere near what will be needed.


When taxes go up, they should be increased in a way that makes the tax code more progressive. Income inequality has widened for the past three decades, and it only makes sense for those who have benefited to pay more. But there is a limit to how much the tippy top should bear. President Obama has promised that taxes will not be increased for families making under $250,000. That is a promise that will probably have to be dropped down the road. There just isn't enough revenue to be found above that figure unless we create a system so lopsided that voters would always want more government spending because it would come at such a low price.

The commonly used political definition of "rich" has crept up in recent years from $100,000 to $250,000. Either that definition is going to have to change again, or we will have to come to terms with the fact that the middle class will have to face higher tax burdens, too.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 09 - 11:08 AM

Snark, snipe, complain, sarcasticize.

Bruce: Your article conveniently omits what proportion of the income stream these people have.

A 33K grocer makes 1/10 of what a 330K director makes, and 1/100th of what a 3.3M super-CEO may make. Yet the super-CEO may pay a tax rate less than twice that of the grocer.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Apr 09 - 11:22 AM

Amos,

"Snark, snipe, complain, sarcasticize."

Hardly a valid comment for YOU to make.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Apr 09 - 12:42 PM

NEW YORK (CNN) -- President Obama has returned from his first trip abroad with praise ringing in his ears from the media elite and barely a word of protest from the Republican opposition.

It truly was an extraordinary introduction on the world stage for our celebrity president, and his only rival for attention was the first lady.

He is a true talent and performs with the best of them. You can like the man and disagree with his policies, but you're a fool if you underestimate him. The headlines said it all -- from California's Sacramento Bee: "President's overseas debut a love feast!" The Washington Post: "Obama portrays another side of the U.S." The Fort Wayne Journal: "Obama rallies troops in Baghdad."

But in spite of the rave reviews and talk of a brand new relationship with the world, it was also a week of reality. Great leaders are always looking at the past and learning from those who go before them. As William Shakespeare said: What is past is prologue.

The following quote, which could be written today, is from the past:

"The president continues to be highly regarded. By solid majorities of 65 percent or more, those surveyed said he has a vision for the country's future, has brought dignity back to the White House and is a strong leader willing to make hard decisions," reported a CNN/Gallup Poll.

The time was the end of 2003 and the president was the now despised-by-many George W. Bush after he visited Iraq at Thanksgiving for the first time.

So, the next time you hear the pundits chattering about the president's approval ratings on cable television, remember Bush's approval rating remained above 80 percent for nearly six months after 9/11 and above 70 percent for 10 months after that. He remained popular with a 63 percent approval rating at the time of the 2002 elections, helping Republicans to achieve rare congressional seat gains in a midterm election year.

As the second president to go stealthily into Iraq to praise our troops, President Obama warned our newest ally, the Iraqi government, that the ball was now in their court and that we are getting out of there on schedule.

I thought this was a wonderful way to end the trip as commander-in-chief, thanking our brave men and women who have given so much. But it did make me think of the immediate past president, who was equally praised on his first visit to Iraq. And on his last visit, an Iraqi journalist threw shoes at his head and was cheered on by his countrymen.

Even though President Obama spoke to the G-20 leaders as friends, addressed them more humbly than his predecessor and apologized for past perceived slights, the Europeans, especially France and Germany, weren't going to follow the United States in supporting an expanded stimulus program. They weren't going to follow us into Afghanistan, either, with their combat troops.

Even before the G-20 began, our new banker, China, expressed doubts about all its loans to us. Chinese officials stated, at a most inopportune time, that the world may need to find a new reserve currency rather than the U.S. dollar. We hope they will loan us the $100 billion we committed to the International Monetary Fund as a result of this meeting, money that we don't have and will have to borrow.

At almost the same time the president was advocating his vision of a world without nuclear arms and arguing that it is an achievable goal, reality came forth again. The North Koreans, who repeatedly dismissed as idle threats U.S. and U.N. warnings regarding their attempts at obtaining nuclear weapons and the systems to deliver them, on Saturday fired a rocket over Japan on its way to either space or Alaska.

Even though the alleged satellite didn't make it into orbit, the ripples it created went way beyond the Pacific Ocean where it crash-landed. Even our beloved governor of Alaska warned us that the North Koreans are coming, the North Koreans are coming.

The two old superpowers, China and Russia, wanted immediate sit-down summits later in the year to take the measure of the man. President Obama's reward for agreeing to the meetings was that both countries did everything possible to make sure the U.N. Security Council did nothing to condemn North Korea for its rocket blast. Beware of leaders calling you "comrade" on the first date.

The president's visit to Turkey, a key ally, was also historic. The first American president of color and Muslim heritage made great mileage with our important ally when he said:

"The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family or have lived in a Muslim-majority country. I know, because I am one of them." To the billion-plus Muslims in the world, those words had to be heartfelt and a welcome acknowledgement.

As an American, I am proud when our president does well overseas. Being humble worked much better than being cocky. But in order to lead, you must be tough. Being liked is important. Being respected will be the test. The president had a great opening round, but there are many more rounds to fight.

So welcome home, Mr. President. The financial mess is still here. Enjoy the Easter Egg roll on the South Lawn this weekend. And know that the decisions you make in the coming weeks and months will be all about those kids playing on your back lawn -- and every other child in America.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 09 - 01:17 PM

AU contraire, Bruce. You seem to believe that if I have been critical in the past I cannot blame others for being critical int he present. But all I have to do is find enough differences in style, and I can rationalize it completely!!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Apr 09 - 01:35 PM

" But all I have to do is find enough differences in style, and I can rationalize it completely!! "

But I am trying my best to use YOUR style.

I guess I just don't have sufficient bile.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 09:52 AM

The Next Guantánamo

Published: April 12, 2009

The Obama administration is basking in praise for its welcome commitment to shut down the American detention center at Guantánamo Bay. But it is acting far less nobly when it comes to prisoners held at a larger, more secretive military detention facility at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.

In February, the new administration disappointingly followed the example of the Bush White House in opposing judicial review for prisoners who have been indefinitely detained at Bagram without any charges or access to lawyers. The administration has now added to that disappointment by appealing a new federal court ruling extending the right of habeas corpus to some Bagram detainees.

The ruling was issued by Judge John Bates of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Narrowly crafted, the ruling essentially grants all non-Afghan Bagram detainees captured outside Afghanistan and held over six years without due process the same right to federal court review that the Supreme Court gave last year to similarly situated prisoners at Guantánamo.

Bagram differs from Guantánamo in that it is located in an active theater of war. Historically, habeas corpus has not extended to detainees held abroad in zones of combat. But the evidence suggests it was the prospect that Guantánamo detentions might be subject to judicial oversight that caused the military to divert captives to Bagram instead....". (NYT)

---

I would really love to get to the bottom of this. IF true, it is very disappointing.

Is the the corruptive influence of power? Or a problem in missing data?


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 12:46 PM

WASHINGTON, April 13 (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama said on Monday that a raft of major infrastructure projects being undertaken as part of his economic stimulus plan were coming in "ahead of schedule and under budget."

"What is most remarkable about this effort ... isn't just the size of our investment or the number of projects we're investing in. It is how quickly, efficiently and responsibly those investments have been made," Obama said at an appearance at the Transportation Department

"This government effort is coming in ahead of schedule and under budget," Obama said.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 07:03 PM

"The pesticide peddlers are not happy with Michelle Obama.


The Mid America CropLife Association (MACA) represents chemical companies that produce pesticides, and they are angry that — wait for it — Michelle Obama isn't using chemicals in her organic garden at the White House.

We are not making this up.

In an email they forwarded to their supporters, a MACA spokesman wrote, "While a garden is a great idea, the thought of it being organic made [us] shudder." MACA went on to publish a letter it had sent to the First Lady asking her to consider using chemicals — or what they call "crop protection products" — in her garden.

Michelle Obama has done America a great service by publicizing the importance of nutritious food for kids (she's growing the garden in partnership with a local elementary school class) as well as locally grown produce as an important, environmentally sustainable food source.

MACA's letter is part of a larger propaganda effort to convince people that chemicals are a necessary part of produce growth — when we know that's not true. ..."

(Campaign letter from CREDO)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 07:21 PM

"The pesticide peddlers are not happy with Michelle Obama."


                   She looks at the pests, it scares them to death, and nobody needs the poison.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 07:28 PM

But you continue to provide it anyway, for reasons only you could explain.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 07:45 PM

Hey, I wasn't the one to bring up Mrs. Obama and pesticide peddlers.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 09:44 PM

Larry Summers, Obama chief economic advisor 1999: "I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage countries is impeccable and we should face up to that . . . I've always thought that under-populated countries in Africa are also vastly under-polluted."

In 1998, in blocking attempts to regulate the derivatives market:
"The parties to these kinds of contracts are largely sophisticated financial institutions that would appear to be eminently capable of protecting themselves from fraud and counter party insolvencies and most of which are already subject to basic safety and soundness regulation under existing banking and securities laws."

As Treasury Secretary in 1999 Summers played a decisive role in pushing through the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act of 1933 that was instituted to guard against just the kind of banking abuses taxpayers now are having to bail out. Not only Glass-Steagall repeal. In 2000 Summers backed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act that incredibly mandated that financial derivatives, including in energy, could be traded between financial institutions completely without government oversight

Summers hailed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which lifted more than six decades of restrictions against banks offering commercial banking, insurance, and investment services (by repealing key provisions in the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act): "Today Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the 21st century" "This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy."

But Sawzaw, we had that all blamed on McCain and Phil Gramm. Are you trying to tell us that an Obama appointee is involved the meltdown?

In 2000 in praise of the derivatives market: "The over-the-counter derivatives market is an important component of the American capital markets and a powerful symbol of the kind of innovation and technology that has made the American financial system as strong as it is today."

During the California energy crisis of 2000, then-Treasury Secretary Summers teamed with Alan Greenspan and Enron executive Kenneth (Enron) Lay to lecture California Governor Gray Davis on the causes of the crisis, explaining that the problem was excessive government regulation.


Yer doin a heckuva job there Larry.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 10:04 PM

Lawrence Summers is convinced that he deserved every penny of the $8 million that Wall Street firms paid him last year. And why shouldn't he be cut in on the loot from the loopholes in the toxic derivatives market that he pushed into law when he was Bill Clinton's treasury secretary? No one has been more persistently effective in paving the way for the financial swindles that enriched the titans of finance while impoverishing the rest of the world than the man who is now the top economic adviser to President Obama.

It is especially disturbing that Summers got most of the $8 million from a major hedge fund at a time when such totally unregulated rich-guys-only investment clubs stand to make the most off the Obama administration's plan for saving the banks. The scheme, as announced by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, a Summers protégé, is to clean up the toxic holdings of the banks using taxpayer money and then turn them over to hedge funds that will risk little of their own capital. At least the banks are somewhat government-regulated, which cannot be said of the hedge funds, thanks to Summers.

It was Summers, as much as anyone, who in the Clinton years prevented the regulation of the hedge funds that are at the center of the explosion of the derivatives bubble, and the fact that D.E. Shaw, a leading hedge fund, paid the Obama adviser $5.2 million last year does suggest a serious conflict of interest. That sum is what Summers raked in for a part-time gig, in addition to the $2.77 million he received for forty speaking engagements, largely before banks and investment firms, and on top of the $587,000 he was paid as a professor at Harvard.

Summers was a top adviser to the Democratic presidential candidate last year, and that might have enhanced his speaking fees, which seem to have a base rate of $67,500, the amount he received on each of two occasions when he appeared at Lehman Brothers before that company went bankrupt. Lehman had purchased a 20 percent stake in D.E. Shaw while Summers was employed by the hedge fund, and it would be interesting to know if the subject of the overlapping business came up during Summers' visit to Lehman.

Lehman was only one on an impressive list of top financial firms that consulted Summers during a troubled period. Goldman Sachs was so interested in his thoughts that it paid him more than $200,000 for two talks, even though it soon needed $12 billion in taxpayer bailout funds. Citigroup, which has been going through hard times, managed only a $54,000 fee for a Summers rap. Merrill Lynch could pony up only a scant $45,000 for a Summers appearance last November 12, but that was at a point when Merrill was in deep trouble, with the government arranging its sale. Summers, anticipating an appointment in the administration of the newly elected Obama and perhaps wanting to avoid any embarrassment the fee might bring, decided to turn over the $45,000 to a charity.

Why was someone as compromised as Summers made the White House's point man overseeing $2.86 trillion in bailout funds to the financial moguls whom he had enabled in creating this mess and many of whom had benefited him financially? Will no congressional panel ever quiz Summers about his grand theory that the derivatives market required no government supervision because, as he testified to a Senate subcommittee in July of 1998: "the parties to these kinds of contracts are largely sophisticated financial institutions that would appear to be eminently capable of protecting themselves from fraud and counterparty insolvencies...."

Think of the sophisticates at AIG when you read that sentence, and then ask why Summers is once again at large in the public sector. Or take White House spokesman Ben LaBolt's word for it that "Dr. Summers has been at the forefront of this administration's work...to put in place a regulatory framework that will strengthen the financial system and its oversight--all in an effort to help the families across America who have paid a very steep price for risky decisions made by Wall Street executives."

The very same executives that Summers had previously assured us could be trusted without any regulation. Why should we now trust Summers any more than we trust them? Couldn't Summers just take his ill-gotten gains and go hide out in some offshore tax haven? If this was happening in a Republican administration, scores of Democrats in Congress would be all over it, asking tough questions about what exactly did Summers do to earn all that money from the D.E. Shaw hedge fund. As it is, with their silence they are complicit in this emerging scandal of the banking bailout.


"The parties to these kinds of contracts are largely sophisticated financial institutions that would appear to be eminently capable of protecting themselves from fraud and counterparty insolvencies."

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 11:35 PM

Bill Moyers drills down on the mutual coverup on the banking collapse, including the roll of Gethner and the missed opportunity for injecting integrity by the Obama administration, in a discussion with William Black.



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 12:33 AM

From: Amos
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 09:52 AM

The Next GuantánamoI would really love to get to the bottom of this. IF true, it is very disappointing.

'.....Is the the corruptive influence of power? Or a problem in missing data?'

Reality strikes!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: TIA
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 12:37 AM

Reality struck Dear Amos long ago I think.

The grasp on reality is slippery for the delusional, the insecure, and those with multiple online personalities.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 06:31 PM

Posted at 12:10 PM ET, 04/15/2009
Obama's Power Grab
Obama in explanation mode yesterday. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

President Obama yesterday showed the nation once again how good he is at explaining complicated things. Next up on his agenda should be an explanation -- or, rather, a clarification -- of his views on presidential power and George W. Bush's counterterrorism legacy.

It's past time for Obama to address his apparent adoption of positions he formerly characterized as extremist, and his suddenly cooling commitment to transparency when it comes to embarrassing secrets left over from the Bush era.

In the past few weeks, we've seen the Obama Justice Department make absurdly broad invocations of the state secrets privilege to protect Bush's spying programs from judicial review. We've seen the administration argue that foreign detainees -- as long as they are being held in Afghanistan rather than at Guantanamo -- can be imprisoned indefinitely without formal charges. We've seen how Obama, after staying out of the debate over accountability for torture and other unlawful legacies of the Bush administration, is now, apparently, taking sides by balking at requests from his own top legal advisers to release incriminating memos.

It's getting increasingly hard to reconcile candidate Obama, who eloquently criticized Bush's executive power overreach, with President Obama. This is especially true because his underlings consistently duck questions, leaving it entirely unclear why he's taking the positions he now takes and what, if anything, made him change his views.

So an explanation is called for from the man himself. And since the first 100 days of an administration are so defining, he ought to do it sometime in the next two weeks.

Supporters who put faith in Obama's campaign pledges to restore the nation's moral authority were heartened by his actions on his first and second full days in office. "Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency," he declared on Jan. 21. On Jan. 22, he banned torture and ordered the eventual closure of Guantanamo.

Some of those same supporters still hope that the administration's more recent actions can be chalked up to bureaucratic inertia and a steep learning curve. Perhaps Obama has a compelling explanation for the evolution of his thinking on these issues. Or perhaps the president, who has on many occasions admitted that he will inevitably make mistakes, could admit he's made some here.

Every day seems to bring more signs of Obama's retreat from his previously stated goals.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/?hpid=opinionsbox1

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Apr 09 - 03:34 AM

Bruce, Great post!..But do you think it will get any traction on here?? Especially your fourth paragraph: ..."It's getting increasingly hard to reconcile candidate Obama, who eloquently criticized Bush's executive power overreach, with President Obama. This is especially true because his underlings consistently duck questions, leaving it entirely unclear why he's taking the positions he now takes and what, if anything, made him change his views." .....It happens all the time on here. ..or to quote TIA:..."The grasp on reality is slippery for the delusional, the insecure, and those with multiple online personalities." (I don't think he(?) meant it quite that way, but it's also telling, that should come from him..or her, whatever persona, 'it' is promoting this week!)
   I'm sure...quite sure, that when common sense prevails, beyond a shadow of a doubt, those ideologues(read:idiot-logs), find it much akin to the sound of scraping one's fingernails on a chalk board, then, cluelessly resort to name calling....Sorta makes you wonder, what happened to the Democratic party, whose more conservative President, who said, "Ask NOT what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"...to a bunch of whiny, Monica Lewinsky-types, on their knees, before the president,trying to get in line for a big suck!!!...Jeez!, they should take a good look at themselves...and with one ounce of moral integrity, ask themselves.."what the fuck happened to us(or me)..what have I become??!!!" .....Then ask, "Why?"

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Apr 09 - 09:56 PM

"Popular Views: the Obama Administration"


                   Awful, simply awful!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 09 - 10:04 AM

The Sting, In Four Parts

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, April 17, 2009

Franklin Roosevelt gave us the New Deal. John Kennedy gave us the New Frontier. In a major domestic policy address at Georgetown University this week, Barack Obama promised -- eight times -- a "New Foundation." For those too thick to have noticed this proclamation of a new era in American history, the White House Web site helpfully titled its speech excerpts "A New Foundation."

As it happens, Obama is not the first to try this slogan. President Jimmy Carter peppered his 1979 State of the Union address with five "New Foundations" (and eight more just naked "foundations"). Like most of Carter's endeavors, this one failed, perhaps because (as I recall it being said at the time) it sounded like the introduction of a new kind of undergarment.

Undaunted, Obama offered his New Foundation speech as the complete, contextual, canonical text for the domestic revolution he aims to enact. It had everything we have come to expect from Obama:

The Whopper: The boast that he had "identified $2 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade." It takes audacity to repeat this after it had been so widely exposed as transparently phony. Most of this $2 trillion is conjured up by refraining from spending $180 billion a year for 10 more years of surges in Iraq. Hell, why not make the "deficit reductions" $10 trillion -- the extra $8 trillion coming from refraining from repeating the $787 billion stimulus package annually through 2019.

The Puzzler: He further boasted of his frugality by saying that his budget would reduce domestic discretionary spending as a share of GDP to the lowest level ever recorded. Amazing. Squeezing discretionary domestic spending at a time of hugely expanding budgets is merely the baleful residue of out-of-control entitlements and debt service, which will increase astronomically under Obama. To claim these as achievements in fiscal responsibility is testament not to Obama's frugality but to his brazenness.

The Non Sequitur: "To make sure such a crisis [as we have today] never happens again," Obama proposes his radical health-care, energy and education reforms, the central pillars of his social democratic agenda. But Obama's own words contradict this assertion. Notes The Post: "But as his admirable summation of recent history made clear, these pursuits have little to do with the economic crisis, and they are not the key to economic recovery." Obama rarely fails to repeat this false connection. A crisis -- and the public's resulting pliability to liberal social engineering -- is a terrible thing to waste.

The Swindle: The Obama administration is spending money like none other in peacetime history. Obama is smart. He knows this is fiscally unsustainable. He has let it be known privately and publicly that he intends to cure the imbalance with entitlement reform.

An excellent strategy. If it takes throwing nearly $1 trillion of "porky" (to quote Sen. Charles Schumer) stimulus spending to soften up a Democratic Congress and make it amenable to real entitlement reform, then fine. Reforming Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid would save tens of trillions of dollars, and make the current money-from-helicopters spending almost trivial by comparison.

In the New Foundation speech, Obama correctly (again) identifies the skyrocketing cost of Medicare and Medicaid as the key fiscal problem. But then he claims that Medicaid and Medicare reform is the same as his health-care reform, fatuously citing as his authority a one-day meeting of handpicked interested parties at his "Fiscal Responsibility Summit."

Here's the problem. The heart of Obama's health-care reform is universality. Covering more people costs more money. That is why Obama's budget sets aside an extra $634 billion in health-care spending, a down payment on an estimated additional spending of $1 trillion. How does the administration curtail the Medicare and Medicaid entitlement by adding yet another (now universal) health-care entitlement that its own estimate acknowledges increases costs by about $1 trillion?

Which is why in his March 24 news conference, Obama could not explain how -- when the near-term stimulative spending is over and his ambitious domestic priorities kick in, promising sustained prosperity and deficit reduction -- the deficits at the end of the coming decade are rising, not falling. The Congressional Budget Office has deficits increasing in the last seven years of the decade from an already unsustainable $672 billion annually to $1.2 trillion by 2019.

This is the sand on which the new foundation is constructed. Obama has the magic to make words mean almost anything. Numbers are more resistant to his charms.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 12:34 AM

But Bruce...(sighs..and batting my eyes)..Obama is so charming. Who cares about reality??..(gasps an gasp of adoration).....Just listen to his 'cool' when he talks!....and he's so cute, too......(rocks from side to side, on the outer sides of my shoes)....Don't you just love him??..the way I do??...(fans side of face, with other hand)..I think I'm so in love with him,...I'm about to pass out. Wake me when it's over. I'll go along with whatever he says!....(Collapses,...in heat)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 12:36 AM

AHA!!!

I noticed that the last post by GfS was number 666 on this thread!

Does that tell youoooo something???? Hmmm???

(I'm joking, okay?) ;-)

Am I mistaken or are some people arguing with each other here?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 01:59 PM

Well, Little Hawk, welcome back!..and as No. 666, I heartily endorse Barrack Obama!..(that should make Amos smile)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 03:53 PM

BB started this thread mainly to bug Amos, didn't he? ;-) I wonder if he has succeeded as well as he had hoped to?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 10:23 PM

If BB started this thread to bug Amos, well all he had to do was say that he had better sexual fantasies about Obama, than Amos does!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 10:37 PM

Ha! Ha! Oh, now you're getting nasty...

I like Obama rather well on a personal basis, I like his whole family actually...and he's vastly more popular in Canada than our own prime minister, partly because he's a fresh face on the political scene, partly because he's just a lot more likeable, period than Steven Harper.

However, the candidates in the last election I really liked the best were:

1. Dennis Kucinich
2. Ron Paul
3. (and in some respects) Mike Huckabee

Obama has enough goodwill right now in the world and at home that he could actually return the USA to being a fairly well-liked nation internationally and really change things...IF he makes the right moves and follows through.

I am sad to think that, realpolitik and corporate policy being what it is in the USA, he will do nothing of the sort in the next four years, but I could be wrong. I've been wrong before. It happened just once back in 1965. I said it was going to rain on Saturday and it didn't. (grin)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 11:54 PM

It is correct that BB's motive was revenge for the drubbing I gave his favored candidate throughout the years of the Bush administration. He is intransigent and intractable in his assertion he is doing exactly the same things as I did. My assertions about the differences have fallen on dulled ears.

GtS, thanks for your endorsement of Obama in your role as 666 representative. I now have a perfect fall-back explanation in case he gets sucked under.



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 02:13 AM

Yes, even you can join in on the satire!
(Wow!..That last fantasy I had was a dilly!)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 02:49 AM

From: Amos
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 11:54 PM

" ...I now have a perfect fall-back explanation in case he gets SUCKED under."......In your most sacred dreams...Dream on!
(Told you!)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 11:10 AM

Consider the following Article:

Right-wingers have run U.S. into the ground
HARRY BRUCE:Halifax Chronicle Herald
Sun. Apr 19 - 5:17 AM


WHILE self-righteously denouncing "Big Government" as a brother-in-crime of Commun-ism, the U.S. champions of "market-based solutions" certainly found solutions to their own financial problems.

Their ideology, in which deregulation and privatization were holy doctrine, amounted to a religion for the greedy. In the past quarter-century, this faith so dominated business and politics down there that its priests piled up enormous wealth for themselves and, at the same time, complacently watched a deterioration of the well-being of tens of millions of their fellow Americans.

"The modern conservative," wrote the Canadian-born economist John Kenneth Galbraith, "is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

Not only in the U.S. but among the meaner varieties of conservatives in Canada, that search, which includes the cursing of Big Government, has been vigorous and influential. Most Canadians, however, at least know that it was Big Government that gave them railroads, air travel, radio, TV, unemployment insurance, pensions, medicare, and a whole lot more.

Were it not for huge spending initiatives by government, over several generations, we would be nowhere near as well off as we are. As economist Jeff Madrick proves in his new book, The Case for Big Government, Americans, too, owe much of their prosperity to almost two centuries of enormous public spending.

Such talk is heresy to the conservative ideologues who've held power in Washington for three decades. But what did these vicious crackpots and money-grubbers bequeath to President Barack Obama?

By comparison with the rest of the industrialized world, the U.S. now has the biggest income gap between the rich and poor, the highest rate of infant mortality, the highest rate of poverty among minors, the highest percentage of children unlikely to reach 60, and by far the highest percentage of its own people languishing in jail.

While setting these dubious records, the U.S. allowed its infrastructure to collapse like an old wooden house infested with termites. "For decades now, we have been witnessing the slow, ruthless dismantling of the nation's urban infrastructure," the New York Times recently reported. "The crumbling levees in New Orleans are only the most conspicuous evidence of this decline: it's evident everywhere, from Amtrak's aging track system to New York's decaying public school buildings."

If the neglect of dikes, bridges, highways and sewers is a grim reality for America, the erosion of its standards of education is even grimmer.

"All signs point to a deterioration in the quality of American schools," Harvard professor Henry Lee Shattuck writes. "Europeans and Asians alike have rapidly expanded their educational systems over the past 50 years. In the U.S., stagnation if not decline has been apparent at least since the 1970s. Even our high school graduation rates are lower today than they were a decade ago."

Today's Americans work harder and longer than both today's Europeans and yesterday's Americans, but their wages, on average, have been stuck in a rut for decades. Since the 1970s, writes Harvard lecturer Richard Parker, "the U.S. economy has grown more slowly than in the 30-year period after the end of World War II, but also very likely more slowly than in any other period in the nation's history."

"Real wages stagnant as corporate profits soar," read a headline in the Oakland Tribune. That was in 2006, but the reality it describes began to take shape when American voters, suckers that they were, in 1980 elected as their president that smiling, avuncular, and faithful ally of the rich, Ronald Reagan.

While scorning Big Government, his administration and those of his successors went about ruling the home of the brave and the land of the free as though they didn't really care how big government got — just as long it was government of the affluent, by the affluent, and for the affluent.

This is hard to believe, but some champions of the conservative ideology still think they were right. To mark the ascension of Obama to the presidency, William Kristol of the New York Times actually wrote, "All good things must come to an end. Jan. 20 marked the end of a conservative era. Since Ronald Reagan's election in 1980, conservatives of various sorts, and conservatisms of various stripes, have generally been in the ascendancy. And a good thing, too!"

Oh, please, Mr. Kristol. If the dominance of conservatives was a good thing for the U.S., so was the attack on the World Trade Centre, the war in Iraq, hurricane Katrina, and the hatred of America that has blossomed all around the world.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 01:44 PM

We had a freeway fall down on an underpass here in San Diego last week, I have now heard. The Republican San Diego Tribune barely carrie dthe story. None of the newsfeeds carried it. Interstate Five is falling down, falling down, falling down...



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 03:44 PM

So, IF Galbraith is correct, why is the Obama administration bailing them out????...Because Geithner is in bed with them????..OR...Who is telling who, what to do???

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 06:28 PM

...He closes in on 100 days as president, having handled the highs and lows with a sense of urgency and his characteristic calmness.
By Faye Fiore and Mark Z. Barabak, reporting from Washington
April 19, 2009

On the last Friday in March, President Obama summoned leaders of the banking industry to the White House, where they gathered around a mahogany table in the State Dining Room, site of many a feast. On this day there was not a piece of fruit nor can of soda in sight. At each place was a glass of water. No ice. No refills.

The president's message was hard and crusty as a slab of day-old bread.

He urged the bankers to view corporate excess through the eyes of Americans who are belt-tightening their way through the recession. Obama mentioned the carpet stains in the Oval Office, to make a frugal comparison with $1-million suites decorated with $8,000 trash cans.

The corporate chieftains protested, citing the specialization of their field and the need to pay handsomely to avoid a brain drain. Obama cut them off: "Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn't buying that. My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks."

Direct, assertive and utterly self-assured, Obama has used his broad popularity, a driving ambition and a sweeping agenda to move America in a wholly new direction.

Just shy of 100 days in office, he has ordered the closure of the Guantanamo Bay military prison and a troop withdrawal from Iraq; made it easier for women to sue for job discrimination; eased a ban on stem cell research; extended healthcare coverage to millions of children; ousted the head of General Motors; reached out to the Muslim world; moved to ease tensions with Cuba; traveled to Canada, Europe, Turkey and Latin America; and set aside huge tracts of wilderness for federal protection.

More broadly, Obama has seized on the worst economic crisis since the 1930s -- exploiting it, critics say -- and set out to reshape major aspects of everyday life: the price we pay to see a doctor, the size of our children's classrooms, the fuel we put in our cars.

If Obama's history-making campaign offered hope, the nation's first black president has delivered audacity; his vision of an activist government has been so vast, Washington now guarantees not only savings accounts but brakes on a Buick.

"You can carp and gripe," said Allan Lichtman, a historian at Washington's American University. "But you really have to go back as far as Franklin Roosevelt for this much coming out of a newly elected president." (snip)


here in the LAT

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 06:48 PM

Good article, Ed T.

Here's an extraordinary thing. Look at this link about comparative health care systems in developed countries: Comparative National Health Care Systems

The USA is the ONLY country on the list which does NOT have a publicly funded national health insurance program. It is also the country which spends the largest percentage of its GDP by far on health care and where its citizens can least afford to meet their health care expenses! Astounding. The chart is from 1997. Costs have gone up since then in every country, and the USA is still the country with the highest % of GDP cost of health care...and the least result for it. Something is seriously wrong in America. Your public is at the mercy of your private enterprise system which exists not to serve the public, but to line its own pockets.

We presently spend about 10% of our GDP (from taxation) on health care in Canada...and its universal and free to every citizen. The USA presently spends about 17% of its GDP (from taxation) on health care, and it's cripplingly expensive to anyone who needs treatment, but doesn't have insurance coverage from an employer. A busted ankle with complications cost Mike Huckabee's daughter about $12,000 in hospital fees over a period of one year. In Canada it would have cost her absolutely nothing in medical fees...but she still pays her taxes into that 17% of the USA GDP!

Yet Huckabee is terrified by what "socialism" could do if allowed into the USA Medicare system. He has no idea when it comes to that. (He does have some excellent ideas about various other things, but not about that. I've been reading his book, and there's some very good stuff in it, but he has no idea what socialism is at all.)

If he had been born in Canada or Europe, he'd see it very differently. The one thing the Canadian electorate WILL NOT see threatened is our national health plan, and our politicians know it.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 09 - 02:51 PM

A World Of Trouble For Obama
By Jackson Diehl
Monday, April 20, 2009

New American presidents typically begin by behaving as if most of the world's problems are the fault of their predecessors -- and Barack Obama has been no exception. In his first three months he has quickly taken steps to correct the errors in George W. Bush's foreign policy, as seen by Democrats. He has collected easy dividends from his base, U.S. allies in Europe and a global following for not being "unilateralist" or war-mongering or scornful of dialogue with enemies.

Now comes the interesting part: when it starts to become evident that Bush did not create rogue states, terrorist movements, Middle Eastern blood feuds or Russian belligerence -- and that shake-ups in U.S. diplomacy, however enlightened, might not have much impact on them.

The first wake-up call has come from North Korea -- a state that, according to established Democratic wisdom, would have given up its nuclear weapons years ago if it had not been labeled "evil" by Bush, denied bilateral talks with Washington and punished with sanctions. Stephen Bosworth, the administration's new special envoy, duly tried to head off Pyongyang's latest illegal missile test by promising bilateral negotiations and offering "incentives" for good behavior.

North Korea fired the missile anyway. After a week of U.N. Security Council negotiations by the new, multilateralist U.S. administration produced the same weak statement that the Bush administration would have gotten, the Stalinist regime expelled U.N. inspectors and announced that it was returning to plutonium production.

When the inspectors were ousted in 2002, Democrats blamed Bush. Now Republicans blame Obama -- but North Korea's strategy hasn't changed in 15 years. It provokes a crisis, then demands bribes from the United States and South Korea in exchange for restoring the status quo. The Obama team now faces the same dilemma that bedeviled the past two administrations: It must judge whether to respond to the bad behavior by paying the bribe or by trying to squeeze the regime.

A second cold shower rained down last week on George Mitchell, Obama's special envoy to the Middle East. For eight years Democrats insisted that the absence of progress toward peace between Israel and its neighbors was due to the Bush administration's failure at "engagement." Mitchell embodies the correction. But during last week's tour of the region he encountered a divided Palestinian movement seemingly incapable of agreeing on a stance toward Israel and a new Israeli government that doesn't accept the goal of Palestinian statehood. Neither appeared at all impressed by the new American intervention -- or willing to offer even token concessions.

Those aren't the only signs that the new medicine isn't taking. Europeans commonly blamed Bush for Russia's aggressiveness -- they said he ignored Moscow's interests and pressed too hard for European missile defense and NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine. So Hillary Clinton made a show of pushing a "reset" button, and Obama offered the Kremlin a new arms control agreement while putting missile defense and NATO expansion on a back burner. Yet in recent weeks Russia has deployed thousands of additional troops as well as tanks and warplanes to the two breakaway Georgian republics it has recognized, in blatant violation of the cease-fire agreement that ended last year's war. The threat of another Russian attack on Georgia seems to be going up rather than down.

Obama sent a conciliatory public message to Iranians, and the United States joined in a multilateral proposal for new negotiations on its nuclear program. The regime responded by announcing another expansion of its uranium enrichment facility and placing an American journalist on trial for espionage. Obama told Iraqis that he would, as long promised, use troop withdrawals to pressure the government to take over responsibility for the country. Since he made that announcement, violence in Iraq has steadily increased.

Obama is not the first president to discover that facile changes in U.S. policy don't crack long-standing problems. Some of his new strategies may produce results with time. Yet the real test of an administration is what it does once it realizes that the quick fixes aren't working -- that, say, North Korea and Iran have no intention of giving up their nuclear programs, with or without dialogue, while Russia remains determined to restore its dominion over Georgia. In other words, what happens when it's no longer George W. Bush's fault? That's what the next 100 days will tell us.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 09 - 04:20 PM

DIehl is fighting a paper tiger, Bruce; even you should see the illogic in his assertions. "Bush did not create rogue states, terrorist movements, Middle Eastern blood feuds or Russian belligerence" is a shallow porosition, as no-one in his right mind could assert these things were not around before Bush. Bush's offences were more specific, equally deleterious, and did not consist of these fabrications. What hogwash.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 09 - 05:10 PM

Sorry, Amos. As usual, you fail to address the point of the article.

"Yet the real test of an administration is what it does once it realizes that the quick fixes aren't working -- that, say, North Korea and Iran have no intention of giving up their nuclear programs, with or without dialogue, while Russia remains determined to restore its dominion over Georgia. In other words, what happens when it's no longer George W. Bush's fault? That's what the next 100 days will tell us. "


You are now jumping down the throats of the people that you quoted from ( against Bush) because you don't like what they say. Instead, try to reply to the facts presented in those comments, rather than attacking the writer for your imagined "insults" to Obama. I find this article to be somewhat timid, and NOT to hold Obama to the fire- it never even mentions that most of what Obama is now doing was tried by Bush, with poor results.

What was that comment about insanity being to keep trying the same solutions, and expecting different results? Or, again, do you only apply negative criticsm to Bush, and only allow positive statements about AObama?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Apr 09 - 06:59 PM

"What was that comment about insanity being to keep trying the same solutions, and expecting different results? Or, again, do you only apply negative criticism to Bush, and only allow positive statements about Obama?"......BB
Ah!..A a question for your 'resident' psychologist(among other things)..me.
Trying the same thing over and over again, expecting different results, and NOT learning from experience...is the symptom of a psychotic. That being said, I don't think Obama is a psychotic....He's just doing what he is told to do, by the same people who told Bush. The PR is different...but the results are the same.
Same with the financial problem. This started long before 'W'...in fact, it was Clinton's pressuring of the banks to give loans to those who couldn't pay them back, that started this bubble to inflate...BUT WAIT...remember the '.com bubble'...and the 401K policy....you know, your 401K was to be invested??...That wasn't to help you for retirement, That was just an earlier attempt to bolster the stock market, that was beginning to fail back then, and needed to be 'funded back up'. We were in serious trouble back then. This problem is not a 'new' problem, starting with Baby Bush...this is a sries of problems, spanning several presidents....who take their marching orders from the same band of international bandits...Obama, just being the latest. This is the same thing I've been saying from the beginning..and now, as the news comes out, it is more than proving me right AGAIN!...But because some of you think I'm a 'right winger' you obliviously dismiss it...and yet, I'm not a 'right winger' at all! IT IS THOSE, WHO ADOPT A SIDE(Right wing or left), WHO END UP BLOCKING THE OTHER HALF OF THE INFORMATION YOU NEED TO KNOW!...and, because of it, WE become divided, and are being played for fools!!!! Neither side, has their fingers on the pulse, in its entirety! Both have right..both have wrong. This national debate that is being force fed us,(to divide us), is NOT about business, nor politics. IT is about control...and its the same very few, at the top, who hide behind whatever administration that is propped up,(bought and paid for...even threatened)..who are the ones making the policies to benefit themselves...NOT YOU or THE PARTY LINE both sides spout off.

NOW, knowing that....just WHO are the PSYCHOTICS out there????????

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Apr 09 - 09:18 PM

BB - You said "American presidents typically begin by behaving as if most of the world's problems are the fault of their predecessors"

Well, yeah!!! ;-) Given the normal role of the USA in the world in the world for the past few decades (since the 1950's), that would be almost a foregone conclusion, wouldn't it?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 09 - 10:17 PM

Your foregone conclusion, as reflected in your somewhat bitter posts is that in less than 100 days Obama has tried all his solutions and they have failed. I submit you are not looking at the actual scene, but at a crystallized, frozen, and quite embittered version of it.

Fortunately, the President is a little less bruised and a little less inclined toward disdain and violence.


What e actually does, and the degree to which it works, is an evolving picture.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 02:02 AM

I'm sure his controllers have it in their plans, how and what needs to be 'evolved', and at what pace. It is only we, that watches the movie, as it plays..The script is already written...The rest is just 'the ratings'.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 09:37 AM

Sigh. How can so much bull and poppycock come forth so rap[idly from one small-mouthed lass?


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 01:18 PM

Huh? GfS is female?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 01:33 PM

I imagine she is, yes. IS that an error?


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 02:03 PM

I don't know. I always thought GfS was male. Maybe we should ask him? her? whatever?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 03:01 PM

No guarantess it will answer questions posed to it. It is precious and given to moods, yessssss.



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 03:32 PM

EXCLUSIVE: Senator's husband's firm cashes in on crisis
Feinstein sought $25 billion for agency that awarded contract to spouse

By Chuck Neubauer (Contact) | Tuesday, April 21, 2009

On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.

Mrs. Feinstein's intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn't a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments - not direct federal dollars.

Documents reviewed by The Washington Times show Mrs. Feinstein first offered Oct. 30 to help the FDIC secure money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures. Her letter was sent just days before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) - the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman - had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.

About the same time of the contract award, Mr. Blum's private investment firm reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it and related affiliates had purchased more than 10 million new shares in CBRE. The shares were purchased for the going price of $3.77; CBRE's stock closed Monday at $5.14.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/21/senate-husbands-firm-cashes-in-on-crisis/

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 03:36 PM

PROMISES, PROMISES: Obama and black farmers

By BEN EVANS – 12 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — As a senator, Barack Obama led the charge last year to pass a bill allowing black farmers to seek new discrimination claims against the Agriculture Department. Now he is president, and his administration so far is acting like it wants the potentially budget-busting lawsuits to go away.

The change isn't sitting well with black farmers who thought they'd get a friendlier reception from Obama after years of resistance from President George W. Bush.

"You can't blame it on the Bush administration anymore," said John Boyd, head of the National Black Farmers Association, which has organized the lawsuits. "I can't figure out for the life of me why the president wouldn't want to implement a bill that he fought for as a U.S. senator."

At issue is a class-action lawsuit known as the Pigford case. Thousands of farmers sued USDA claiming they had for years been denied government loans and other assistance that routinely went to whites. The government settled in 1999 and has paid out nearly $1 billion in damages on almost 16,000 claims.

Farmers, lawyers and activists like Boyd have worked for years to reopen the case because thousands of farmers missed the deadlines for participating. Many said the filing period was too short and they were unaware of the settlement until it was too late.

The cause gained momentum in August 2007 when Obama, then an Illinois senator, introduced Pigford legislation about six months into his presidential campaign.

Although the case was hardly a hot-button political issue, it had drawn intense interest among African-Americans in the rural South. It was seen as a way for Obama to reach out in those areas, where he was not well-known and where he would need strong support to win the Democratic primary.

The proposal won passage in May as sponsors rounded up enough support to incorporate it into the 2008 farm bill. The potential budget implications were huge: It could easily cost $2 billion or $3 billion given an estimated 65,000 pending claims.

With pressure to hold down costs, lawmakers set an artificially low $100 million budget. They called it a first step and said more money could be approved later.

But with 25,000 new claims and counting, the Obama administration is now arguing that the $100 million budget should be considered a cap to be split among the successful cases.

The position — spelled out in a legal motion filed in February and reiterated in recent settlement talks — would leave payments as low as $2,000 or $3,000 per farmer. Boyd called that "insulting."

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 03:44 PM

Anybody who thinks farming is easy for white people has never been a farmer.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 03:54 PM

Amos,

Please at least try to read what is being said, instead of telling us what YOU wanted us to say:

""Yet the real test of an administration is what it does once it realizes that the quick fixes aren't working -- that, say, North Korea and Iran have no intention of giving up their nuclear programs, with or without dialogue, while Russia remains determined to restore its dominion over Georgia. "

Waiting to see what Obama does, and how effective it is.

Now go off and eat that raw fish, like a good Gollum.. I mean Amos.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 04:40 PM

Ummm...let me check........

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 05:54 PM

Bruce:

You will find, if you look, that I addressed precisely what Diehl said, in his windy fashion, and took exception to it.

If--as he predicts from his embittered opinion--it turns out that Obama's strategies do not work, it is a good bet he will modify them, unlike some presidents I could name. His proposition about hypothetical failure and the dramatic contradistinction with claims no one has made is , in summary, a semantically null posturing.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 06:00 PM

STILL waiting to see what Obama does, and how effective it is

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 06:11 PM

That's the right action--keep your eyes open, and other openings not.



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 06:28 PM

But your example throughout the Bush administration demands otherwise- I should make a fuss oover everything, real or imagined, and demand that all agree with me or else I will attack them as the low-life scum-pond slime that they must be, for disagreeing with me.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 09:58 PM

From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 03:36 PM

PROMISES, PROMISES: Obama and black farmers

By BEN EVANS – 12 hours ago

"The change isn't sitting well with black farmers who thought they'd get a friendlier reception from Obama after years of resistance from President George W. Bush.
"You can't blame it on the Bush administration anymore," said John Boyd, head of the National Black Farmers Association, which has organized the lawsuits. "I can't figure out for the life of me why the president wouldn't want to implement a bill that he fought for as a U.S. senator." "

Because he's full of shit...(Don't tell Amos, he can't tell ......yet)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 10:08 PM

He reminds me of Ronald Reagan!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 10:57 PM

Who?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 10:58 PM

From the same article, just a tad further down the page:

""I'm really disappointed," Boyd said. "This is the president's bill."
"They did discriminate against these farmers, maybe not all of them, but a lot of these people would prevail if they could go to court," he said.
The administration wouldn't discuss specific budget plans or commit to fully funding the claims.
But in a statement to The Associated Press, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the department agrees that more needs to be done and is working with the Justice Department to "ensure that people are treated fairly."
Kenneth Baer, a budget spokesman for the White House, also suggested that the White House is planning to do more.
"The president has been a leader on this issue since his days as a U.S. senator and is deeply committed to closing this painful chapter in our history," Baer said in a statement."

---

Nice to hear both sides of the discussion once in a while.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 12:36 AM

Well, what was he supposed to say??? Can't you tell politico-speak, when you hear it?? That was a noncommittal "We'll look into it"..which means, ..."Give it some time to go away, (maybe forever)until then, we'll get together, to get our ducks in a row"

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 07:09 AM

"Who?"

Obama!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 11:29 AM

That's what I thought..wasn't sure, though..

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 11:39 AM

The NYT does an interesting comparison of Obama with Reagan. THere are a number of very important differences though; but to a mind locked into blind association, pointing out such differences would probably be an exercise in futility.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 11:43 AM

Article here.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 11:57 AM

"Nice to hear both sides of the discussion once in a while."

Why? You have never given both sides, when you parroted the NYT lines on Bush. You have not even acknowledged the times that Obama is continuing Bush policies, because he thinks they are the right thing to do.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 12:07 PM

Maybe he's continuing Bush's policies because the USA is actually run by some very powerful monied interests whom you will never get to vote either for or against...and they control every presidency (and Congress) like controlling a puppet with strings...and the president himself is just a "face" out front to mesmerize you little people and make you think your vote actually gives you some influence over national policy, when it does nothing of the sort.

Ever consider that? ;-)

Probably not, right?

Well, stay happy in the Land of Oz. The little man behind the screen remains invisible.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 12:20 PM

imaterial to this arguement, LH. The point is that Amos will applaud Obama for doing exactly what he criticised Bush for doing.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 01:29 PM

Well, I think you are not speaking accurately. What I lambasted Bush for, above all else, was his secretiveness, and his catering to lobbyists, and his disrespect for the Consittution, and his eagerness to launch wars.


Obama seems to be quite different on all these fronts. On specific issues, I think it will be easy to find material to disagree with him about--the black farmers' bill is a case in point; but I can understand what he is doing, regardless.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 02:08 PM

Besides, Bruce, surely somewhere buried in all your anger, you have some thoughts of your own. Why define your posting career by countereaction against my posts about someone not even in the public eye?


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 02:09 PM

From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 12:20 PM

immaterial to this argument, LH. The point is that Amos will applaud Obama for doing exactly what he criticized Bush for doing.

Now look at this......"From: Amos
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 11:39 AM

"THere are a number of very important differences though; "THere are a number of very important differences though; but to a mind locked into blind association, pointing out such differences would probably be an exercise in futility."
That post is coming for you! Amos????? You are the most blocked numskull in here...You argue points, that may be attempting to be popularized, but are so far from sound, it staggers me! Your posts on Obama, fly in the face of the obvious truths coming out, and yet, you FAIL utterly to rebut any of the FACTS, brought up, by a number of intelligent, well thought out, and articulate posters. The same thing when it comes to the homosexual topic. I can stare at an lemon tree, in front of me, and describe it,..and you're going to tell me its a watermelon! Before I sorta kidded about it, but now I'm very seriously considering that the reason you do this, is because, from all indications, I'm beginning to really think YOU are homosexual, and Obama is your imaginary lover!! You say you took courses in philosophy, but i think you philosophized yourself right out of reality, despite all the evidence of the flagrantly obvious, all around you...and though you try to dig up rhetoric, to show you are so 'well educated'..your emotional fixation leaves you looking pretty damn immature, and illiterate!
I myself have counseled homosexuals, first hand, and I've share some of those things with you as to results, and you pull up bullshit, financed by political agenda driven 'studies', and think that you're going to convince ME, that what I know to be true, isn't, because the bogus study says so. There are news items everyday coming out, as to the fraud, and 'hiding' of the TARP funds, and the shadiness of this administration, lies and deceit, broken promises, and instead of addressing them equitably, you just sit there, sucking your thumb, and picking your nose, NODDING YOUR HEAD, saying 'UHH-UHHH"..and THEN post some unrelated post on how you 'lover in chief', is a great guy!!..Go figure!..Then you post..."THere are a number of very important differences though; but to a mind locked into blind association, pointing out such differences would probably be an exercise in futility."??????? Funny, that should come to your mind...but then, why not?..its where YOU LIVE!..You just proceed to describe yourself, and project it on to the other posters, oblivious to actually EXCHANGING ideas, or learning a damn thing!!!...not only that, you inundate us with 'cut and paste' from the most far left wing nut sources, and think that we are supposed to accept this as truth...instead of what it is...just a far left lunatic pundit. You just don't get it...but then to quote you:...."THere are a number of very important differences though; but to a mind locked into blind association, pointing out such differences would probably be an exercise in futility."
Beardedbruce, and Little Hawk, Akenaton, Rig(sometimes)and yours truly, are dead right on. We CONSIDER things the way they are, politically, and do NOT accept the advertised propaganda releases, without at least comparing them to something FACTUAL, before posting some semi-literate, pretentious, blindly opinionated hogwash, such that you do...and then get 'butt hurt' when someone points out plain and simple obvious truths!
Oh Great Philosopher, ...old adage:...Philosophy triumphs over past and future evils, but temptation triumphs over philosophy!!!!
GfS

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 02:47 PM

Amos,

"Why define your posting career by countereaction against my posts ..."

I do not- I merely apply the same standards to my posts in THIS thread as you have shown to be suitable, from your excellent example.

In other words, I am trying to show you just what an SOB you were in the past- and it seems like you like it less than I did!

At least I never told you to shut up or stop posting.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 02:51 PM

BB - "Amos will applaud Obama for doing exactly what he criticized Bush for doing."

Yeah, probably he will, BB. ;-) That's the nature of the partisan mind, as I've often pointed out. It filters reality to meet its prejudices. That's one reason I really do not like political parties...nor do I much like overall political labels such as "liberal" and "conservative" or "left" and "right", because they constantly get in the way of perceiving truth. They obfuscate and mislead. They encourage knee-jerk response and lack of real thought about anything. They obviate fairness and objectivity. We would be better off, in my opinion, if all political parties and their corrupt party machines were forever abolished, and we could vote in future just for free-minded individuals who represented not a party...but themselves and their own ideas.

GfS - You really need to put some paragraph breaks in a post like that last one. Otherwise it becomes quite hard to read at all and will probably just be skipped over and ignored by a lot of people. (assuming a lot of people even come here) ;-)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 03:18 PM

Washington Post:

Invitation to Appease

Will the Obama administration talk to Iran while it persecutes Americans and libels Israel?

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

LAST WEEK, the Iranian regime brought American journalist Roxana Saberi before a closed court and in a one-hour trial convicted her of espionage -- a blatantly bogus charge. She was sentenced to eight years in prison. On Monday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was last seen inaugurating a new facility for Iran's nuclear program, appeared at the U.N. conference on racism in Geneva to deliver a speech seemingly calculated to cause maximum outrage in the United States and other Western countries. They had, he said, "resorted to military aggression" in order to create Israel "on the pretext of Jewish sufferings and the ambiguous and dubious question of the Holocaust."

Thus has Iran answered President Obama's offer of dialogue and the decision by his administration to join talks on Tehran's nuclear program. To the consternation of some European officials, Washington has insisted on dropping a long-standing demand that Iran obey U.N. resolutions ordering it to suspend uranium enrichment before negotiations begin. Iran could have responded to this concession by releasing Ms. Saberi, who holds U.S. and Iranian citizenship, and ex-FBI agent Robert Levinson, as the administration asked it to do in a State Department letter last month. Instead the charges against Ms. Saberi were ramped up, from practicing journalism without a credential and buying wine, to espionage; the regime does not even admit that it is holding Mr. Levinson.

Then came Mr. Ahmadinejad's speech, which repeated the numerous anti-Israel and anti-Semitic libels that have made the Iranian president a pariah in the West. Western delegates walked out on the address, which the State Department rightly called "vile and hateful." Yet Mr. Ahmadinejad had accomplished his aim: advancing Iran's claim to represent radical Arab and Islamic opinion, along with his own campaign for reelection in June.

Iran watchers point out that Mr. Ahmadinejad has sent other messages recently. He said he would welcome direct talks with Washington, and over the weekend he dispatched a letter to Ms. Saberi's prosecutor urging that she be allowed to defend herself. These are not necessarily contradictions. What Iran is doing is inviting Mr. Obama to humiliate his new administration by launching talks with the regime even while it is conspicuously expanding its nuclear program, campaigning to delegitimize and destroy Israel and imprisoning innocent Americans. Mr. Ahmadinejad's unlikely concern for Ms. Saberi's defense, along with other regime statements suggesting her sentence could be reduced, sound like an offer to make her a bargaining chip -- to be exchanged, perhaps, for members of the Revolutionary Guard Corps who are in U.S. custody in Iraq.

Mr. Obama has always said that talks with Iran must be conducted under the right circumstances and in a way that advances U.S. interests. The administration won't meet that test if it allows negotiations to become a means of vindicating Mr. Ahmadinejad's radical agenda. It should postpone any contact until after the Iranian election in June -- and it should look for clear signs that Iran is acting in good faith before talks begin. The unconditional release of Ms. Saberi and Mr. Levinson would be one.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 03:47 PM

Dear GfS:

It seems to me if you were being as keenly accurate as you say, it would produce less froth and more semantically substantive statements.
You and Bruce, in your claim to be observing facts, seem to always point at hypotheticals (as in Bruce's last copy-and-paste whose conclusion is "The administration won't meet that test if it allows negotiations to become a means of vindicating Mr. Ahmadinejad's radical agenda.") or windy opinions which you expect should be persuasive because you fill them with grandiose outrage or other emotion.

I don't see those things as "facts", and I don't quite understand why you see them as such, either. As for your statement "news items everyday coming out, as to the fraud, and 'hiding' of the TARP funds, and the shadiness of this administration, lies and deceit, broken promises" what I have seen is a lot of accusation and smoke, behind which there may or may not be some hard facts of wrong-doing; but one thiong I know plainly is that I do not have those hard facts, nor am I inclined to run around declaiming what are actually projections, or extrapolations colored by fear or hatred.

If you have some specific facts indicating Obama has done something wrong with TARP funds, by all means point them out to me. I am always ready to learn.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 04:48 PM

Amos,

Sorry, we use your standard of NYT editorials as fact to determine what to post.

"nor am I inclined to run around declaiming what are actually projections, or extrapolations colored by fear or hatred."

Unless we are talking about Bush, then you have run marithons around us.


Your postings about Bush had a lower fact content than any of the ones you are presently complaining about- Maybe that should tell you something???

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 05:09 PM

Amos:...."......As for your statement "news items everyday coming out, as to the fraud, and 'hiding' of the TARP funds, and the shadiness of this administration, lies and deceit, broken promises" what I have seen is a lot of accusation and smoke, behind which there may or may not..."

Little Hawk, Thanks for the admonition. I did read it aloud, before I sent it, but I'll certainly keep that (shorter sentences) in mind. Thank you!

Amos, Just blow a little harder, and the smoke will clear.

Little Hawk, How's that?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 09:30 AM

"...The right balance between retribution and reconciliation is always hard to find in the aftermath of national trauma. Ask the Bosnians or South Africans about the trade-offs between justice and recovery. When wars are ongoing, it is wise to err on the side of caution. There's work to do. Obama's right: America should look ahead, not back.

A Truth Commission could address the broad collapse of accountability that opened the way for an imperial presidency and the use of cruel and inhuman treatment, while avoiding a facile search for scapegoats that would allow too many to disregard their own small measure of responsibility.

That, of course, is Obama's favorite word: responsibility. I think it demands some acknowledgment that, "There but for the grace of God go I."

With Obama, words have begun to have meaning again. Declarative sentences are back. I couldn't take my eyes off that photo of Obama shaking hands with President Chávez of Venezuela; it cut through so much epic posturing. But his use of language has been more liberating even than such images.

Two sentences uttered recently by the president in Turkey are an example: "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country — I know, because I am one of them."

It was one of those moments when you realize just how scary Obama must be to America's jihadist enemies. Knowing Islam across the dinner table, he has no fear of it. His predecessor, in Facebook terms, went on a spree of de-friending that made terrorist recruitment easier. Now the tables have been turned.

The U.S. has emerged from eight years of dyslexia. It has now revealed how dangerously words were manipulated and is learning again to speak a language the world can understand. America's narrative is inclusive once more, as it must be by the country's very nature. The power of language to reconcile is as great as its power to kill.

At his first press conference in February, Obama said: "The strongest democracies flourish from frequent and lively debate, but they endure when people of every background and belief find a way to set aside smaller differences in service of a greater purpose."

That's a sentence you don't have to read twice. The differences today are not small — they concern the rule of law and torture — but the spirit of Obama's words still provides a useful moral compass for this moment of American self-questioning and anguish."
NYT

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 12:34 PM

"The president has set an example for his Cabinet. He has ladled a trillion or so dollars ("or so" is today's shorthand for "give or take a few hundreds of billions") hither and yon, but while ladling he has, or thinks he has, saved about $15 million by killing, or trying to kill, a tiny program that this year is enabling about 1,715 D.C. children (90 percent black, 9 percent Hispanic) to escape from the District's failing public schools and enroll in private schools.

The District's mayor and school superintendent support the program. But the president has vowed to kill programs that "don't work." He has looked high and low and -- lo and behold -- has found one. By uncanny coincidence, it is detested by the teachers unions that gave approximately four times $15 million to Democratic candidates and liberal causes last year.

Not content with seeing the program set to die after the 2009-10 school year, Education Secretary Arne Duncan (former head of Chicago's school system, which never enrolled an Obama child) gratuitously dashed even the limited hopes of another 200 children and their parents. Duncan, who has sensibly chosen to live with his wife and two children in Virginia rather than in the District, rescinded the scholarships already awarded to those children for the final year of the program, beginning in September. He was, you understand, thinking only of the children and their parents: He would spare them the turmoil of being forced by, well, Duncan and other Democrats to return to terrible public schools after a tantalizing one-year taste of something better. Call that compassionate liberalism.

After Congress debated the program, the Education Department released -- on a Friday afternoon, a news cemetery -- a congressionally mandated study showing that, measured by student improvement and parental satisfaction, the District's program works. The department could not suppress the Heritage Foundation's report that 38 percent of members of Congress sent or are sending their children to private schools.

The Senate voted 58 to 39 to kill the program. Heritage reports that if the senators who have exercised their ability to choose private schools had voted to continue the program that allows less-privileged parents to make that choice for their children, the program would have been preserved.

As the president and his party's legislators are forcing minority children back into public schools, the doors of which would never be darkened by the president's or legislators' children, remember this: We have seen a version of this shabby act before. One reason conservatism came to power in the 1980s was that in the 1970s liberals advertised their hypocrisy by supporting forced busing of other people's children to schools the liberals' children did not attend. "

from here

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 02:43 PM

VP-Shock: Biden Less Popular than Cheney
Posted by David Paul Kuhn

Double take. Joe Biden is less popular than Dick Cheney. Well, in the first half year of the first term that is.

A slim 51 percent of Americans have a favorable view of Vice President Biden. Cheney was at 58 percent in July 2001. Al Gore, 55 percent in April 1993. The veep comparison comes courtesy of the Pew Research Center's latest report.

The public's favorable take on Biden declined 12 percentage points since January. And don't blame the GOP. Democrats' favorable view fell from 87 to 76 percent. Independents' view fell from 58 to 46 percent.

In time, it will likely prove no challenge for Biden to stay ahead of Cheney. Less than a third of Americans held a favorable view of Cheney when he left office in January.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 04:53 PM

Obama's approval rating high, but will it last?

Story Highlights
64 percent of Americans in various polls approve of Obama's work so far

Rating is similar to recent predecessors' around 100-day mark

Approval tends to slip later in the year, CNN polling director says

By Paul Steinhauser
CNN Deputy Political Director
   
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Nearly two out of three Americans approve of the job Barack Obama is doing as president, according to an average of the most recent national polls.

President Obama is still being evaluated on how he does his job, CNN's polling director says.

In a CNN Poll of Polls compiled Thursday, 64 percent of those questioned in various surveys say they approve of how Obama is handling his duties as president. Twenty-eight percent disapprove.

The president's approval rating also stood at 64 percent in a CNN Poll of Polls compiled in January, just after his inauguration.

"Most polls have shown Obama getting fairly high marks on most of the issues he has handled so far," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said.

"One exception has been the way he has handled government assistance to failing banks and automakers. His numbers on the federal deficit are also low in comparison to his approval ratings on the economy and foreign policy."

So how does Obama compare to his predecessors in the White House around the 100-day mark?

George W. Bush stood at 62 percent in a CNN/USA Today Gallup poll in April 2001, Bill Clinton was at 55 percent in a CNN/USA Today Gallup poll in April 1993, George H.W. Bush stood at 58 percent in a Gallup poll from April 1989, and Ronald Reagan was at 67 percent in a Gallup poll taken in April 1981. Learn more about previous presidents' approval ratings »

"The hundred-day mark tends to fall during a period when Americans are still evaluating a new president. The danger period for most presidents comes later in their first year in office," Holland explained.

"Bill Clinton, for example, still had good marks after his first 100 days, but his approval rating had tanked by June of 1993. Ronald Reagan's approval rating stayed over 50 percent until November of his first year in office, but once it slipped below that mark, it stayed under 50 percent for two years. So Obama's current rating certainly does not indicate that he is out of the woods yet."

The CNN Poll of Polls is an average of three national surveys taken over the past week: Gallup Tracking, Pew and AP/GfK.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 06:52 PM

Well, let's hope that just for your peace of mind, BB, Obama becomes wretchedly unpopular with the American public as soon as possible. ;-) I'm talking less than 20% popularity rating. Pray for it every night before bed, and it may yet happen.


As for Biden, my impression is that most people are barely thinking about him at all these days (unlike his predecessor Mr Cheney who had a very noticeable profile), so aren't polls on his popularity a little hard to guage in any meaningful way at this point? He's hardly even registering on the radar. ;-)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 08:19 PM

You sure to love to suck on the bilious teat, Brucie. And George Wills and Krauthammer, your other fountain head of bilious wisdom, have plenty of bad humor, bitterness, and dripping sardonic turns of phrase to spare. A pure river of bitter bile to sate the most disenchanted and jaded appetite for negative nabobbery.

But I for one am very glad George Will is not the President.

I do not know the exact formulations behind all the decisions Mister Will sees fit to curdle and bitch about, but I am willing to bet that the decisions were taken in a more reasoned and evenhanded way than he could imagine.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 08:25 PM

SO far, Obama has waded into the messiest inherited mishmash of bad work any President has had to face--except, perhaps, Lincoln--and has continued to stay as balanced and as productive as he could be expected to be. He is pushing forward the things he said he would, and as predicted, it is proving less easy to actually do than it was to describe. But we knew that, and he knew it.

It seems to me more folks would do well to encourage him to do the right thing instead of just finding any old rotten egg they can pull out of their embittered and jaded nightmares to throw at him whenever they feel vituperative.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 08:54 PM

"The hundred-day mark tends to fall during a period when Americans are still evaluating a new president. The danger period for most presidents comes later in their first year in office," Holland explained.

"Bill Clinton, for example, still had good marks after his first 100 days, but his approval rating had tanked by June of 1993. Ronald Reagan's approval rating stayed over 50 percent until November of his first year in office, but once it slipped below that mark, it stayed under 50 percent for two years. So Obama's current rating certainly does not indicate that he is out of the woods yet."




"I do not know the exact formulations behind all the decisions Mister Will sees fit to curdle and bitch about"

Why not? Where is all that openness and transparancy that Obama the Candidate promised???






"You sure to love to suck on the bilious teat, Brucie. And George Wills and Krauthammer, your other fountain head of bilious wisdom, have plenty of bad humor, bitterness, and dripping sardonic turns of phrase to spare. A pure river of bitter bile to sate the most disenchanted and jaded appetite for negative nabobbery."

Again, you attack people rather than reply to the ideas presented. Are you so certain that you have no other recourse? It seems that you dare not argue facts or ideas, but feel you can get people to agree with you by telling them how awfull the ones who disagree with you are.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 09:15 PM

By the way, has anyone checked out the corrupted crap going on with Diane Feinstien, her husband, and the TARP money???

Here's the short of it. She goes to the FED(or someone in it), askes for a bunch of money(several tens of millions), to put into her husband's business, which he takes and buys up all the stock, with the funds received, so now he has controlling stock...that now shoots up, and he makes a cool, several tens of million more....and get this...the business...selling homes that were foreclosed on...for a commission!!

Incidently, does anyone here know someone, or knows someone who knows someone, or knows someone who knows someone, who knows someone, that got a penny for refinancing their home..or got help from going into foreclosure???.....Just wondering..........(hands stuck in pockets, rolling eyes, whistling a wandering tune)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 09:18 PM

I can't think of anyone...

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 11:00 PM

I'm not sure it applies to Canadians, Little Hawk.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 11:13 PM

This couple was saved from foreclosure.

Lend America plans to save thousands of homes from foreclosure.

Local religionists helping people prevent foreclosure

Dallas man saved from foreclosure by a mortgage comapny

Lady's home saved by Obama program

Nonprofits helping prevent foreclosures

Goldman Sachs trader saves 36 families' homes from foreclosure

Wayne County sherriff saves homes from foreclosure

Google is your friend.



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 11:39 PM

Clever...Nice list....only one was due to the TARP funds....out of how many hundreds of billions?? Most of them were by religious people, a sheriff, and a mortgage guy.

Another attempt of deception.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 12:14 AM

Oh, bullshit. I googled the topic and gave you the first bunch of links I found. Do your own damned homework, why don't you? Deception, smeption. Mayhap the accusation is a sad confession.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 02:04 AM

Oh, bullshit. I googled the topic and gave you the first bunch of links I found........I know...but...did you read them?..I did.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 12:31 PM

I cup my ears, and listen into the dark stillness....only the scattered sounds of crickets and an occasional frog...........hmm.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 01:26 PM

The frog is your conscience, trying to speak your language...



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 08:09 PM

Come on, you can do better than that! Haven't you had enough of bullying women(?)??

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 10:02 PM

Little Hawk, As you know, I'm not a member, and therefore, don't have access to your e-mail address. Care to share it?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 11:27 PM

Well, dang it, I am not going to post my email address on a public forum with a few hundred people logging in on it every day. I'm not crazy. ;-) I prefer that the world not be able to beat a path to my doorway.

Far as I can see, what you have to do is become a member and send me a PM, and we can take it from there. It's easy to become a member. So easy that my dog could probably do it if he could type. You could even become a member just temporarily...say for three weeks...under any darn name you make up. And then you can PM me through Mudcat. And we can talk.

That's my suggestion.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 12:00 AM

And on the Mudcat, no-one knows you're a dog.



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 12:21 AM

The original of that quote, just in case it seems ambiguous...such a LONG time back...

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 04:34 AM

Grade: A-

Obama has taken on an incredibly ambitious agenda in the Middle East, against long odds. He managed the recasting of Iraq policy brilliantly, emerging with solid bipartisan consensus around his plan to draw down forces and withdraw by the end of 2011. His personal outreach to the Muslim world has been stellar, tapping into his potential to be a transformative figure in America's relations with the Islamic world -- and he has backed that up with concrete policy changes on hot issues such as Guantanamo and torture. He has consistently emphasized the U.S. commitment to Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking, and especially to the two-state solution... although I worry that some people in the administration are too wedded to a West Bank first, Fatah only strategy that is very likely to fail. I don't have a great deal of hope that there can be much progress with this Israeli government or with the divided Palestinian leadership. But Obama has delivered on his promise to engage directly with rivals such as Iran, Syria, and Venezuela, putting some meat on his earlier convictions about the value of such diplomacy.

Grade: A-

President Obama is off to a very good start. In substance and tone, he has put on offer a more respectful and consensual brand of U.S. leadership, and backed it up with astute public diplomacy. Obama has made clear that he wants to improve America's relations with allies and adversaries alike -- but that allies must do more to share burdens with the United States and that adversaries must stand down from confrontational and destabilizing policies. Obama is headed in the right direction if he is to restore U.S. legitimacy abroad and secure the teamwork needed to address international challenges. He gets the minus only because it is too soon to give anyone a straight A; the hard part -- implementation -- awaits.

Charles Kupchan is a professor of international affairs at Georgetown University and a senior fellow for Europe studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

I am less confident about the direction of his policy on two key issues: Iran and Afghanistan. The contours of his engagement with Iran are not yet clear, and there could be some serious negative fallout if the administration opts for a narrow dialogue on the nuclear program on a short clock, rather than a broad dialogue over the full set of regional issues. I worry at the number of key positions which remain unfilled. And I don't really understand the logic of the new "Af-Pak" strategy, or see any reason to believe that the additional troops or the new strategy are likely to significantly change the situation there. But overall Obama has demonstrated tremendous instincts thus far on foreign policy, delivering just the approach he promised during the campaign and putting a lot of potential issues into play.


Marc Lynch, an associate professor of political science at George Washington University, blogs at lynch.foreignpolicy.com. ....


From Foreign Policy journal

These were not the best or the worst grades given in the article which included a dozen commentatorrs.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 12:02 PM

Oh goody, another 'cut and paste' from the CFR!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 01:57 PM

What I have the greatest regrets about...although I do like Obama pretty well...is that we will never get to see what Chongo would have done, once elected. I think the results would have been truly astounding.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 02:21 PM

A nice, undiscriminating, blanket negative emotive reaction, demonstrating a clear understanding of the most undifferentiated sort.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 02:39 PM

Could you translate that last statement of yours into some commonly known language, Amos? ;-D

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 04:44 PM

Sure, Little Hawk. Here ya go. "What a dull-witted knee-jerk comment!" Always glad to help out.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 04:55 PM

Heh! Oh, that is much better. Thank you.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 08:19 PM

..in other words, don't consider anything that anyone says, other than who I 'cut and paste' from...otherwise you might be participating in soon to be, illegal activity...thinking!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 09:50 PM

I think Obama is on the right track to try to open a dialogue with Chavez and other Latin American leaders. I worry about what his objectives are related to immigration from Latin America.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 10:22 PM

Your response to my posting of a whole catalog of thoughtful remarks on Obama's activities since inauguration, GfS, was to cast the whole lot aside with a single caustic aspersion. Is that what you mean by "thinking"? To me, it looks like quite the opposite.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 10:51 PM

How would you know?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 11:14 AM

In other news, WaPo's 100-day summary reports Obama's general approval is 69% despite various views on some of his decisions specifically.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 11:45 AM

Well, Amos, being as you fancy yourself as so 'well informed'(Washington Post is pretty well known for being partisan), don't you think, if you read it, you would have known that he already won the election? You can stop campaigning for him.
By the way, you messiah in chief, is not in favor of your 'gay rights', either.......so, who's wrong here?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 11:58 AM

GoS:

Your appetite for having someone to scorn, scratch, and slander has led you into making up a persona for me that is quite removed from the actuality. HE is not my messiah. I don't have one, or need one, either, thanks very much. And apparently you presume that everyone should hold only those opinions which their elected representative holds? That's a very aberrated version of the democratic process, not so?


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 12:30 PM

Oh, is that so?..I suggest you scroll through the threads, and look at your posts. Reminiscent of 'Tiger Beat' magazine with cover stories of David Cassidy.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 12:47 PM

It is purely dimwitted, lady, to assume that someone is a Messiah because others supported him in the election.

Obama has character, eloquence, and a compelling clarity of thought.

That means he is a good candidate. It does not mean he will make no errors or should be followed blindly. Get real, here. If all you want to do is to try and push buttons, then I'd suggest you should find more willing targets for your trolling.

Lately all you have been doing is shooting off your mouth in antagonistic half-baked slams of the most puerile sort. Why all the name-calling? Is that your notion of a clear-minded discussion? Why not clamber out of the gutter?



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 01:57 PM

Amos? GfS? I'm beginning to think that you two could make an incredible couple if a meeting could be arranged. It's like one of those stories, you know, where the two people hate each other at first...and then slowly as they get to know one another and face challenges together...and they begin to perceive the unexpected strengths in each other, the spunkiness, and those little lovable qualities...much to their own astonishment, love begins to bloom!

Yessir. I see possibilities here. I am hoping that GfS is indeed female, because my friend, Amos, after all, is male. That would make for the kind of traditional storyline usually required.

On the other hand....the entertainment business is certainly open now to gay male and lesbian relationships...so I suppose it doesn't really matter, does it? Okay, good!

So, here's my idea. I know William Shatner, and he spends a lot of time in California. Amos lives in California. I don't know where GfS lives, but Chongo is a private investigator and I'm sure he can find out.

Voila! With a little time and effort I'm sure a meeting can be arranged, possibly even some time be set aside on some tropical island paradise where Amos and GfS can really get to know one another over a period of a few weeks and overcome their initial shyness and doubts.

Just say the word and I shall put all the machinery in motion! ;-D

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 02:33 PM

Little Hawk, I'm saying this in jest..... If I want any shit from you, I'll just squeeze your head!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 05:15 PM

LOL! I take that as an indication of hesitation on your part. Am I right? Look, if Tiny Tim and Miss Vicky were made for one another, and it seems they were, then anything is possible.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 10:21 PM

Well LH, it is only natural the lass would be reticent, given she is of a retiring and demure nature. But I think she could be drawn out given the right mixture of charm and respect. And you are jut the man to do it. Unlike myself, you are single, for one thing. I could not put my heart into such a venture, no matter how tempting, while you could do so freely.

Also, I have a day job.

So I urge you, man of chivalrous intent, to take the next train to Minnesota and make your case...



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 10:27 PM

Minnesota? Why do you say Minnesota?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 10:37 PM

Because before he was in love with Barrack, he had a torrid thing for Jesse Ventura...but alas, Amos, He moved to Mexico.

Amos, Do you live in West Hollywood?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 11:03 AM

Bipartisanship didn't last long in Obama's first 100 days

Story Highlights
Slew of legislative achievements have come at the cost of bipartisanship

Democrats: GOP making a political calculation to be the party of "no"

Republicans say Democrats have shut them out

Real reason for partisan divide may be genuine philosophical differences


By Dana Bash
CNN Senior Congressional Correspondent
   
Editor's note: How would you rate the new Congress in President Obama's first 100 days? You'll get a chance to make your opinion known on at 7 p.m. ET Wednesday on the CNN National Report Card.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- There's little debate that Democrats who run Congress mark President Obama's 100-day milestone with some significant victories.

First and foremost, they passed the president's $787 billion measure intended to stimulate the economy with warp speed, meeting his February deadline.

Congressional Democrats also made good on promises to push through several priorities that President Bush had refused to sign into law.

They finally approved last year's bill to fund the government, with significant increases in spending for things such as education, health care and transportation.

And Democrats passed long stalled legislation for children's health insurance -- the State Children's Health Insurance Program, known as S-CHIP -- as well as the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act mandating equal pay for women in the workplace.

But the slew of legislative achievements during Obama's first 100 days have come at the cost of bipartisanship.

The president's stimulus package passed with three Republican votes.

Obama's budget blueprint passed the House of Representatives and the Senate without a single GOP vote. And the $410 billion bill to fund the government turned into a partisan clash.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, opened the Senate in January declaring that "when we allow ourselves to retreat into the tired, well-worn trenches of partisanship, we diminish our ability to accomplish real change." Watch Reid in January predict Congress will work together »

Now, that feels like ancient history.

So does Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's more hopeful tone in January.

"If we see sensible, bipartisan proposals, Republicans will choose bipartisan solutions over partisan failures every time," said McConnell of Kentucky. Watch McConnell in January say that Republicans will cooperate, not compromise »

In the blame game over the breakdown of bipartisanship, Republicans said Democrats shut them out and never really considered GOP ideas. Democrats accused Republicans of making a political calculation to be the party of "no."

But the real reason for the partisan divide may be genuine philosophical differences, especially when it comes the No. 1 issue during the president's first 100 days -- the economy.

Republicans working to recover from their drubbing during the last two elections said they are trying to return to their small government roots. That means opposing Obama's economic prescriptions.

"We've been throwing trillions of dollars around like it was Monopoly money," McConnell said in the heat of the spending bill debate. Watch Reid and McConnell argue over the spending bill »

"A way of looking at it is we have spent more in the first 23 or 24 days of this administration, in other words, charged more, than it cost post-9/11 for the war Afghanistan, the war in Iraq and the response to Katrina already."

Yet most Democrats fundamentally believe government spending is the only way to jump-start the economy.

"We're going to have to spend some money to get out of this hole. The government's the only body that has any money," Reid said.

The reality is that bipartisanship on big, controversial issues is usually born out of necessity -- the ruling party historically reaches across the aisle only when it needs votes to prevail.

The Democrats' wide majority has meant that, for the most part, they haven't had to compromise.

It's not clear whether things will be any different over the next 100 days.

Democrats last week, at the behest of Obama's team, decided to use a rule that ultimately will prevent Republicans from waging a filibuster against the overhaul of health care. At the end of the day, if they can hold their own members in line, Democrats won't have to make concessions to Republicans to pass health care legislation.

Perhaps House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, was the most honest in her early assessment of the new Democratic-dominated Washington dynamic.

"We had an election which was about our differing views of the direction our country was going in," Pelosi said at a press conference a week after Obama's inauguration. "The American people agreed with us."

Whether the American people continue to agree with Democrats won't be tested until the 2010 elections. Given their significant majorities, it's likely that Democrats will build up a significant legislative resume for voters to judge -- with or without the bipartisanship that eluded Congress' first 100 days.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 11:06 AM

Commentary: Give Obama an 'incomplete'

Story Highlights
Julian Zelizer: If president were getting a grade, it would be an "incomplete"
He says Obama has shown a tendency to experiment on policy
Zelizer: President has negotiated stances with his party rather than impose them
He says Obama has been more incremental on policy than some expected
updated 3 minutes ago

By Julian E. Zelizer
Special to CNN
   
Julian E. Zelizer says the first 100 days have yielded some clues about what kind of president Obama will be.

(CNN) -- When President Obama moved into the White House, press speculation immediately began about what his first 100 days would look like.

Journalists as well as scholars looked to history to speculate about which models of presidential leadership he might follow.

As we reach the end of the first 100 days this week, Obama remains much of a mystery. If we are talking grades, the best we can give him at this point is an "incomplete."

Given that the first 100 days is only an artificial marker -- it's been used since the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt -- it is not surprising that it is too early to reach sweeping conclusions about what this presidency will be. It is worth remembering that Jimmy Carter, whose presidency would become deeply troubled by his second year, ended his first 100 days with high approval ratings and positive media coverage.

But the first 100 days nonetheless offer important clues about what kind of presidency we will see over the coming years. The first trait Obama has demonstrated has been experimentation. Here, he does resemble FDR.

While Roosevelt believed in the importance of using the federal government to stabilize economic conditions in 1933, he also refused to be pinned down by one ideological position or by one set of policy ideas.

During his first 100 days, FDR brought different kinds of advisers into his administration -- from fiscally conservative Budget Director Lewis Douglas to social welfare advocate Frances Perkins as secretary of Labor -- and he introduced a variety of programs to help Americans. The National Recovery Act established voluntary codes for businesses in an effort to create stability in production and pricing, whereas agricultural programs focused on increasing the price of farm goods to help rural areas.

Obama has displayed the same kind of attitude toward governance. His top advisers are an eclectic group, ranging from free-market, globalization proponents like Lawrence Summers to progressive Chicago lawyer Valerie Jarrett.

When the White House proposed the economic stimulus legislation after taking office, Obama told Congress what he wanted from the bill, but then was willing to let the Democratic leadership in Congress reshape the details of the policy as the negotiations unfolded.

Most importantly, he shaved back the overall levels of spending and then agreed to cuts toward the end of conference committee deliberations.

Though he pleased many Democrats with an economic assistance program for the auto industry that saved millions of jobs in the Midwest, the president has postponed action on the Employee Free Choice Act, which includes provisions that would make unionization of workplaces easier. His financial bailout program placed most of the risk on the backs of average taxpayers with the hope of revitalizing markets.

The good news for Democrats is that this flexibility has offered Obama considerable insulation from political attacks. His poll ratings remain strong while Republicans languish with low approval levels. It has also given him room to maneuver with Congress.

The bad news is that, as FDR discovered, this kind of approach opens him up to attack from Democrats who fear that he is too willing to abandon core positions as well as Republicans who want to paint him as a Bill Clinton-like figure who can't be trusted.

The second trait we have seen from Obama has been that he believes in negotiation within his party and is not a top-down party leader. In this respect, the president has emulated the style of President Lyndon Johnson, who in 1964 and 1965 was forced to contend with a Democratic Party much more deeply divided than now, with Southern conservative Democrats, who controlled the congressional committee chairmanships, and Northern liberals, who in the 1960s wanted to tackle problems like race and urban decline.

Obama has thus far dealt with Democrats more like Johnson did with his party than George W. Bush did with Republicans after 2001. The Bush White House did not seek counsel from Republicans in Congress. It generally told Republican colleagues what to do.

Obama has been very careful not to impose his will on Democrats. Most recently, after deciding to release the "torture memos," Obama backed off initial statements that he did not want to have an interrogation commission or seek prosecution after Democrats in Congress said that they might want to pursue such a course.

Obama has asked Congress to pass national health insurance and environmental regulation, but he has purposely not specified what those policies should look like and has given repeated signals that he is open to all proposals.

The value of this type of party leadership is that the president gives Democrats an opportunity to "buy in" to the legislation and eases tensions that might develop between the executive and legislative branches even under united government. On the other hand, the danger is that Obama loses control of the process and that legislators send forth proposals that Obama does not support.

The final trait from the first 100 days is that Obama has taken a much more incremental approach than many observers expected or that many of his opponents proclaim.

Compared with FDR in his first 100 days, Obama has been restrained in his proposals. He has focused most of his attention on the economic stimulus bill, the automobile industry bailout and financial assistance measures.

To be sure, there is much more to come, as was the case with FDR. Obama has proposed a large budget, has made clear he views national health care and new environmental regulation as priorities, and has indicated interest in immigration reform. He has agreed to use the reconciliation process, which prohibits a filibuster, to try to ensure health care reform can withstand any Republican opposition.

But FDR pushed for more up front. In his first 100 days, Congress passed 15 major bills, which included the Banking Act, National Industrial Recovery Act, Civilian Conservation Corps, Federal Emergency Relief Administration, Tennessee Valley Authority, Agricultural Adjustment Act and more.

We'll have to see what happens in the second and third 100 days, which are perhaps more instructive in evaluating a presidency as the shine from the election fades and political tensions over the details of an administration's agenda harden.

It is then that we'll gain a better sense of whether Obama will be able to sustain the momentum of the first 100 days as did FDR, culminating in the 1936 election landslide, or whether he will lose the political strength from these early days, as was the case with Carter.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 12:23 PM

I scarcely think that obstreperous obstruction on the part of Republicans is a reflection on Obama's agenda or even his diplomatic skills. Of the many things on his list of issues and policies, bringing along the stubborn slangers and nay-sayers is only one item, and obviously, on it is easy for partisans on the other side to defeat immediately if they are so inclined; which it seems is the case.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 12:33 PM

Bearded Bruce, please! Cease and desist this forcible insertion of massive volumes of turgid political hoo-haa in the midst of our humorous banter. Have you no consideration?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 12:43 PM

Barack Obama's performance in the first 100 days of his presidency draws strong public approval in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, but there is decidedly less support for his recent decision to release previously secret government memos on the interrogation of terrorism suspects, an initiative that reveals deep partisan fissures.

Overall, the public is about evenly divided on the questions of whether torture is justifiable in terrorism cases and whether there should be official inquiries into any past illegality involving the treatment of terrorism suspects. About half of all Americans, and 52 percent of independents, said there are circumstances in which the United States should consider employing torture against such suspects.

Barely more than half of all poll respondents back Obama's April 16 decision to release the memos specifying how and when to employ specific interrogation techniques. A third "strongly oppose" that decision, about as many as are solidly behind it. Three-quarters of Democrats said they approve of the action, while 74 percent of Republicans are opposed; independents split 50 to 46 percent in favor of the decision. ... (WaPo)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 12:54 PM

Further to that, 89% of Democrats said there are circumstances in which the United States should definitely consider employing torture against Republicans, while 98% of Republicans said there are circumstances in which the United States should absolutely consider employing torture against Democrats!

They were both, however, 100% against torture being applied against themselves, regardless of the circumstances...

No surprise there. ;-D

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 03:49 PM

Excerpt from a dialogue with Barack Obama on CNN:

How can corporate America redeem itself? You reportedly told bankers in a private meeting recently that your administration "is the only thing between you and the pitchforks." Could you broaden that message for the Fortune 500?

The causes of this economic and financial crisis are complex, and extend from Washington to Wall Street to Main Street. Americans are angry at the extent of the damage that has been done to our economy, and justifiably so. Understanding that frustration is important in restoring confidence and helping our economy and our businesses recover.

The truth is that there is plenty of blame to go around. Many Americans took out loans that they could not afford. Others were enticed into loans they did not understand by lenders trying to make a quick profit. Investment banks bought and packaged these questionable mortgages into securities, arguing that by pooling the mortgages, the risks had been reduced. Credit agencies stamped these securities with their safest rating when they should have been labeled "Buyer Beware." And as the bubble grew, there was almost no accountability or oversight from anyone in Washington.

Addressing this crisis will require change across the spectrum, not just from corporate America but from Washington and Main Street as well. We need to update our regulatory structure with sound rules of the road that reward drive and innovation instead of shortcuts and abuse. We also need to invest in the drivers of productivity that will make our businesses more competitive in areas like health care, energy, and education.

You said you'd like to see "our best and brightest commit themselves to making things" rather than responding to a culture that celebrates "those who can manipulate numbers." In what ways do you want to foster companies that make things?

One of the goals of my economic policy is to help lay the foundation for durable economic growth, which drives innovation in our businesses and helps nurture the next generation of homegrown scientists, engineers, and innovators. But as we move forward in this effort, we cannot ignore the fact that our education system is not adequately preparing our workers for a 21st-century economy. Our businesses cannot compete and win in the global economy without a more effectively trained workforce - especially in areas like math and science. That is why so many corporate leaders are advocating for more effective investments in education - from early-childhood education to cultivating more homegrown engineering talent. And that is why I have set a goal that will greatly enhance our ability to compete for the jobs of the 21st century: By 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.

Much of the business community is alarmed over tax increases in your budget. A coalition of business groups argues that this will impede an economic recovery. Do you believe there is validity to this concern, and do you continue to entertain the possibility of lowering the U.S. corporate tax rate?

I have long advocated a fairer, simpler tax code. That's why my administration has taken far-reaching action to cut taxes in ways that will spur an economic recovery. We have enacted a tax cut for 95% of working families. We passed a recovery act with $75 billion in tax cuts to help businesses create jobs over the next two years. And we are helping small businesses keep their doors open so they can weather this economic storm. Instead of the normal two years, small businesses are now allowed to offset their losses during this downturn against the income they've earned over the last five years. Going forward, I'm committed to reforming our tax code to remove the distortions and complexities that get in the way of businesses investing in expanding operations and creating jobs here in the U.S.

The economic crisis has compelled the administration to assert itself over corporate America in ways that Americans aren't used to. How permanent will this be?

I did not invite the crises that I inherited, and I have always believed that our role as lawmakers is not to stifle the market, but to strengthen its ability to unleash creativity and innovation. But I also have a responsibility to take aggressive action to avoid an even deeper recession and to move this nation toward recovery. History has shown repeatedly that when nations do not take early and aggressive action to get credit flowing again, they have crises that last for many years instead of many months. My hope is that by taking the steps we are taking today, from stabilizing our financial system to helping our auto industry restructure to become more competitive, it will help speed the day that the government can get out of the way and let the private sector do what it does best - innovate, create jobs, and grow the economy. ...(From here on CNN).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 09:21 PM

Rick Perry of Texas who suggested Texas could always seceed from the union if Obama continues to tax and stimulate job creation with their kids money...

today asked the Federal Goverment for 300,000 Federal Tamilflu medications.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 09:24 PM

So, it was the Obama Administration who started the flu epidemic, all for the purpose of embarrassing Rick Perry...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 09:54 PM

Not even satirical




Obama has a Moral Compass. It has a needle that may point to either right or wrong. It has no left or right, just an inscription that says "when in doubt observe the golden rule.

Republicans claim they lost their moral compass. They never had one. What they had was a guide book of how to put their hand in some other guy's pocket and steal whatever he has.

We are entering Unchartered territory. Fortunately I have a map of the Unchartered territory and it has some deep valleys, a couple of abysmal plains and one helluva depression. The only way accross is with a suspension bridge made with actual labor and intelligent plans.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 10:07 PM

IF you were able to look behind the scenes of Neil Kashcari and Henry Paulson busily at work on Wall Street you would have seen when all equity was about to dry up, both of them busily at work making BRAND NEW EQUITY. They were the new fangled bundled mortgage security bonds that were given AAA ratings by their friends.

this is how they made them...

1st you take a human turd and then Kashcari would spray paint it bright gold.
2nd Henry would wrap it in Saran Wrap to hide the smell and VIOLA - Brand New Equity
3rd Get CNBC and all the investment banks to sell them worldwide.

Before you know it you're rolling in dough while your buyers are sinking in shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 11:55 PM

...then you have Timmy Tax Cheat, sell it back to the taxpayers...and their children! Pretty slick! Now instead of paying several times the interest, to the crooked bankers, now we have the additional price of 'interest' we have to pay the Fed, to print new worthless fiat money to buy it back, and again, on credit!! Yea administration!....and for decades to come!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Apr 09 - 02:16 AM

Maybe its just me, but neither of you are making much sense recently. Are there specifics behind all this noxious pollution you are spouting?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Apr 09 - 02:24 AM

Obama speaks to the National Academy.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Apr 09 - 03:39 AM

..'Maybe its just me, but neither of you are making much sense recently. Are there specifics behind all this noxious pollution you are spouting?'

Perhaps, it is your PERCEPTION, or LACK of it, that it makes no sense to. I can't be held responsible to have it make sense FOR your personal perceptions! Perhaps, it would be easier, for you to make sense, out of what other people have to say,(or ask), if you'd stop looking through rose colored glasses, then wondering why everyone else doesn't see it the way you do!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Apr 09 - 12:56 PM

IT's not my rose-colored glasses, luv, it's the bottomless spew of generalizations and unanchored negative nabobbery, clouds of propositions without referents, categorical defamations without detail, and other forms of scurrilous semantic bandaloggery that makes you hard to understand. My impression is that bringing about understanding is not very high among your priorities, which seem more weighted in favor of obdurate rightness and histrionic venting.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Apr 09 - 04:31 PM

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Obama administration said Tuesday it is expanding its foreclosure prevention program to cover second mortgages and to direct more troubled borrowers to the Hope for Homeowners program.

Announced with great fanfare in mid-February, the president's $75 billion program has gotten off to a slow start. Loan servicers only recently started taking applications and many delinquent borrowers have complained about being left in the cold because their home values have dropped or they've lost their jobs.

The administration is seeking to address some of the concerns by tweaking the original modification plan, which calls for adjusting eligible borrowers' loans so monthly payments are no more than 31% of pre-tax income.

Servicers covering 75% of the nation's mortgages are now participating in the program, which also allows some homeowners with little or no equity to refinance their mortgages, a senior administration official said Tuesday. Together, the plans are expected to help up to 9 million avoid foreclosure.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Apr 09 - 04:54 PM

Newsweek opines:

The Secret Of His Success

What Obama has been able to accomplish in his first 100 days is enough to make any president envious.
Published Apr 25, 2009


No other American president in modern memory has faced a learning curve as steep as the one Barack Obama has encountered. When he began his quest for the Democratic nomination three years ago, the Dow Jones industrial average was 14,000, and the world was in the midst of a great economic boom. By the time he took office, America's financial industry was in chaos, credit markets were frozen, housing values were plummeting and the economy was in its worst contraction since the Great Depression. Add to that Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran and North Korea, and you get an extraordinary set of challenges.

And yet, by most measures, President Obama's first 100 days have been successful. The economy remains weak, of course, but he has put forward a series of initiatives to stabilize the capital and housing markets, proposed longer-term programs to create sustained growth, adjusted America's military priorities in Afghanistan and Iraq, and begun a process of reaching out to the world and changing America's image. These are only overtures, and naturally much will depend on how things turn out—in the economy, in Pakistan, in Iraq. But so far, any president would be envious of Obama's accomplishments.

The real question is, why has Obama been so successful? Many commentators have focused on his calm leadership style, his deliberative methods and his tight teamwork. That's all true, but there is a larger explanation for the success so far. Obama has read the country and the political moment correctly. He understands that America in 2009 is in a very different place now. Polls say the country is more liberal than it was two decades ago.

Conservative commentators have made much of a recent Pew survey showing that public reaction to Obama has been more polarized than to any previous president: Democrats really like him, and Republicans really dislike him. But the poll's most striking statistic was how few Americans now self-identify as Republicans. For the past year it has hovered around 24 percent, the lowest in three decades. It's not so much that the Republican base has shrunk, as Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz points out in a recent essay: the Democratic base has expanded. When Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, the Democratic base was 30 percent of the electorate; swing voters were 43 percent and Republicans 27 percent. Last year Democrats made up 41 percent; swing voters dropped to 32 percent and Republicans stayed put at 27 percent. Because party loyalties tend not to shift quickly, an 11-point rise for the Democrats is astonishing. Abramowitz argues that since these changes are largely rooted in demography—particularly the growing nonwhite population—they are likely to persist for a while.

It's not only that Obama has inherited a more liberal country. He has figured out how to utilize the moment. Rahm Emmanuel's aphorism "Never let a crisis go to waste" has in fact proved a brilliant political strategy. By combining short-term stimulus spending with long-term progressive projects, Obama has confounded the opposition. Sen. Judd Gregg was on CNBC last week trying to explain that while he fully supported government spending for 2009 and 2010 to jump-start the economy, his concerns were about 2011 and 2012. That's a pretty complicated case to make to the electorate.

Just as important, Obama has not overinterpreted the moment. He has steered a careful middle course on the bank bailouts. The most spirited critiques of his policies have come not from the right but from the left—in the clamor for nationalization. He may or may not have the policy right, but he certainly has the politics right. The country remains generally suspicious of big government and comfortable with free markets and private enterprise. And the old Democratic hostility to big business doesn't resonate so strongly anymore, since the new Democratic majority has fewer working-class whites and more college graduates. Obama has handled the public's anger well, giving voice to outrage but not enacting populist policies. He quietly announced last week that he will not reopen negotiations on the North American Free Trade Agreement to impose new labor and environmental standards.
(...)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Apr 09 - 10:47 PM

Great for Israelis, not so good for Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Apr 09 - 01:06 AM

President Barack Obama created a new council on science and technology to advise him, and he put Google Inc. CEO Eric Schmidt on it.

Schmidt was a strong supporter of — and donor to — Obama's campaign for president.

He'll join Microsoft Corp.'s chief research and strategy officer, Craig Mundie, on the board.

Three men will lead the council: John Holdren, who directs White House policy on science and technology; Eric Lander, who runs the Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University; and Harold Varmus, the president and CEO of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center....

http://www.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/stories/2009/04/27/daily14.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Apr 09 - 02:51 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama will sign wide-ranging, pro-consumer credit card reforms into law by late May, senior U.S. House Democrat Carolyn Maloney predicted on Wednesday.

"President Obama seems very determined," Maloney, who met with Obama on Tuesday at the White House, told the Reuters Global Financial Regulation Summit in Washington. "He said, 'We're going to get that bill. We're going to enact it into law'."

Maloney, who chairs Congress' Joint Economic Committee, added: "I'm predicting by Memorial Day (May 25) we will have... a law."

The House of Representatives is expected to vote Thursday on Maloney's bill, dubbed the "Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights."

Democrats, on behalf of the Obama administration, are expected to introduce a set of amendments including requiring card issuers to maintain low introductory teaser rates on credit cards for at least six months, and to warn card holders if they are about to exceed their credit limits, allowing them to avoid a penalty fee.

Maloney, who failed during a recent bill-writing session to insert a requirement for issuers to implement changes within 90 days of the bill becoming law, said another Democratic lawmaker will re-propose that provision for the House bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Apr 09 - 03:05 PM

"After his first 100 days -- an arbitrary landmark set by Franklin D. Roosevelt -- President Obama has overturned decades of Republican ideology in Washington. One Republican even managed to sweeten the date for Obama by defecting to the Democrats. But the president still has to be wary.

Barack Obama had everything perfectly choreographed for Wednesday, his 100th day in office. First he would travel to St. Louis for a town hall meeting, where he could be fairly sure of a glowing reception; then he would return to Washington for a televised press conference. His team had provided the media with insider anecdotes and graced a few correspondents with private background interviews.


Nevertheless, an unplanned announcement sideswiped the administration from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue: Senator Arlen Specter said on Tuesday that he was switching parties. The moderate Republican will become a Democrat, ostensibly because he thinks the 2010 mid-term election is his to lose if he remains in the Republican Party. (Polls suggest a Republican can't win his Senate seat in Pennsylvania; and he would also face a challenge from inside the Republican Party.) Obama said he was "thrilled," and his spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said the president knew nothing in advance about the defection.

Specter's move is important. It will make him the 59th Democrat in the Senate and bring the Democrats one vote closer to a filibuster-proof majority. With 60 senators -- a number the Democrats will probably achieve when Al Franken of Minnesota officially takes his seat -- the Democrats will have the power to override any Republican efforts to block legislation by "filibustering," or giving long speeches on the Senate floor.

These days, the US media likes to report on an "Obama revolution," a long-term political shift comparable to the "Reagan revolution" of the early 1980s. A more pleasant set of headlines for the president's 100th day would be hard to imagine.

Most Popular President in Decades

In spite of know-it-alls on the right, and in spite all the problems he faces, Obama seems to enjoy more support from the US public than any president in generations. The latest polls from the Washington Post and ABC News show an approval rating of 69 percent, which no US leader since Dwight Eisenhower in 1953 has enjoyed during his first 100 days.

Polls also show a majority of US citizens for the first time since 2004 claiming the nation is on the right path. "Obama has used his first 100 days to raise the mood of the people and raise hopes of a brighter future," one pollster said to the Associated Press, which arrived at similar statistics. ..."

Der Spiegel, Germany

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Apr 09 - 09:11 PM

Chongo says that even he would be surprised and pleased by this degree of support, had he been elected president. That tells you something. Chongo is not that easily impressed, generally speaking.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 05:13 AM

CHinga says she'd be surprised if Chonga got any support--even the kind her girls offer.
Here's what President Obama says has surprised, troubled, enchanted and humbled him in his first 100 days in office:

_Surprised: "I am surprised compared to where I started, when we first announced for this race, by the number of critical issues that appear to be coming to a head all at the same time."
_Troubled: "I'd say less troubled, but, you know, sobered by the fact that change in Washington comes slow."
_Enchanted: "I will tell you that when I — when I meet our servicemen and women, enchanted is probably not the word I would use. But I am so profoundly impressed and grateful to them for what they do."
_Humbled: "(I'm) humbled by the fact that the presidency is extraordinarily powerful, but we are just part of a much broader tapestry of American life, and there are a lot of different power centers. ... And I'm humbled, last, by the American people who have shown extraordinary patience and I think a recognition that we're not going to solve all of these problems overnight."

...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 10:14 PM

Great for Israel, not so good for Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 01 May 09 - 01:27 AM

GFS: I have no idea who you are, where you come from, even if you are from this planet, but I like the cut of your jib. Gib?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 09 - 11:38 AM

"The economy is still a nightmare. The military situations in Afghanistan and Pakistan are perilous -- and getting worse. But for all the troubles swirling around the nation these days, America has rarely seemed to be in such steady and capable hands.

That was the feeling that came across on TV Wednesday night watching President Barack Obama's 100-days press conference. Even on his best nights, John F. Kennedy did not seem as calm, confident and masterful as Obama did in an hour's worth of prime time give and take with the press.

As good as Obama has been in such settings before, Wednesday he seemed perfectly tuned to each shifting topic and tone.

The president was appropriately sober, moral and earnest in talking about waterboarding as torture -- without taking the bait and using the question to attack players in the previous administration for their excesses in prisoner abuse.

But he could also be teasing and playful as when a New York Times reporter asked him what he was most "surprised, troubled, enchanted and humbled" by in his first 100 days. By the time the questioner got to "enchanted," Obama was reaching in his suit coat pocket for a pen saying, "Wait, let me write this down." He made great theater out of getting all of the long question on paper -- especially the word "enchanted."

But then, Obama went on and gave thoughtful and eloquent answers to each of the four parts of the question.

As impressive as Obama was in that exchange, his best moment came in explaining to a questioner how Britain's Winston Churchill refused to allow the torture of Nazi prisoners during World War II even during the darkest hours of The Blitz when Britain was under a withering German air attack night after night.

Obama quoted Churchill as saying he would not allow torture because he feared behaving in such a manner would "corrode the character of the nation" -- in other words, the British people would be the ultimate victims of torturing their enemies. It was an inspired historical point of comparison that allowed the president to show how incredibly short-sighted and even ignorant George W. Bush and Richard Cheney were in their policies of torture without having to mention either man's name Wednesday night.

Outside of the Fox broadcast network, the cable channels and nets all had special programs planned for Wednesday in which analysts would assess Obama's performance in office for the first 100 days.

But the president stole their thunder with his press conference performance. It was as good or better than Ronald Reagan on his very best TV night. And outside of a few disingenuous remarks from Obama alleging that he does "not want to grow government," there was far more substance, coherence and sense of history to the president's performance than Reagan could ever imagine. ..." Baltimore Sun

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 09 - 12:23 PM

An interesting chart showing the S&P 500 during Obama's term to date compared to Bush's.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 May 09 - 06:08 PM

It's "jib", Doug. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 May 09 - 10:25 PM

If Obama is successful in going after the big-time tax cheats, as he says he is, I will probably change my mind about him.
                I remember when Ronald Reagan said he was going after "those deadbeat taxpayers," and what he meant was he was going to make it possible for his supporters to foreclose on a bunch of farmers in the midwest who couldn't pay their taxes, along with a lot of other small business people around the country--myself included--who couldn't keep up with the increased payroll taxes he'd imposed.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 May 09 - 10:41 PM

Have you done some reading about the Fair Tax, Rig? It's a fascinating idea for reforming the tax system...the one idea in Mike Huckabee's 2008 platform that I can thoroughly and enthusiastically agree with. Do some reading and let me know what you think about it.

It won't happen, of course. ;-D Too many vested interests are in the way of it happening, but it's a very neat idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 May 09 - 07:16 AM

I haven't read about it, but I will. I do recall Huckabee talking about it during the campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 05 May 09 - 08:32 PM

In the Cayman Islands there is a residential street with a 3 story house with cuppola named the Ugmont House on 34 Church Street..

10 years ago 12,000 large corporations were registered as having their corporate headquarters at 34 Church Street in the Cayman Islands.

Today there are ~18,000 corporations registered as having 34 Church Street, The Ugmant House, as their corporate headquarters for tax havan reasons.



My cartoon today featured a travel ad with hundreds of bundles of money with eyeballs on top lounging on the Cayman Island beaches with topless girls.
"Send Your Cash on Vacation - In the Cayman Islands"


small print: Corporations Only!
Sponsored by, American families for Federal Tax Shelters.


My other cartoon shows an empty homeless shelter, closed until temperatures go below freezing -
Contrasted with a CROWDED Tax Shelter Hotel Casino Spa brothel.


Ad for Bermuda: You will feel like you are in heaven
when your cash is in a Bermuda tax Havan.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 May 09 - 02:39 AM

Yes, it's easy for the big players to avoid paying taxes in various ways. Furthermore, if the government does raise corporate taxes, you know what the corporations do? They simply raise the prices of their goods by a commensurate amount, and the general public pays the higher taxes for the corporation when they buy the damn stuff at the mall!!! So the little guy, meaning you and me, pays for every corporate tax raise....

Huckabee talks about that and a number of other interesting and scandalous things in his excellent material on reforming the tax system.

It makes for fascinating reading. I often find with presidential candidates of the more "maverick" (or outsider) sort that although I may disagree with much of what they stand for, they usually have a couple of really good ideas mixed in there too. Huckabee's ideas on tax reform were the best and sanest I have ever heard.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 May 09 - 07:02 AM

Little Hawk - After reviewing some Wikipedia excerpts on the "Fair Tax," I would agree that it is probably the best way to go. I suspect laissez faire business people would see it as a tax on consumption, and view it as a bad thing. I see it as a tax on comsumption and view it as a good thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 06 May 09 - 10:09 AM

WHether we use Fair tax, Flat tax or Fat Cat Tax
There will always be a wealthy oligarchy that will fix the game



We may live to see the day when corporations seek a new refuge by establishing a holy church bank that is also tax free non profit cash havan. Correct me if I'm wrong but Islam promotes such "churchs" already.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 May 09 - 09:38 PM

"There will always be a wealthy oligarchy that will fix the game..."

                   There will always be a wealthy oligarchy that will try to fix the game, but we don't have to let them do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 07 May 09 - 10:18 AM

While a couple Enron Employees went to prison, now that the entire country has been Enronized which destroyed not only our economy but the world, I don't see a single person in jail for even one Enron type corporate crime.

While talking heads on FOX or CNBC fret about class warfare "against the rich" it seems to me that justice needs to get a grip and put some of these Enron trained swine in prison before a terribly harmed population engages in vigilantism.

Yes there are 10,000 criminals who could be held accountable but we haven't even indicted Mozilla.




I coin the term 'Enronization' because there are 10 principal criminal acts that Wall Street used by hiring actual ex Enron executives to teach others and put them in action.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 May 09 - 10:36 AM

Hedge Fund Leader Blasts Obama for "Bullying" and "Abuse of Power"

Posted May 06, 2009 07:38am EDT by Tech Ticker in Investing, Newsmakers, Recession, Banking

Cliff Asness, whose firm manages some $20 billion of assets, has written an open letter blasting President Obama for his attack on the hedge fund industry in the wake of the Chrysler bankruptcy.

As you'll recall, hedge funds, which hold approximately $1 billion in Chrysler bonds, refused the government's offer to take approximately thirty cents on the dollar. Obama accused hedge funds of holding out "for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout."

These comments have enraged many in the industry but few have spoken out publicly. Asness, whose firm doesn't hold Chrysler bonds, says the industry is genuinely afraid in the face of Obama's power. Stating that he himself is "fearful writing this," Asness still pulls no punches:

"Let's be clear, it is the job and obligation of all investment managers, including hedge fund managers, to get their clients the most return they can. They are allowed to be charitable with their own money, and many are spectacularly so, but if they give away their clients' money to share in the "sacrifice", they are stealing."
"The President screaming that the hedge funds are looking for an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout is the big lie writ large. Find me a hedge fund that has been bailed out. Find me a hedge fund, even a failed one, that has asked for one. In fact, it was only because hedge funds have not taken government funds that they could stand up to this bullying. The TARP recipients had no choice but to go along."

"The President's attempted diktat takes money from bondholders and gives it to a labor union that delivers money and votes for him. Why is he not calling on his party to "sacrifice" some campaign contributions, and votes, for the greater good? Shaking down lenders for the benefit of political donors is recycled corruption and abuse of power."
Henry discusses the controversy with hedge fund manager Jeff Matthews, of Ram Partners. (He's also author of the popular blog Jeff Matthews Is Not Making This Up.) Matthews says it's no surprise that Obama would favor unions over hedge funds and that there's no use in crying foul in the court of public opinion. But, says Matthews, expect the Administration's tactics to be challenged where they should be: the court of law.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 May 09 - 10:50 AM

It seems to me that a Hedge Fund is basically a criminal enterprize to begin with. We can't have dark figures manipulating market and capital behind the scenes with no oversight.

                      And I agree with Donuel. It's stupid for the American public to be watching a pointless debate between Fox News and MSNBC, while these crooks are sneaking around and stealing us blind.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 07 May 09 - 10:17 PM

Got to admit it, I was wrong. I thought surely by this time folks would have tired of the teleprompter master, but such is not the case. Polls show that Obama is still popular with the majority of the population. As to his policies, and proposed programs, well that's a different story. Anyway, I must admit, particularly to Ebbie, that my prediction made a few months ago was wrong.

I was wrong also in December, 1941.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 May 09 - 11:44 PM

Doug - You thought that the Japanese would not go to war over FDR's 1941 embargo on their overseas sources of oil and steel???

(Heh! I know that's probably not what you meant, but...well, I think that FDR would have been VERY surprised and quite frustrated if the Japanese had decided to just give up, cave in, pull their armies out of China, mothball their navy, abandon their overseas efforts at empire, and consent to being a has-been as a major power in the Pacific...)

They did nothing of the kind, of course. They reacted precisely as expected, and went to war. This is how you get the country into a war when neither Congress nor the general public really want one.

You then act morally outraged and disbelieving when the inevitable happens....very effective for mobilizing the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 May 09 - 07:38 AM

That's very insightful, Little Hawk. Can you recommend any literature written from that point of view.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 May 09 - 09:47 PM

Obama is doing a lot of things right. The idea that one shouldn't draw unemployment compensation while going to school always seemed like the stupidest thing in the world to me.
             A lot of us simply lied.
             I took 22 credit hours one term while drawing unemployment. If somebody would have called me up to work, I might have wound up in jail.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 May 09 - 12:42 AM

There have been a number of books suggesting that FDR was quite concerned about getting the US into WWII as soon as possible, Rig (and for quite cogent reasons, by the way...he was worried that the Germans might win in Europe). I can't think of the titles...I read most of them, oh, maybe fifteen or twenty years ago. Anyway, from his point of view it was imperative to get the USA in the war before a total German victory in Europe occurred, and the Germans were looking very strong in 1941.

He had a problem, though. Germamy had no reason and no motivation to declare war on the USA. Furthermore, the American public and Congress were not showing any enthusiasm for getting into a war in Europe, and the Germans were not offering any significant provocations, despite the fact that FDR was doing everything he could to help England in the Battle of the Atlantic, short of actually going to war. For example, the Americans unofficially contributed long range scout planes to help the British track the Bismark in the spring of '41. They did other things to help the British locate German U-boats at sea. And they supplied the British with a whole bunch of older American destroyers for convoy escort...free!

However, the Germans had utterly no good reason to get in a war with the USA, so they didn't....for the time being.

The only feasible way for FDR to get an isolationist public and Congress onside for a war was for someone to launch an outright and apparently unprovoked attack on the USA. (think 911...for instance)

And who would do that? Well, the Germans wouldn't...and there was no way to maneuver them into doing so. But the Japanese would...provided the USA cut off their overseas supplies of two vital commodities: oil and steel. Roosevelt effectively did that in early '41 with an embargo.

The Japanese had been tied down since the late 30's in a major war in China. They could not continue to prosecute that war without using up massive amouts of oil and (secondarily) steel. They had only enough oil in reserve to keep their navy and other services going for about 1 year...and no domestic sources of oil.

When FDR put the embargo in place, war with Japan became inevitable.

It's possible that FDR did not expect the Japanese to have the expertise to do such a long range attack as their raid on Pearl Harbour. He may have been expecting them to hit farther west only...in the Phillipines and Southeast Asia. Well, they hit there AND at Pearl Harbour, and proved to be much more capable than anyone in the American high command (except Claire Chennault) would have guessed. Chennault commanded the American Volunteer Group in China (the Flying Tigers) and he was well aware how good the Japanese air force was...but no one in the USA would listen to him! The Zero fighter was the best fighter in the Pacific (maybe in the world at that time) and Chennault knew it, but he was not believed back in the USA. The Japanese navy was also the best in the world in late '41 in a number of respects. Nobody in the USA believed that either.

Accordingly, they got caught with their pants badly down for about 6 months by the Japanese...until the battle at Midway where Japanese luck ran out with a vengeance!

FDR had good reason to want to go to war against Germany. His best way of doing so was to trigger the war with Japan, after which it wouldn't be too hard to enlarge an existing conflict...it never is. Hitler then made the incredibly stupid error of immediately declaring war on the USA after Pearl Harbour instead of just standing aside (which he could have) and letting the Japanese twist in the wind. They didn't help him against Russia, so why would he help them against the USA??? It boggles the mind!

Anyway, Roosevelt calculated cleverly, in my opinion, and he got his 2-front war when he wanted it...and won it handily, which was virtually inevitable given the combined GDP of the USA, Russia, and Great Britain.

I'm not judging him one way or another for doing it...I'm just saying: that's what he did. He deliberately pushed the Japanese into a corner so they would go to war against the USA.

He may have been quite shocked at how much damage the Japanese Navy (Naval Air Force) did at Pearl Harbour and elsewhere though. I expect he was. After all, the consensus stateside before Pearl Harbour seemed to be that the Japanese flew planes made out of rice paper that were extremely inferior copies of obsolete American planes. Nothing could have been farther from the truth...!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 May 09 - 09:17 AM

Thanks for the info, LH. It seems to me that a number of people are beginning to wonder what the world would be today if Hitler had won in Europe.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 09 - 08:56 AM

Obama Agrees with Bush on Polar Bears

By Bryan Walsh Friday, May. 08, 2009Fish and Wildlife Service / AP
Polar bears have become the universal symbol of global warming, not so much because they're cute or cuddly (they're actually ferocious and not opposed to cannibalism), but because it is eminently clear that climate change is killing them. Polar bears depend on solid sea ice for survival; it's where they do their hunting. But when the ice begins to melt — as it has in recent years, thanks largely to warming — the bears can starve and die.

A 2007 study by the U.S. Geological Survey found that two-thirds of the polar bears on the planet could disappear by mid-century if Arctic ice keeps melting. So when the Bush Administration bowed to pressure from environmental groups last year and finally listed the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) — admitting that melting sea ice was the reason — it was considered a rare green coup. Since the ESA mandates the government protect endangered species from hazards, listing the polar bear as threatened by global warming would appear to require Washington to control carbon emissions. Some green groups even thought the ESA could be used to fight new coal plants and other big emitters of greenhouse gases, on the grounds that they would accelerate warming and harm the polar bear. (See Germany's latest polar bear celebrity.)

But there was a catch. While declaring the polar bear threatened by global warming, the Bush Interior Department added a rule that limited the use of the ESA to curb greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, even though science says that global warming is directly hurting polar bears and man-made carbon emissions are the chief cause of global warming, Washington wouldn't be allowed to use the ESA to do anything about it.

President Barack Obama had promised to review those last-minute Bush Administration changes to the ESA. And green groups were hopeful that the new Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar, would restore full protections for the polar bear. But they came away disappointed on May 8, when Salazar announced that he would keep the Bush rule in place, claiming that the ESA wasn't meant to be used to cap carbon emissions. "When the ESA was passed, it was not contemplated it would be a tool to address the issue of climate change," he said. "It seems to me that using the Endangered Species Act as a way to get to that global warming framework is not the right way to go." (See pictures of the effects of global warming.)

Though he coupled his announcement with a call for comprehensive climate legislation, Salazar essentially made the same argument that his predecessors had: that the ESA was meant to deal with local threats to species, not global ones. It would be impossible, for example, to directly link the increase in carbon emissions caused by a new coal plant to the polar bears' melting habitat. But environmental groups, several of which had fought in the courts for years to force the Bush Administration to list the polar bear, found Salazar's logic faulty. "From a scientific standpoint they're wrong," says John Kostyack, senior counsel at the National Wildlife Federation. "By doing this, the Obama Administration is missing a chance to tell the American people what global warming is doing their wildlife."

Environmental groups were already less than enthusiastic about Salazar heading the Interior Department. A Democratic senator from Colorado, Salazar was a rancher more attuned to the idea of using nature rather than protecting it, and he angered greens early by removing the Western gray wolf from the endangered species list. As the head of Interior, he'll be making decisions on whether to open up new land to oil and gas development, and the polar bear ruling has some environmentalists worried. "This does raise a red flag," says Noah Greenwald, program director for the Center for Biological Diversity, which is fighting the polar bear ruling in court. "You worry this means he is not going to be a friend of the environment and the Endangered Species Act."

It's a little early to judge Salazar's tenure at the Interior Department, and the Secretary may have a point — the ESA wasn't designed to counter a threat as global as global warming. The best way to deal with carbon emissions is to pass national legislation that would create a cap-and-trade program, rather than trying to stretch the ESA to fit a purpose its drafters couldn't have foreseen. But the ongoing battle over the polar bear is a reminder that wildlife will be the first victims of global warming — and that saving them won't be easy.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 May 09 - 07:21 AM

PRUDEN: Even a messiah loses his training wheels
By Wesley Pruden (Contact) | Tuesday, May 12, 2009


Disconnecting the training wheels is a scary prospect for every apprentice biker, even with Daddy standing close by. We can sympathize with Barack Obama's fright as his moment approaches. It's not easy suddenly being on your own, paying the price of falling with your own skinned knees and bruised elbows.

Nevertheless, the dreadful moment approacheth. Anticipating D-Day, Peter Orszag, the president's budget director, said Monday that the scarier than expected economic news - the deficit out of control, tax receipts down and costs of bailouts and "stimulus" plans up - is all the fault of George W. Bush: "It's an economic crisis President Obama inherited."

But Mr. Obama has already been president for more than a hundred days, and passing the hundred-day mark, irrelevant milestone as it may be, was cited as dead-solid proof that the president is the messiah he told everyone he was. Reality, however, has begun to cast a shadow over the White House, still as faint as the bright golden haze on the meadow but visible enough. "Blaming George" still makes a tingle run up the legs of all the hymn-singing true believers, but outside the embrace of the cult, that tingle is beginning to sting instead. This is Mr. Obama's government now.

The White House on Monday said the new estimate of the budget deficit would nearly reach $2 trillion - that's trillion, with a "t" - and that's nearly 13 percent of the entire gross domestic product. Pretty gross any way you spin it, and the president's men (and women) are spinning it as best they can. Alas, the country's predicament, if not yet the president's, is probably worse than it looks.

The projected budget deficit is four times larger than the deficit record set last year. We can blame that one on George, but George, big spender that he was, turns out to have been a tightwad. Maybe this is the "change" Mr. Obama promised. Yes, he did.

The administration insisted Monday that by the end of this year the gross domestic product will be growing at a rate of 3.5 percent, which would be good news so good that it's likely to be too good to be true, and it's certainly more optimistic than any private economic forecast anyone has seen beyond the White House fence.

The White House flogged this news in a statement studded with more weasel words than usual: "Although the economic downturn so far in 2009 has been more severe than the administration expected when the forecast was finalized, if the financial system begins to function more normally, there is every reason to expect a somewhat stronger recovery, given the depth of the current recession." Translation: "Don't blame us, nothing is ever the fault of the messiah, maybe everything will get a little better if it actually does get better. We hope. But don't count on it."

What shines through the spinning, bright and bold, is that Mr. Obama no longer believes in the pie in the sky he promised. He has obviously learned a few things in his first hundred days. "Wow! So that's where babies come from." But he still can't give up his teleprompter, his training wheels and good ol' George. Good ol' George is the president's teddy bear. He can't go to sleep without Teddy. George is his imaginary person, too, on whom he can blame everything. He feels very close to imaginary George.

George the imaginary person threatens everything Mr. Obama has in store for us - higher taxes (whether disguised as "user fees" or "investments"), Al Gore's vast scheme to combat global warming whether the globe is warming or not, and a health-care plan guaranteed to eventually assure every American access to medical care equal to the quality health care now available in France, Canada, Britain and maybe even Lower Volta.

The good news, such as it is, is that the remaking of America in a way that a Chicago street "activist" of a generation ago hardly dared dream of may be of such potent poison that the body politic will reject it, as a healthy human body might reject a massive dose of arsenic (perhaps administered by someone in old lace). Several of the president's Democratic allies in Congress are already balking at his scheme to extract killer taxes, such as curbing deductions for mortgage interest, gifts to churches and charities, and state and local taxes.

Soaking the rich, so-called, is OK, but marinating the rich may not be helpful. More than skinned knees and bruised elbows are in prospect as Barack Obama finally discovers that ready or not, he's the president now.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 May 09 - 04:27 AM

Bruce, maybe he'll slap himself on the forehead, and gasp "Oh God, What have I been doing??"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 09 - 07:49 AM

Tincture of Lawlessness
Obama's Overreaching Economic Policies

By George F. Will
Thursday, May 14, 2009



Anyone, said T.S. Eliot, could carve a goose, were it not for the bones. And anyone could govern as boldly as his whims decreed, were it not for the skeletal structure that keeps civil society civil -- the rule of law. The Obama administration is bold. It also is careless regarding constitutional values and is acquiring a tincture of lawlessness.

In February, California's Democratic-controlled Legislature, faced with a $42 billion budget deficit, trimmed $74 million (1.4 percent) from one of the state's fastest-growing programs, which provides care for low-income and incapacitated elderly people and which cost the state $5.42 billion last year. The Los Angeles Times reports that "loose oversight and bureaucratic inertia have allowed fraud to fester."

But the Service Employees International Union collects nearly $5 million a month from 223,000 caregivers who are members. And the Obama administration has told California that unless the $74 million in cuts are rescinded, it will deny the state $6.8 billion in stimulus money.

Such a federal ukase (the word derives from czarist Russia; how appropriate) to a state legislature is a sign of the administration's dependency agenda -- maximizing the number of people and institutions dependent on the federal government. For the first time, neither sales nor property nor income taxes are the largest source of money for state and local governments. The federal government is.

The SEIU says the cuts violate contracts negotiated with counties. California officials say the state required the contracts to contain clauses allowing pay to be reduced if state funding is.

Anyway, the Obama administration, judging by its cavalier disregard of contracts between Chrysler and some of the lenders it sought money from, thinks contracts are written on water. The administration proposes that Chrysler's secured creditors get 28 cents per dollar on the $7 billion owed to them but that the United Auto Workers union get 43 cents per dollar on its $11 billion in claims -- and 55 percent of the company. This, even though the secured creditors' contracts supposedly guaranteed them better standing than the union.

Among Chrysler's lenders, some servile banks that are now dependent on the administration for capital infusions tugged their forelocks and agreed. Some hedge funds among Chrysler's lenders that are not dependent were vilified by the president because they dared to resist his demand that they violate their fiduciary duties to their investors, who include individuals and institutional pension funds.

more

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 09 - 08:59 AM

So, Bush was right- again???



Obama to resurrect military tribunals for terror suspects

Story Highlights
Sources say Obama will revive Bush system that was suspended in January
System to include expanded due-process rights for the suspects, officials say
ACLU says the tribunal approach is still "fatally flawed"
updated 1 hour, 10 minutes ago

By Ed Henry
CNN Senior White House Correspondent
   
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama is planning on Friday to resume the Bush administration's controversial military tribunal system for some Guantanamo detainees -- which he suspended in his first week in office -- according to three administration officials.

Some of the high-profile terror suspects who are being charged in the tribunal process include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-confessed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

The administration officials stressed that the updated system will include expanded due-process rights for the suspects, which administration officials note is consistent with what Obama pushed for as a senator in 2006 in order to improve upon the widely criticized approach created by the Bush administration.

The move could increase tensions with liberal groups, led by the ACLU, which are already furious about Obama's shift this week to block the release of photos showing prisoners allegedly being abused by U.S. personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, called the expected new approach on military tribunals "fatally flawed" despite the changes.

"The military commissions are built on unconstitutional premises and designed to ensure convictions, not provide fair trials," Romero said in a prepared statement released earlier this week after speculation about the restart of military tribunals surfaced. "Reducing some but not all of the flaws of the tribunals so that they are 'less offensive' is not acceptable; there is no such thing as 'due process light.' "

Two of the administration officials said the president will also leave open the option of starting civilian trials on U.S. soil for some of the detainees. But that, too, is a fiercely debated issue on Capitol Hill because of concerns by lawmakers in both parties about where the terror suspects will be kept during such trials.

Obama suspended the tribunals by signing an executive order on his third day in office, the same day he signed an order closing the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo, and said his administration would conduct a 120-day review of the process. That review comes due next week.

"The message that we are sending around the world is that the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism," Obama said on January 22. "And we are going to do so vigilantly, we are going to do so effectively, and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals."

Eager to head off criticism from liberals, administration officials note that during the 2006 Senate debate over the Military Commissions Act, Obama called the Bush administration's approach "sloppy" and pushed for another version of the legislation with enhanced rights for detainees.

"Instead, we have rushed through a bill that stands a good chance of being challenged once again in the Supreme Court," Obama said on the Senate floor on September, 28, 2006. "This is not how a serious administration would approach the problem of terrorism."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 09 - 03:40 PM

President Obama Job Approval
Approve        60.8%
Disapprove        32.0%

Congressional Job Approval
Approve        31.8%
Disapprove        60.5%


Hmmm....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 May 09 - 08:56 AM

Well, the more he acts like Bush, the higher his approval...


U.S. to Expand Immigration Checks to All Local Jails

Obama Administration's Enforcement Push Could Lead to Sharp Increase in Deportation Cases


By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 19, 2009

The Obama administration is expanding a program initiated by President George W. Bush aimed at checking the immigration status of virtually every person booked into local jails. In four years, the measure could result in a tenfold increase in illegal immigrants who have been convicted of crimes and identified for deportation, current and former U.S. officials said.

By matching inmates' fingerprints to federal immigration databases, authorities hope to pinpoint deportable illegal immigrants before they are released from custody. Inmates in federal and state prisons already are screened. But authorities generally lack the time and staff to do the same at local jails, which house up to twice as many illegal immigrants at any time and where inmates come and go more quickly.

The effort is likely to significantly reshape immigration enforcement, current and former executive branch officials said. It comes as the Obama administration and Democratic leaders in Congress vow to crack down on illegal immigrants who commit crimes, rather than those who otherwise abide by the law.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has made it "very clear" that her top priority is deporting illegal immigrants who have committed crimes, said David J. Venturella, program director at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

"We mean this, we're serious about it, and we believe we need to put in an all-out effort to get this done," said Rep. David E. Price (D-N.C.), chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee for homeland security. He has led calls to remove illegal immigrants convicted of crimes after their sentences are served.

The program began as a pilot effort in October and operates in 48 counties across the country, including Fairfax County. This year, fingerprints from 1 million local jail bookings will be screened under the program. It also operates in Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston, Miami, Boston and Phoenix, according to ICE, and will expand to nearly all local jails by the end of 2012.

The effort differs from programs in several Northern Virginia counties where local law enforcement officers have been deputized to question suspects about whether they are in the country legally. In Montgomery County, police provide immigration authorities the names of those arrested on charges of violent crimes and handgun violations.

Under the new program, the immigration checks will be automatic: Fingerprints currently being run through the FBI's criminal history database also will be matched against immigration databases maintained by the Department of Homeland Security. The effort would not catch people who have never been fingerprinted by U.S. authorities.

Based on the pilot program, the agency estimates that if fingerprints from all 14 million bookings in local jails each year were screened, about 1.4 million "criminal aliens" would be found, Venturella said. That would be about 10 times the 117,000 criminal illegal immigrants ICE deported last year. There are more than 3,100 local jails nationwide, compared with about 1,200 federal and state prisons.

The program, known as Secure Communities, "presents an historic opportunity to transform immigration enforcement," said Julie Myers Wood, who launched it last year while head of ICE.

In his proposed 2010 budget, President Obama asked Congress last week for $200 million for the program, a 30 percent increase that puts it on track to receive $1.1 billion by 2013.

more

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 May 09 - 10:18 AM

Don't you think there is a large difference between deporting immigrants who are illegal AND committed crimes, versus obsessively trying to round up ALL illegal immigrants whether otherwise law-abiding or not? I think it is a world of difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 May 09 - 08:12 AM

Obama in Command
By David S. Broder
Thursday, May 21, 2009

No new president finds that every aspect of the job suits him at once; some duties are inevitably more comfortable than others. What we have witnessed in the past few weeks is Barack Obama trying on and fitting himself to the role of commander in chief.

The most controversial decisions of this period -- expanding the troop commitment and replacing the commander in Afghanistan, opposing the release of photos of abused detainees, keeping the system of military tribunals and delaying any change in the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays -- are of a pattern.

In every instance, Obama heeded the advice of his uniformed and civilian defense leaders and in each case but Afghanistan, he abandoned a position he had taken as the Democratic presidential candidate.

The predictable result has been the first sustained outcry from the left, angry denunciations from leaders of constituencies that had been early supporters. They feel betrayed as they watch him continuing, with minor modifications, the policies and practices of his Republican predecessor.

The political cost is not yet high, but those who remember Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter know that over time, it can be dangerous for a Democratic president to lose the support of the liberal activists.

Whatever the risks, Obama clearly has taken on the mind-set and priorities of a commander in chief -- and he is unlikely to revert back. When Newsweek's Jon Meacham asked him last week what was the hardest thing he'd had to do so far, Obama said: "Order 17,000 additional troops into Afghanistan. There is a sobriety that comes with a decision like that because you have to expect that some of those young men and women are going to be harmed in the theater of war."

Some adaptation is necessary for almost every president because few experiences can really prepare them for the challenges Obama described to Meacham. George W. Bush went through it after Sept. 11, 2001, subordinating his domestic agenda to focus on the terrorist threat -- and never changing.

But the step is harder for today's Democratic presidents than for their predecessors -- or their Republican contemporaries.

Ever since Vietnam, the prevailing ideology of grass-roots Democratic activists has been hostile to American military actions and skeptical of the military itself. Iowa, where the Democratic nomination process begins, is famously tilted toward a pacifist view of war. Throughout the primaries, the pressures push forward candidates who do not challenge that mind-set.

That was certainly the case last year, when Obama's best-credentialed challengers -- Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd -- all stumbled over their votes to authorize Bush's use of force in Iraq.

The second reason Democrats struggle more with becoming commander in chief is that they have more things than do Republicans that they want to accomplish here at home. Time and money are always in short supply. The bigger the domestic agenda, the more resistance to being "diverted" into military adventures. Obama, like all his Democratic predecessors, has set big goals. Afghanistan has to look like a distraction to him.

And a third reason is that today's Democrats really are isolated from the military. Harry Truman had been an artillery captain; John Kennedy and Carter, Navy officers. But Bill Clinton did everything possible to avoid the draft, and Obama, motivated as he was to public service, never gave a thought to volunteering for the military.

Nonetheless, circumstances made Obama commander in chief of a nation fighting two wars. Consciously or not, he prepared himself for the transition by his choice of associates. He picked a vice president, Joe Biden, who visited the battlefronts repeatedly as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; a secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, who immersed herself in defense issues as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee; and a defense secretary, Bob Gates, who ran the wars for Bush. Then, most strikingly, as his national security adviser he chose not another of the academics who have customarily filled that role but a very tough retired Marine general, James L. Jones.

They are the ones whose advice and counsel Obama has heeded in recent weeks -- not the political aides who guided him through the campaign and into the White House.

Obama's liberal critics are right. He is a different man now. He has learned what it means to be commander in chief.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 May 09 - 08:14 AM

$4 Trillion in Exaggerated Savings
By Maya MacGuineas

On two separate issues -- health-care and the budget -- the president has promised savings of $2 trillion. A total of $4 trillion dollars -- now that's real money. Unfortunately, the claims are completely exaggerated.

First, take health care. Recently, a collection of industry groups came to Washington for a meeting and photo-op with the president. News headlines trumpeted their pledge to save $2 trillion over the next decade -- headlines that were not surprising given that President Obama said, "over the next 10 years -- from 2010 to 2019 -- they are pledging to cut the rate of growth of national health care spending by 1.5 percentage point each year -- an amount that's equal to over $2 trillion. Two trillion dollars."

Turns out that's not what the groups said at all. In their letter to Obama, they promised to "do our part to achieve your Administration's goal of decreasing by 1.5 percentage points annual health-care spending growth rate -- saving $2 trillion or more." Of course, their part of that savings may be significantly less than the full $2 trillion. The groups offered no further specifics. And, anyway, there would be no way to enforce such a hazy commitment. The administration, I'm told, understood this, but the president and others apparently chose to convey a much more optimistic message.

And then there's the budget. Administration officials have argued that they recognize the importance of getting an unsustainable situation back to a manageable level once the economy has recovered. How do they propose doing this? They would cut $2 trillion out of the budget -- a promise that has become one of their favorite talking points.

But in budgeting, "savings" all depends on where you begin. In order to come up with $2 trillion savings, the Office of Management and Budget makes a lot of assumptions that don't reflect the real world or standard budget conventions.

They assume that all of President Bush's tax cuts -- slated to expire at the end of 2010 -- would continue indefinitely. They then factor in a repeal of the tax cuts going to families making over $250,000. And voila: $600 billion in savings. Except that extending a law only to repeal it doesn't really help the bottom line.

They also assume that the war in Iraq would continue at a greater intensity than the president supports (or even President Bush supported). And then they make a show of deflating the pumped up Iraq spending for a "savings" of more than $1 trillion.

Another $300 billion of OMB's "savings" comes from interest payments that are little more than accounting gimmicks.

The frustrating thing here is that I believe Obama is truly concerned about the country's fiscal situation. He has surrounded himself with brilliant economic thinkers who share his concerns about excessive deficit spending. And he takes every opportunity to remind us of the importance of balancing the books. Just last week, he pivoted from a question about increasing Social Security benefits to say:

But what is true about the budget -- is absolutely true -- is that we can cut programs, we can eliminate waste, we can eliminate abuse, we can eliminate earmarks; we could do all that stuff, and we're still going to have a major problem, because Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the national debt. And so I have said before and I will repeat again that my administration is going to seek to work with Congress to execute serious entitlement reform that preserves a safety net for our seniors, for people with disabilities, but also puts it on a firmer, stable footing so that people's retirements are going to be secure not just for this generation, but also for the next generation. And that's going to be hard work. It's going to require some tough choices, but I'm going to need support of the American people to get that done.

That response, emphasizing the need to cut entitlement spending instead of expanding it, is exactly the right point to make. (Though, at the same time, he's creating a huge new health-care entitlement.)

It's easy to understand the bind Obama is in. Being more direct about the policies required to fix the budget is politically perilous. But meaningful deficit reduction will involve real sacrifices -- of the sort you can't spring on the public all of a sudden. The president should be laying the foundation for what's to come.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 May 09 - 08:36 AM

Amos,

regarding your early comments about keeping an eye on Obama, I have to bring this to your attention: Had it been under Bush, I am sure you would have screamed for months...

Isn't it Holder who is pushing for Gitmo releases?





"Pay attention to Eric Holder's law firm and Gitmo detainees
By Michelle Malkin • January 23, 2009 02:41 PM A good friend writes:

[A]s nearly 100 of the remaining detainees are Yemenis, reflecting that country's refusal to assure security for repatriated Yemenis, note that AG nominee Eric Holder is a senior partner with Covington & Burling, a prestigious Washington, D.C. law firm, which represents 17 Yemenis currently held at Gitmo. From the C & B website:

The firm represents 17 Yemeni nationals and one Pakistani citizen held at Guantánamo Bay. The Supreme Court will soon review the D.C. Circuit's ruling that ordered the dismissal of a number of habeas petitions filed by Guantánamo detainees; some of our clients are petitioners in the Supreme Court case. We expect to play a substantial role in the briefing. We also plan to petition the Supreme Court to hear our Pakistani client's appeal from the D.C. Circuit's order dismissing his case. Further, we are pursuing relief in the D.C. Circuit under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 for all of our clients. On a separate front, we filed amicus briefs and coordinated the amicus effort in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in which the Supreme Court in the summer of 2006 invalidated President Bush's military commissions and in which we have obtained favorable rulings that our clients have rights under the Fifth Amendment and the Geneva Conventions.
Covington & Burling's Gitmo bar roster has included some of the most radical detainee advocates; see David Remes, who peeled down to his underwear at a press conference in Yemen to draw attention to his clients' plight and Marc Falkoff, who published a book of detainee poetry and who, in the book's intro, compared their heroic struggle to the Jews held in concentration camps and Japanese Americans held in internment camps during WWII. [One of Falkoff's "gentle, thoughtful" young poets--a Kuwaiti "cleared for release" and repatriated in 2005--blew himself up in a truck bomb in Mosul last March, killing 13 Iraqi army soldiers and wounding 42 others.]

The fact that Mr. Holder, while Deputy Attorney General, pushed for the release of 16 violent FALN terrorists against the advice of the FBI, the US Attorneys who prosecuted them and the NYPD officers who were maimed by them, suggests that he was perfectly willing to put politics before the national security interests of the country. He is not suited for the job of attorney general, which is central to the issues surrounding the disposition of war on terror detainees. "


Certainly no conflict of interest here, unlike when Cheney was from a company that had contracts FROM THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION. *** THAT *** was certainly a real conflict of interest.

NOT.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 09 - 10:22 AM

Thanks, Bruce. Assholery never dies, it just changes suits.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 09 - 10:35 AM

February: "U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has surely given Loudmouth Limbaugh a hot topic.

In a speech Holder gave for the African-American History Month program at the Justice Department, he called Americans "cowards" with respect to race relations.

"Though the nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards," Holder said.

"Though race-related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we average Americans simply do not talk enough with each other about race."

Most black people likely agree with that statement, while a lot of white people likely disagree.

Holder called on us to "respect one another" and to use Black History Month to "learn more about each other."

Before people get hung up on "coward," think about the times you've been misunderstood when it comes to race issues. It is easier to avoid the topic altogether.

Holder isn't putting us down.

He's asking us to have courage. ..."

---

Gee, seems to me he's very different from Cheny, BB. Ya think?

Is it also true that he stopped working for Burlington when he became AG?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 09 - 03:01 PM

"President Obama's speech this morning was really two speeches. The first, which will no doubt garner most of the media's attention, was a prickly campaign-like argument with the prior administration about who is responsible for the mess the president now faces at Guantánamo Bay. It was a remarkably defensive presentation for a man who enjoys strong approval ratings, clear evidence that former Vice President Cheney's repeated challenges to his toughness and fortitude have gotten to the president.


The second speech, by contrast, was a forward-looking, courageous, and substantial accounting for how the new administration means to handle some of the toughest questions posed by American detention policy and his earlier decision to close Guantánamo Bay.

Most importantly, President Obama made clear and official for the first time — though news reports have indicated as much in the past — that he is contemplating a preventative detention statute. He rightly described how to handle "detainees at Guantánamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people" as "the toughest issue we will face." And he made clear that "If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so going forward, my Administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime. . . ."

This is a statement of enormous importance, far greater importance than his decision last week to revive military commissions. While he left the details for a later date, the fact that an American president has publicly insisted both on the propriety of a preventative detention system and on the necessity of that system's being created by Congress and overseen by the courts represents a major breakthrough. " (Benjamin Wittes

Benjamin Wittes, a Senior Fellow and Research Director in Public Law at the Brookings Institution, is the author of "Law and the Long War: The Future of Justice in the Age of Terror." ) (NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 09 - 10:01 AM

Obama recently issued policy reversing Bush's appetite for Federal preemption over State laws. WaPo reports:

"The American Association for Justice, which represents trial lawyers, cheered Obama's move, saying his memo "makes clear that the rule of law will once again prevail over the rule of politics."

Kendall, of the Constitutional Accountability Center, said that Obama "clearly understands the important role that state and local governments play in our constitutional system and has displayed a very different vision of our Constitution than President Bush displayed in his eight years."


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 09 - 10:11 AM

A Repblican and right-central columnist, David Brooks, remarks in the NYT:

" What Obama gets, and what President Bush never got, is that other people's opinions matter. Goldsmith puts it well: "The main difference between the Obama and Bush administrations concerns not the substance of terrorism policy, but rather its packaging. The Bush administration shot itself in the foot time and time again, to the detriment of the legitimacy and efficacy of its policies, by indifference to process and presentation. The Obama administration, by contrast, is intensely focused on these issues."

Obama has taken many of the same policies Bush ended up with, and he has made them credible to the country and the world. In his speech, Obama explained his decisions in a subtle and coherent way. He admitted that some problems are tough and allow no easy solution. He treated Americans as adults, and will have won their respect.

Do I wish he had been more gracious with and honest about the Bush administration officials whose policies he is benefiting from? Yes. But the bottom line is that Obama has taken a series of moderate and time-tested policy compromises. He has preserved and reformed them intelligently. He has fit them into a persuasive framework. By doing that, he has not made us less safe. He has made us more secure. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 09 - 10:19 AM

"...For seven years, President George W. Bush tried to frighten the American public — and successfully cowed Congress — with bullying and disinformation. On Thursday, President Obama told the truth. It was a moment of political courage that will make this country safer.

Mr. Obama was exactly right when he said Americans do not have to choose between security and their democratic values. By denying those values, the Bush team fed the furies of anti-Americanism, strengthened our enemies and made the nation more vulnerable.

Such clarity of thought is unlikely to end the partisan posturing. It certainly didn't quiet former Vice President Dick Cheney, who was fear-mongering in full force on Thursday. But we hope that lawmakers who voted this week against closing the prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — starting with the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid — were listening closely. ...

...Mr. Obama vowed to deal with the rest of the prisoners under the law and the Constitution, but forthrightly admitted he wasn't sure how. There are proposals to create a new "preventive detention" regime that we are not convinced is needed.

As he moves forward, we hope Mr. Obama bears in mind a point he made on Thursday. The problem is not the crime of terrorism, which the judicial system can normally handle. It is the way Mr. Bush undermined that system — and this country's reputation and security — with his policies of arbitrary detention and abuse."

NYT, Ther Real Path to Security

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 May 09 - 10:27 PM

Amos - I would agree that Obama is doing any number of things much better that George W. Bush did them. However, what is he supposed to do with the remaining prisoners at Guantanamo Bay?
             If somebody had take me there and locked me up for 8 or 9 years, and then suddenly decided to turn me loose, I'd spend the rest of my life trying to get even--believe it!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 May 09 - 12:06 AM

It's a tough question, Rig, no mistake.

Like trying to put scrambled eggs back in their shells.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 May 09 - 12:24 AM

Yeah, that's a good description!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 May 09 - 05:41 PM

May 21, 2009 19:18 | Updated May 21, 2009 19:19
Analysis: Obama: An innocent abroad
By JONATHAN SPYER

The London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Quds al-Arabi has published what it claims are key details of the new Middle East peace plan to be presented by President Obama in his speech in Cairo on June 4. Details of the plan made the front page of two leading Israeli newspapers.

If the revelations prove accurate, they reveal a US administration as yet unacquainted with several basic facts of life concerning politics and strategy in the Middle East.

There were those in Israel who suspected Obama of being a kind of wolf in sheep's clothing, preparing with a friendly smile to offer up Israel as a sacrifice to its regional enemies.

The picture emerging from the alleged details of his plan suggest a different, though not necessarily more comforting characterization: When it comes to the Middle East, Obama is an innocent abroad.

Observe: We are told that the new plan represents a revised version of the 2002 Arab peace plan and is to offer the following: a demilitarized Palestinian state approximating the armistice lines of June 5, 1967. Territorial exchanges may take place on the West Bank. This state will be established within four years of the commencement of negotiations.

On Palestinian refugees: The refugees and their descendants will be naturalized in their countries of current residence, or will have the right to move to the new Palestinian state. In parallel to the negotiations with the Palestinians, separate negotiating tracks with the Syrians and Lebanese will be established.

If the Obama plan does indeed include these elements, its failure is a certainty, because it has been formulated without reference to regional realities.

Currently, west of the Jordan River there are three political entities: Israel, the West Bank Palestinian Authority, and a Hamas-run, quasi-sovereign body in the Gaza Strip.
Entities 1 and 3 are in a state of war with each other.

Entity 2's existence is underwritten by entity 1, without which it would be devoured by entity 3.
The Obama plan, it would appear, simply fails to take into account the fact of Hamas-run Gaza's existence.

Yet the decision this week by West Bank PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas to form a narrow government is testimony to the Hamas-led statelet's durability. There is no Palestinian force able, or other force willing, to destroy it. It has made clear that it does not intend to negotiate itself out of existence. For as long as it is there, armed by Iran and opposed to all moves toward reconciliation, all plans based on authoritative peace negotiations between Israel and the PA are divorced from reality.

The refugee question is to be addressed by naturalization or a "return" to the borders of the new Palestinian state. There is no significant Palestinian faction which will agree to this. The Islamist factions, obviously, will reject it out of hand.

It will also be opposed by Fatah. This movement is in any case in a state of disarray and disunity. But the trends at rank and file level in it are toward greater religiosity and greater radicalism. The issue of the "return," far more than the issue of the "Palestinian state," is the foundation stone of Palestinian nationalism as imagined by Fatah. There is no way that the movement could abandon it. If it did, it would be almost certain to cede the leadership of the Palestinian national movement.

Regarding the issue of the "naturalization" of refugees and their descendants, it is not quite clear how Lebanon and Syria, home to large Palestinian populations, are to be persuaded to grant full citizenship to their residents of Palestinian origin. Opposition to the tawteen (naturalization) of Palestinian residents is one of the very few issues on which all Lebanese political factions are united.

A government dominated by Hizbullah is likely to emerge following the Lebanese elections on June 7. Its default position will be support for the Iranian-led regional bloc, and opposition to all attempts at a negotiated peace between Palestinians and Israelis. Certainly, such a government will feel no inclination toward helping out the US administration by abandoning a key, consensual Lebanese political stance.

Syria will also not abandon a core pro-Palestinian position in order to accommodate Washington. As for the view of even Washington's allies among the Palestinians for this option - naturalization was overtly rejected by Mahmoud Abbas on a visit to Lebanon last year.

Above and beyond the details, the plan revealed in Al-Quds al-Arabi fails to acknowledge the salient fact of current Middle East strategy: namely, the division of the region into an Islamist "resistance" bloc led by Iran, and a loose coalition of all those states opposed to this bloc.

There is a conspiracy theory according to which Obama, with Machiavellian cunning, knows that his plan is unworkable, and intends to use its failure to cast blame and accusation on Israel. Who knows? Perhaps evidence will yet emerge in support for this thesis.

It seems more likely, however, that the president remains enthralled by the sunny illusions of the peace process of the 1990s, and is about to give them another run around the block. He has four years to follow the well-trodden path from innocence to experience. The problem is that further afield, there are other, more urgent clocks ticking.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 May 09 - 10:17 PM

"The problem is that further afield, there are other, more urgent clocks ticking."


                   Yes, there certainly are. I'd hate to see the president wast 10 minutes on Israel and the buffoons in the Middle East. We need to do something about healthcare, social security, the mortgage crisis, the auto industry, agriculture, green energy... The list is endless. Let Israel take care of its own problems; it's time for the US to stop wasting any more time and money on them.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 May 09 - 02:11 PM

Obama's Not-So-Open Government

Dan Froomkin
Posted at 1:51 PM ET, 05/28/2009


Obama's Not-So-Open Government

The Obama administration has taken three significant steps toward greater openness in government in the past week.

Last Thursday, the White House launched a major new initiative -- one that, appropriately enough, starts off with a request for public input -- to increase transparency, participation, and collaboration throughout the federal government. It also launched Data.gov, a new Web site intended to be a vast public repository of federal data, presented in a format that will allow it to be easily used by the public.

And just yesterday afternoon, President Obama sent a memo to agency heads, giving them 90 days to suggest ways to reduce over-classification of documents, ease declassification, and prohibit reclassification.

That's all well and good. But it's not remotely enough. And Obama's efforts thus far don't even come close to fulfilling the promises he made on his memorable second day in the White House, when he vowed that transparency would be a touchstone of his presidency.

"The way to make government responsible is to hold it accountable," Obama said at the time. "And the way to make government accountable is make it transparent so that the American people can know exactly what decisions are being made, how they're being made, and whether their interests are being well served."

But when it comes to transparency, the White House should be leading by example. Or, more accurately, the White House does lead by example -- and the example it's setting is way short of what Obama led us to expect. With some notable exceptions, Obama's White House hasn't been dramatically more transparent than the notoriously secretive one before it.

There is still a tremendous predisposition against disclosure there. Internal records stay internal, while the distribution of key public documents is actually less reliable than it was in the Bush years -- especially on the White House Web site.

Administration officials routinely hold briefings where they demand anonymity for spin sessions that aren't remotely controversial or sensitive. (See, for instance, James Rainey of the Los Angeles Times and Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post writing about Tuesday's example.)

One of the most important litmus tests, in my mind, is the number of White House aides who are authorized to speak to reporters on the record. That currently amounts to only a handful of people, pretty much all of whom see their primary goal as sticking to talking points, spinning and delivering pithy sound bites. There should be dozens of people willing and able to actually explain to reporters what's going on inside the White House.

The White House Web site's much-vaunted blog is mostly window dressing, rather than window. (With some notable exceptions, including the participation of Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's chief economic adviser, and the live streaming of a few select White House meetings.)

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs apparently considers his role as primarily defensive and treats questions like things that need to be fended off, rather than engaged. The result has been a race to the bottom in the briefing room, where substantive queries are often a waste of time, and Gibbs instead yuks it up with the (mostly) boys in the front row. (Politico's Patrick Gavin documents the press room hilarity, as reflected by the 600 instances of laughter reflected in the transcripts of Gibbs's briefings so far -- or more than 10 per day.)

As Rainey writes in his LA Times story: "It's nothing new for an incoming administration, particularly a popular one, to be aggressive about presenting information the way it wants. But the media has an obligation not to play along."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 May 09 - 10:59 PM

I wonder how constructive it is to quote pundit after pundit. Wouldn't it make more sense to just say what you think and be done with it?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 May 09 - 11:05 PM

Don't interrupt his dramatization, Rig--it might disturb his balance.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 May 09 - 02:19 PM

I am required, by TRADITION as established by Amos, to search out critical ( negative ) quotes from whatever partisan sources I can fincd and present them as if they represent an absolute truth.

I can't change what Amos has established as "Fair and reasonable"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 09 - 02:33 PM

You clearly don't like it when Amos does it, BB. Why imitate behaviour that you don't like in others?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 May 09 - 03:09 PM

WHen I hear as many people complaining about how Amos treated Bush as are bitching about the comments I post about Obam, I will no longer feel the need to show how bigoted it is, now will I?


Waiting on your comment to Amos about HIS selection of comments on the "Bush" thread...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 09 - 04:07 PM

My friend Amos is a mentally hyperactive Diddly-Boob who gets so caught up in his own intellectually fraught verbosity that he can truly be said to be in what amounts to a state of obsession from time to time.

Satisfied? ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 29 May 09 - 04:24 PM

But what do you REALLY think of him?


And another comment on the present administration...

( I have NEVER said that Obama was not a competent politician- just that I disagree with some ( IE, those in which he continues to act other than Bush did) of his policies and actions.) This is presented as proof of his effectiveness as a politician.





The Incredible Shrinking Clintons
By Dick Morris
Posted: 05/26/09 05:22 PM [ET]

Asked why he was naming some of his rivals to top administration jobs, President Lyndon B. Johnson said it best: "I'd rather have them inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in." President Obama seems to echo Johnson's management style in his handling of Bill and Hillary Clinton. By bringing them into his inner circle, he has marginalized them both and sharply reduced their freedom of action.

It may appear odd to describe a secretary of State as marginalized, but Obama has surrounded Hillary with his people and carved up her jurisdiction geographically. Former Sen. George Mitchell (D-Maine) is in charge of Arab-Israeli relations. Dennis Ross has Iran. Former U.N. Ambassador Dick Holbrooke has Pakistan and Afghanistan. And Hillary has to share her foreign policy role on the National Security Council (NSC) with Vice President Biden, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, CIA chief Leon Panetta, and NSC staffer Samantha Powers (who once called Hillary a "monster").

With peers who are competitors and subordinates who can deal directly with the president, Hillary is reduced to announcing foreign aid packages for Pakistan while Holbrooke does the heavy lifting.

Part of Hillary's problem is the institutional shrinking of the State Department. During the Bush years, while war raged, the Defense Department became more relevant to the conduct of foreign policy. And, under Obama, the financial crisis has propelled the Treasury into the forefront. State, with its emphasis on traditional diplomacy, has been forced to take a back seat. Even though Obama appointed Hillary, he clearly has not been willing to make her a co-president and confines her to the diminished role of her department.

For his part, Bill Clinton has been asked to be a special envoy to Haiti. Yes, Haiti. Obama's predecessor asked the former president to orchestrate the response to the Asian tsunami and then to Hurricane Katrina. Obama gives him Haiti.

Meanwhile, both Clintons are effectively muzzled and cannot criticize Obama even as he reverses President Clinton's free market proclivities and budget balancing discipline. Hillary, the supposed friend of Israel, must sit by quietly and watch Iran get the bomb while trying all the while to stop Israel from preventing it.

Bill can't even make money. Denied the ability to accept speeches from foreign governments or their organs and fenced out of continuing his profitable relationship with the Emir of Dubai, he and his wife must accept the loss of the $13 million they spent on her campaign and sit by passively, unable to earn the money to replace it.

Just as Lincoln buried his rivals Seward, Chase and Stanton in the Cabinet and then on the Supreme Court, and Wilson buried Bryan at the State Department, so Obama has hidden his predecessor and his rival in plain sight at the upper reaches of the government.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 29 May 09 - 04:30 PM

And on the economic front:



Bond Vigilantes Confront Obama as Housing Falters

By Liz Capo McCormick and Daniel Kruger

May 29 (Bloomberg) -- They're back.

For the first time since another Democrat occupied the White House, investors from Beijing to Zurich are challenging a president's attempts to revive the economy with record deficit spending. Fifteen years after forcing Bill Clinton to abandon his own stimulus plans, the so-called bond vigilantes are punishing Barack Obama for quadrupling the budget shortfall to $1.85 trillion. By driving up yields on U.S. debt, they are also threatening to derail Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke's efforts to cut borrowing costs for businesses and consumers.

The 1.5-percentage-point rise in 10-year Treasury yields this year pushed interest rates on 30-year fixed mortgages to above 5 percent for the first time since before Bernanke announced on March 18 that the central bank would start printing money to buy financial assets. Treasuries have lost 5.1 percent in their worst annual start since Merrill Lynch & Co. began its Treasury Master Index in 1977.

"The bond-market vigilantes are up in arms over the outlook for the federal deficit," said Edward Yardeni, who coined the term in 1984 to describe investors who protest monetary or fiscal policies they consider inflationary by selling bonds. He now heads Yardeni Research Inc. in Great Neck, New York. "Ten trillion dollars over the next 10 years is just an indication that Washington is really out of control and that there is no fiscal discipline whatsoever."

Investor Dread

What bond investors dread is accelerating inflation after the government and Fed agreed to lend, spend or commit $12.8 trillion to thaw frozen credit markets and snap the longest U.S. economic slump since the 1930s. The central bank also pledged to buy as much as $300 billion of Treasuries and $1.25 trillion of bonds backed by home loans.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 29 May 09 - 04:34 PM

So what is former Ariel Sharon advisor, Jonathan Spyer's, plan for the the Isreali/Paletinian issue??? It's one thing to roll out the sarcasim when you have a plan yerself but, if I have it correct, he would be happy to just let things go the way they have for the last 8 years...

What am I missing here???

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 09 - 04:40 PM

Oh, Bobert, pray do not trouble Bruce with liberal rationality. It does not arrive.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 29 May 09 - 05:17 PM

Sorry, Amos...

I just grow weary of bb's supposed sources who usually end up to be just right winged blowhards...

Okay, Spyer has some creditials but the piece that bb posted above is dripping with disdain for Obama...

I don't know if Spyer has noticed but his plan has clearly not worked so to portray Obama as some kind out-of-touch-iealist seems to be, at the very least, hypocritical...

And for the record, there was nothing at all wrong with Clinton trying to broker a peace... The Monika Lewinski thing??? Yeah...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 09 - 06:26 PM

In the case of Monica, he was trying to broker a piece...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 29 May 09 - 06:28 PM

Bobert, my friend ( hoping to hear you at the WFF tomorrow)

I just grow weary of Amos's supposed sources who usually end up to be just +++left+++ winged blowhards...

Okay, some of them have had some creditials but the vast majority of the anti-Bush pieces that Amos posted were dripping with disdain for Bush, conservatives, and anyone who did not agree with them.

SO I will await your complaints about other's choices before I take the ones you make about me to heart.


Capiche??

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 09 - 06:38 PM

Yeah... but the difference you have a hard time recognizing, Bruce, is that Bush earned his disdain in a thousand tiny fuckupds, illiteracy, spawning ruination and death, and other tricks of the half-minded. Obama, sop far, has striven to communicate and improve things.

So your parallel is badly fractured from its first premise.

Your comparing apples and horse-apples.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 09 - 06:42 PM

BB, do you know what the dictionary definition of the word "bigot" is? I looked it up just to be absolutely sure. It is:


bigot - a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Origin:
1590–1600; MF (OF: derogatory name applied by the French to the Normans), perh. OE bî God by God



I find that hilarious, because by that definition almost everybody on this whole damned forum IS a bigot and is practicing bigotry...specially those who rave on all the livelong day about other people who have some different opinion being "bigots", despite apparently having no idea themselves what the world "bigot" actually means.

I mention this not to go after you particulary, BB...but just because I thought you'd find it interesting in itself. You might, like me, find it amusing. Truly, bigotry is an ever-present blight these days, specially in political discussions, because practically everyone I hear engaging in them, whether they are "liberal" or "conservative" is utterly intolerant of any differing belief, or opinion...and quite proud of it too! They relish their own intolerance and self-righteous fury. ;-D

Genuine fairness and objectivity are as rare today as they were in the Dark Ages.


****

But I like Obama. You know why? He's tolerant, and he listens fairly to those of differing beliefs and opinions. He actually listens! Astounding. The man is one in a million when it comes to politicians these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 29 May 09 - 09:29 PM

LH,

I allow others to have whatever opinions they want- but I object to being told what I must think by others. When somneone tells me that only they have the "TRUTH" I tend to think that they might have a limited view of reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 09 - 10:06 PM

"Your comparing apples and horse-apples..."


                      And horse apples grow strong grass roots!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 09 - 11:23 PM

I follow your reasoning perfectly on that, BB. Makes sense to me.

Everyone, truth be told, does have a limited view of reality. It's limited to the influences (cultural and otherwise) that they've been exposed to, and their own experiences.

I find that virtually everyone I talk to is for whatever they are for because of some high ideals they hold dear. In other words, they have some very positive reasons for their beliefs. And...they may also be carrying some grudges and some negativities in their consciousness. It pays to listen to them long enough to get some idea of why they feel the way they do, and what it is that they are instinctively valuing and defending before you rush to judge them.

Again, I'm not directing that at you.   Just talking in general terms.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 30 May 09 - 08:10 AM

No WFF fir me today, bruce...

Would love to be there but I have a Bobcat with an auger rented for the weekend and have some serious post hole digging to get done...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 May 09 - 01:00 PM

What is WFF? World F**king Federation"?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 31 May 09 - 08:46 AM

Nah, LH... Sorry to inform you but it's the just the Washington Folk Festival at Glen Echo Park... I haven't played it now in 3 years... Long drive...

Now back to Obama...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 May 09 - 11:41 AM

Righto. Pardon my misinterpretation of the acronym.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 31 May 09 - 12:00 PM

See sociopathic thread, LH... Awww, jus' funnin' wid ya...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jun 09 - 07:46 PM

Washington Post


Still Too Many Secrets
The Obama administration promises more open government -- sometimes.

ON WEDNESDAY, President Obama announced the formation of a task force to review government policies that keep certain information out of public reach. He proposed the creation of a National Declassification Center to facilitate, when appropriate, public disclosure of once-secret information. In a memo outlining the task force's objectives, the president reaffirmed his commitment "to operating with an unprecedented level of openness." As The Post's Carrie Johnson reported, Mr. Obama also raised the possibility of reviving the "presumption against classification" that would preclude stamping information as secret when there is "significant doubt" about whether that is necessary. The task force, led by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, has 90 days to submit recommendations to the White House. So far, so good.

Yet, at the same time, the administration is supporting legislation that could increase secrecy. The Justice Department filed notice Thursday of its intention to challenge in the Supreme Court a New York federal appeals court ruling that ordered the administration to make public photographs allegedly depicting the abuse of terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. The American Civil Liberties Union had filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) suit to force their disclosure. (The Washington Post Co. filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the ACLU.) At the same time, the Justice Department alerted the court that a formal appeal by the June 9 deadline may be unnecessary if Congress quickly passes the Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009. The department also asked Friday that the deadline be extended to July 9.

The measure, supported by the White House and passed May 21 as an attachment to a Senate funding bill, would put beyond the reach of FOIA any photographs taken between Sept. 11, 2001, and Jan. 22, 2009, "relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside of the United States" that the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have determined would endanger military personnel if released.

The Obama administration deserves credit for reviewing government policies that for eight years have been applied too expansively to keep important information from public view. Earlier this year, for example, Mr. Holder rescinded Bush-era FOIA guidelines and replaced them with new rules that better reflect and preserve FOIA's purpose of making public important information about the workings of the government -- which is what makes the administration's support for the photographic records act so regrettable. In taking a step aimed at protecting the country's service members, Mr. Obama runs the risk of taking two steps back in his quest for more open government.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jun 09 - 07:53 PM

The Obama Infatuation

By Robert J. Samuelson
Monday, June 1, 2009

The Obama infatuation is a great unreported story of our time. Has any recent president basked in so much favorable media coverage? Well, maybe John Kennedy for a moment, but no president since. On the whole, this is not healthy for America.

Our political system works best when a president faces checks on his power. But the main checks on Obama are modest. They come from congressional Democrats, who largely share his goals if not always his means. The leaderless and confused Republicans don't provide effective opposition. And the press -- on domestic, if not foreign, policy -- has so far largely abdicated its role as skeptical observer.

Obama has inspired a collective fawning. What started in the campaign (the chief victim was Hillary Clinton, not John McCain) has continued, as a study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism shows. It concludes: "President Barack Obama has enjoyed substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush during their first months in the White House."

The study examined 1,261 stories by The Post, the New York Times, ABC, CBS and NBC, Newsweek magazine and the "NewsHour" on PBS. Favorable articles (42 percent) were double the unfavorable (20 percent), while the rest were "neutral" or "mixed." Obama's treatment contrasts sharply with coverage in the first two months of the Bush (22 percent of stories favorable) and Clinton (27 percent) presidencies.

Unlike George Bush and Bill Clinton, Obama received favorable coverage in both news columns and opinion pages. The nature of stories also changed. "Roughly twice as much of the coverage of Obama (44 percent) has concerned his personal and leadership qualities than was the case for Bush (22 percent) or Clinton (26 percent)," the report said. "Less of the coverage, meanwhile, has focused on his policy agenda."

When Pew broadened the analysis to 49 outlets -- cable channels, news Web sites, morning news shows, more newspapers and National Public Radio -- the results were similar, despite some outliers. No surprise: MSNBC was favorable, Fox was not. Another study, released by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, reached parallel conclusions.

The infatuation matters because Obama's ambitions are so grand. He wants to expand health-care subsidies, tightly control energy use and overhaul immigration. He envisions the greatest growth of government since Lyndon Johnson. The Congressional Budget Office estimates federal spending in 2019 at nearly 25 percent of the economy (gross domestic product). That's well up from the 21 percent in 2008, and far above the post-World War II average; it would also occur before many baby boomers retire.

Are his proposals practical, even if desirable? Maybe they're neither? What might be the unintended consequences? All "reforms" do not succeed; some cause more problems than they solve. Johnson's economic policies, inherited from Kennedy, proved disastrous; they led to the 1970s' "stagflation." The "war on poverty" failed. The press should not be hostile, but it ought to be skeptical.

Mostly, it isn't. The idea of a "critical" Obama story is one about a tactical conflict with congressional Democrats or criticism from an important constituency. Larger issues are minimized, despite ample grounds for skepticism.

Obama's rhetoric brims with inconsistencies. In the campaign, he claimed he would de-emphasize partisanship -- and also enact a highly partisan agenda; both couldn't be true. He got a pass. Now, he claims he will control health-care spending even though he proposes more government spending. He promotes "fiscal responsibility" when projections show huge and continuous budget deficits. Journalists seem to take his pronouncements at face value even when many are two-faced.

The cause of this acquiescence isn't clear. The press sometimes follows opinion polls; popular presidents get good coverage, and Obama is enormously popular. By Pew, his job approval rating is 63 percent. But because favorable coverage began in the campaign, this explanation is at best partial.

Perhaps the preoccupation with the present economic crisis has diverted attention from the long-term implications of other policies. But the deeper explanation may be as straightforward as this: Most journalists like Obama; they admire his command of language; he's a relief after Bush; they agree with his agenda (so it never occurs to them to question basic premises); and they don't want to see the first African American president fail.

Whatever, a great edifice of government may arise on the narrow foundation of Obama's personal popularity. Another Pew survey shows that since the election the numbers of both self-identified Republicans and Democrats have declined. "Independents" have increased, and "there has been no consistent movement away from conservatism, nor a shift toward liberalism."

The press has become Obama's silent ally and seems in a state of denial. But the story goes untold: Unsurprisingly, the study of all the favorable coverage received little coverage

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Jun 09 - 08:48 PM

Come on, bb... Robert Samuelson is a Repub shill...

The other article was also an editorial... The Post's editorial staff... I find it interesting that the right would have slammed Obama had he released the photos or not released them... I understand why he didn't... I don't think we need to ignite more hatred in the Moslum world, do you, bb???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Jun 09 - 09:49 PM

We do if we want to go to war in Iran!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jun 09 - 09:55 PM

Bobert, Bobert, Bobert...

And you want to claim that the NYT is not a Liberal publication?

Why do you always attack the person writing omething rather than look at what is said and try to determine if what is written is true??


Are you taht afraid of the real facts?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Jun 09 - 10:16 PM

We're certainly afraid of another Judith Miller.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jun 09 - 11:05 PM

"On the whole, this is not healthy for America."

It IS healthy for America, BB...IF Obama turns out to be a good president. It isn't if he doesn't.

Republicans don't like it for only one reason: it hurts their own party's chances in future elections. They would be ecstatic if a Republican president was this popular.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jun 09 - 07:52 PM

Obama said to be open to taxing health benefits
         

Erica Werner, Associated Press Writer – 6 mins ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is leaving the door open to taxing health care benefits, something he campaigned hard against while running for president. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., raised the issue with Obama during a private meeting Tuesday with the president and other Democratic senators and later reported the president's response: "It's on the table. It's an option."

The federal government would reap about $250 billion a year if it treated health care benefits given to employees like wages and taxed them.

Baucus and others are eyeing that money as they search for ways to pay for a costly health care overhaul that would extend coverage to 50 million Americans who are now uninsured. That could cost some $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

The president adamantly opposed health benefit taxes during the campaign, arguing they would undermine job-based coverage. But he's now indicating openness to that suggestion from Congress, even if he criticized Republican presidential rival John McCain for proposing a sweeping version of the same basic idea.

Obama has made some suggestions of his own for paying for a health care overhaul, including cuts to Medicare and limiting tax deductions wealthy people can take, but they've run into opposition from Congress. And, they only add up to about $630 billion over 10 years.

"The president made it clear during the campaign that he has serious concerns about taxing health care benefits," White House spokesman Reid Cherlin said in a statement about Tuesday's meeting.

"He stated again his belief that health reform can't wait another year, and that while all options should be considered, those options should include the revenue proposals that he included in his budget," Cherlin said. "He made it very clear that he prefers the approach he has already outlined."

Some experts think limiting the tax exclusion for health benefits is the only way to get the necessary money to pay for a sweeping health care overhaul. But there's opposition from organized labor and from many Democrats, including House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., who said recently there was "no way" he would support the approach.

Baucus wants to look at limiting — but not entirely eliminating — the tax-free status of employer-provided health benefits. Obama is leaving the details of crafting a health care bill to Congress and used Tuesday's meeting to urge senators to swift action.

"This window between now and the August recess I think is going to be the make-or-break period," Obama said before the meeting was closed to reporters. "This is the time where we've got to get this running."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jun 09 - 08:51 PM

Well, first of all, a Dem cannot be lected if he or she even suggests that spending gets paid for... That is Reality 001 (remdedial, no credit hours)... So here is the deal... If health care becomes "somewhat" nationalized (haha) meaning that folks can buy into a national plan then, yeh, in buying into that national plan one could consider it a tax...

Forget the fact, for one minute, that if you are paying out $1000 a month for health insurance and along comes something like Medicare that you can but for $700 that you are savign $300 a month... The Repubs don't want you to think like that... They only want you to think that you are being taxed... Slight of the hand here...

This is the real debate... Do Americans want to pay less for health insurance??? Even if it means that they will paying the federal governemnt???

Like Horrors!!! Not the federal governemnt!!! (Mobs running thru the street in horror as the monster approaches the city...) Well, ask most any senior how they like Medicare and most say it's great... So what the heck is wrong with a system that doesn't consume 17% of our GNP and puts US on equal footing with our international competetors???

(Well, it's a tax, Bobert!!!)

Bullsh*t... It is a product!!! And it's cheaper than the health insurance that is out there now!!!

Thems is the real story...

The Repubs are running out of gas with their insistant framing of everything evolving around taxes... Hey, they love to spend but hate to pay... At least Obama is willing to have US pay... That's a novel idea after 30 years of Repub (Clinton included) rule...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jun 09 - 12:55 PM

DUMM-DA-DUM-DUM!

(I thought some portentious music would go great at this point.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jun 09 - 01:17 PM

If Mister Sanderson and his ilk were genuinely concerned about what's healthy for America, they would perhaps be more cognizant of the leprous follies and diseases your much-admired clan of plutocrats had injected into her, and from which Mister Obama stands as a slim hope for healing. It is the Reagonomic era and the Bushes administrations which drove this nation into insolvency, militarism, mindless jerkwater mobocratic impulses as a replacement for intelligent public dialogue, and left her reputation in ruins, her moral fiber shredded by heinous acts and stinking of opportunistic perfidy. In the face of all this, it is scarcely surprising America has chosen to support the man in whom they see some small hope of remedy.

What is NOT good for America is snide, self-important punditry seeking to instill pushbutton fear and anger and manipulative down-scale emotions in place of constructive suggestion and honest dialogue. Even when they get paid for it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 09 - 01:23 PM

"What is NOT good for America is snide, self-important punditry seeking to instill pushbutton fear and anger and manipulative down-scale emotions in place of constructive suggestion and honest dialogue. Even when they get paid for it."

Except of course when they are LIBERAL snide, self-important punditry criticising Bush, you forgot to mention...


So you continue to insist that we treat Obama by a set of standards that you denied to Bush?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jun 09 - 01:36 PM

Oh, Bruce, put away your paper tiger and your strawman collection. They are worse than useless, they simply distort the potential for actual communication.

While I will point out yet again that there is a WORLD of difference between the two men, and one must judge them accordingly, I thionk it is fair to pass judgement on any public policy or poublic act, and to do so purely on the merits without prejudice.

THe punditry you continue to offer, however, is a cheap and tawdry substitute which seeks to inflame rather than enlighten, and measures its success by how much unthinking bitterness it can stir up. That's what I object to in the common dialogue of the republic; not the actual thought, but the frequent lack of it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 09 - 03:24 PM

"THe punditry you continue to offer, however, is a cheap and tawdry substitute which seeks to inflame rather than enlighten, and measures its success by how much unthinking bitterness it can stir up."

And you have enough nerve to claim what YOU posted about Bush was otherwise????

When you realize that I have been far MORE fair-minded in my selections about Obama than you ever were about Bush, you will then become aware of why there are almost half of the voting public that will vote for the NON-Democratic candidate in the next election, almost regardless of who it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jun 09 - 03:38 PM

Well, I allow you have been much frequent; as to fair, I dunno--my impression, such as it is, is that every clipping youhave offered that I have seen was heavily slanted and of the heavily assertorial type I described above.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 09 - 03:59 PM

" that every clipping youhave offered that I have seen was heavily slanted and of the heavily assertorial type I described above."

Of course they were! I learned from an expert ( YOU) that anything less is unreasonable. But the ones I post do not have a tenth of the nastiness and infl;amatory nature of those that YOU posted.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 09 - 04:21 PM

Venezuela Chavez says "Comrade" Obama more left-wing

Tue Jun 2, 2009 10:27pm EDT

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez said on Tuesday that he and Cuban ally Fidel Castro risk being more conservative than U.S. President Barack Obama as Washington prepares to take control of General Motors Corp.

During one of Chavez's customary lectures on the "curse" of capitalism and the bonanzas of socialism, the Venezuelan leader made reference to GM's bankruptcy filing, which is expected to give the U.S. government a 60 percent stake in the 100-year-old former symbol of American might.

"Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right," Chavez joked on a live television broadcast.

During a decade in government, Chavez has nationalized most of Venezuela's key economic sectors, including multibillion dollar oil projects, often via joint ventures with the private sector that give the state a 60 percent controlling stake.

Obama has vowed to quickly sell off General Motors once the auto giant is back on its feet, but the government will initially control the company after a $30 billion injection of taxpayer funds.

Chavez, a vehement critic of the U.S. "empire," has toned down his rhetoric since Obama took office in January and the two men shook hands during a summit in Trinidad and Tobago in April.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jun 09 - 09:42 PM

This is the kind of thing that will turn me and millions of other people against Obama:

                   http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/04deport.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jun 09 - 12:19 AM

"The integrity of immigration proceedings depends in part on the ability to assert claims of ineffective assistance of counsel," Mr. Holder said in a statement accompanying the order, "and the Department of Justice's rule making in this area will be fair, it will be transparent, and it will be guided by our commitment to the rule of law."

Immigration courts and judges are part of the Justice Department, and the decisions of those judges can be appealed, under some circumstances, to the federal courts. Mr. Holder's order instructs immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals to apply the legal standards that were in effect before Mr. Mukasey's order until a final rule is devised...."


So, Rig, is your argument against fairness, transparency, or the rule of law?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jun 09 - 12:33 AM

The morons in the USA who endlessly fulminate about the supposed "perils" of socialism have apparently no idea that it is socialism which has provided them with every single law and institution that has secured their (relative) freedom and prosperity, ever since 1776. Without it, they wouldn't even HAVE a functioning nation in which to practice the benefits of a free market.

Casting socialism as an evil thing is so downright boneheaded stupid that it defies all rationality, but if you don't even know what the heck something is in the first place, then I suppose you can believe anything you want about it, can't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jun 09 - 06:47 AM

"So, Rig, is your argument against fairness, transparency, or the rule of law?"

                Absolutely not. If somebody is found to be in the country illegally, they should be deported, immediately. End of story. Mukasey's order was a step in the right direction. Now we're going backwards.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jun 09 - 08:11 AM

Right you are, LH...

The right wing has spent the last 30 demonizing various words to the point where they can no longer be used a vahicles of public discourse...

That is exactly what Amos was saying when he wrote of "pushbutton fear and anger"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 09:02 PM

The Media Fall for Phony 'Jobs' Claims The Obama Numbers Are Pure Fiction.

By WILLIAM MCGURN

Tony Fratto is envious.

Mr. Fratto was a colleague of mine in the Bush administration, and as a senior member of the White House communications shop, he knows just how difficult it can be to deal with a press corps skeptical about presidential economic claims. It now appears, however, that Mr. Fratto's problem was that he simply lacked the magic words -- jobs "saved or created."

"Saved or created" has become the signature phrase for Barack Obama as he describes what his stimulus is doing for American jobs. His latest invocation came yesterday, when the president declared that the stimulus had already saved or created at least 150,000 American jobs -- and announced he was ramping up some of the stimulus spending so he could "save or create" an additional 600,000 jobs this summer. These numbers come in the context of an earlier Obama promise that his recovery plan will "save or create three to four million jobs over the next two years."

The president should 'save or create' more jobs in Cleveland.
Mr. Fratto sees a double standard at play. "We would never have used a formula like 'save or create,'" he tells me. "To begin with, the number is pure fiction -- the administration has no way to measure how many jobs are actually being 'saved.' And if we had tried to use something this flimsy, the press would never have let us get away with it."

Of course, the inability to measure Mr. Obama's jobs formula is part of its attraction. Never mind that no one -- not the Labor Department, not the Treasury, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics -- actually measures "jobs saved." As the New York Times delicately reports, Mr. Obama's jobs claims are "based on macroeconomic estimates, not an actual counting of jobs." Nice work if you can get away with it.

And get away with it he has. However dubious it may be as an economic measure, as a political formula "save or create" allows the president to invoke numbers that convey an illusion of precision. Harvard economist and former Bush economic adviser Greg Mankiw calls it a "non-measurable metric." And on his blog, he acknowledges the political attraction.

"The expression 'create or save,' which has been used regularly by the President and his economic team, is an act of political genius," writes Mr. Mankiw. "You can measure how many jobs are created between two points in time. But there is no way to measure how many jobs are saved. Even if things get much, much worse, the President can say that there would have been 4 million fewer jobs without the stimulus."

Mr. Obama's comments yesterday are a perfect illustration of just such a claim. In the months since Congress approved the stimulus, our economy has lost nearly 1.6 million jobs and unemployment has hit 9.4%. Invoke the magic words, however, and -- presto! -- you have the president claiming he has "saved or created" 150,000 jobs. It all makes for a much nicer spin, and helps you forget this is the same team that only a few months ago promised us that passing the stimulus would prevent unemployment from rising over 8%.

It's not only former Bush staffers such as Messrs. Fratto and Mankiw who have noted the political convenience here. During a March hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Max Baucus challenged Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the formula.

"You created a situation where you cannot be wrong," said the Montana Democrat. "If the economy loses two million jobs over the next few years, you can say yes, but it would've lost 5.5 million jobs. If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs. You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct."

Now, something's wrong when the president invokes a formula that makes it impossible for him to be wrong and it goes largely unchallenged. It's true that almost any government spending will create some jobs and save others. But as Milton Friedman once pointed out, that doesn't tell you much: The government, after all, can create jobs by hiring people to dig holes and fill them in.

If the "saved or created" formula looks brilliant, it's only because Mr. Obama and his team are not being called on their claims. And don't expect much to change. So long as the news continues to repeat the administration's line that the stimulus has already "saved or created" 150,000 jobs over a time period when the U.S. economy suffered an overall job loss 10 times that number, the White House would be insane to give up a formula that allows them to spin job losses into jobs saved.

"You would think that any self-respecting White House press corps would show some of the same skepticism toward President Obama's jobs claims that they did toward President Bush's tax cuts," says Mr. Fratto. "But I'm still waiting."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451592762396883.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 11:06 AM

"Dick Cheney's statement to Greta van Susteren that "On the question of whether or not Iraq was involved in 9/11, there was never any evidence to prove that" is being widely portrayed as an admission.

But it's less an admission than a PR move. Cheney has spent the better part of the last seven years doing everything in his power to convince the American people of the very connection he now says there was "never any evidence" of.

In 2004, even after the 9/11 commission found "no credible evidence" of Iraqi involvement in 9/11, Cheney was still claiming the evidence that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was "overwhelming."

When he was asked in '04 if Iraq was involved in 9/11, he said, "We don't know." Three years after the attack -- and he still didn't know? Even after they had tried every trick in the black book -- including torture -- to find a link?

And while Cheney's gotten more careful with his words over the years, he's never really stopped insinuating that there was a connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq.

Indeed, as recently as two weeks ago in his big speech at the American Enterprise Institute, Cheney was still banging the drum about Saddam's "known ties to Mideast terrorists" as part of his rationale for invading Iraq and using torture.

Cheney's ongoing Forget Everything I Ever Told You Tour is historical revisionism at its most despicable.

And we are clearly watching a master manipulator at work. I've always felt that his best -- and by that I mean worst -- work was going on "Meet the Press" in 2002 to tell us about those ominous aluminum tubes and the "number of contacts over the years" between Al Qaeda and Iraq... or his repeated designed-to-terrify-voters warnings about nuclear attacks on US soil. But this ranks right up there.

In his interview with van Susteren, Cheney also backed away from his claim that the documents he wants the CIA to declassify would prove that torture was effective -- saying instead that they would offer a good summary of "what we learned" not just from waterboarding but the detainee interrogation program as a whole.

So, he gets all the media value and spin by originally making the claim that the intel documents would prove the value of torture - if only Obama would let the truth come out. Then he backs away from the claim, using weasel-words to give him sufficient wiggle room to say that what he really meant was that the overall interrogation program provided useful information -- not that waterboarding or other enhanced interrogation techniques did.

Perhaps it suddenly dawned on the former VP that he doesn't have the power to keep those documents classified any more -- and that he could be proven to be a liar (yet again) with the stroke of President Obama's pen. Hence the verbal tap-dancing.

But eventually the pile of lies may get so high that it will tumble down on him. For instance, it's not a very smart idea to go around saying that Richard Clarke missed the warning signs on bin Laden and 9/11 when there is email after email after email from the spring and summer of 2001 showing that it was actually Cheney and Bush who ignored the warning signs on bin Laden. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 12:13 PM

" Cheney was still banging the drum about Saddam's "known ties to Mideast terrorists" "

Since he is refering to the cash payments that Saddam paid to families of suicide bombers, and Saddam made a point of telling the whole world, even Democrats, about that, THIS is just proof that Cheney is telling the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 12:21 PM

Careful how you strain those rose-colored glasses, BB--they might shatter under the load.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 01:19 PM

If real world facts don't fit YOUR view, feel free to borrow those glasses-

But you do Obama no favors my supporting him when you act like this- One might think that he was elected by people who have no concept of what is going on in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 01:22 PM

But your comments DO serve a useful purpose- this thread should get to 1,000 soon!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 01:33 PM

And to be fair ( sorry Amos, for not following entirely in your footsteps...)

Clarity for The Deniers

By Michael Gerson
Wednesday, June 10, 2009

It is President Obama's defining rhetorical strategy. For every contending thesis and antithesis -- Islam vs. the West, Iran vs. America, Palestinians vs. Israel -- he is the synthesis. All sides possess a shiny shard of the truth. Obama assembles the mosaic.

Discounting for gush and swoon, the reaction of Newsweek's Evan Thomas to the Cairo speech was revealing: "I mean, in a way, Obama's standing above the country, above -- above the world, he's sort of God." Here is an American president so Olympian in his perspective that he is "above the country." Obama seldom chooses to be a participant in ideological struggles. He aspires to be history's referee.

There was, however, a notable exception to this approach during his recent overseas tour. In Obama's rhetorical universe of mist and fog, divided between gray and deeper gray, he drew one vivid line. Holocaust denial, he said, is "baseless," "ignorant" and "hateful." He talked about the "evil" of genocide, repudiated "lies about our history" and challenged Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to visit Buchenwald.

Obama's intensity and clarity on this issue were unexpected -- and needed. Holocaust denial has long been a staple of Middle Eastern anti-Semitism. But it has grown more pervasive since the 1990s -- not merely due to the manias of Ahmadinejad but in service to a broader strategy.

The political purpose of Middle Eastern Holocaust denial is to delegitimize the state of Israel. Since Israel, in this view, was created by the West out of Holocaust guilt, disproving the Holocaust removes the reason for Israel's existence. "The entire Jewish state," said one Jordanian newspaper, "is built on the great Holocaust lie." Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, argues that if "the official version of the Holocaust is called into question," then "the nature and identity of Israel" must also be questioned.


This conception of Israel's history is itself a distortion. The Holocaust is important to Israeli identity; it is not identical to Israeli identity. Zionism existed well before the European genocide. The ties between Jews and the land of Israel reach back for millennia. Israel does not exist merely because of Holocaust guilt. It exists because of its own tenacity, sense of purpose and national success.

But the prevalence of this conspiratorial view in the Middle East demonstrates the challenges Obama will face in his role as arbiter in chief. Obama's Cairo speech, for example, rooted Iranian resentments in Western predation -- a reaction to a history of coups and colonialism. But Iranian leaders, it is clear, are also captured by the irrational politics of anti-Semitism. Former Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani once claimed that his personal investigations had led him to believe that "Hitler had only killed 20,000 Jews and not 6 million." Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, argues: "There is evidence which shows that Zionists had close relations with German Nazis and exaggerated statistics on Jewish killings. There is even evidence on hand that a large number of non-Jewish hooligans and thugs of Eastern Europe were forced to emigrate to Palestine as Jews."

Many Palestinians share these views. There are a number of serious, pragmatic Palestinian leaders. But Palestinian radio and television have often recycled Holocaust skepticism. A recent poll of Arab citizens of Israel found that 40 percent deny that the Holocaust occurred. And Hamas (which Obama said in Cairo may "play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations") has referred to "the so-called Holocaust, which is an alleged and invented story with no basis." One Hamas leader in Gaza has claimed "the Zionists were behind the Nazis' murder of many Jews" with the goal of forcing immigration to Palestine. "When we compare the Zionists to the Nazis," he said, "we insult the Nazis."

President Obama is correct to call out such "lies," which are not only morally offensive but also debilitating to those who perpetrate them. The politics of conspiracy and victimhood makes it infinitely more difficult to confront the real sources of social, economic and political dysfunction in the broader Middle East.

But the pervasiveness of Holocaust denial also points to a flaw in Obama's rhetorical and diplomatic approach. Perhaps one side of these debates is motivated not only by grievances but also by hatreds. Perhaps those hatreds are unappeasable by concessions from Israel or the West. Perhaps the assumption of rationality and splittable differences, in some cases, is mistaken. Perhaps some don't merely wish to deny the Holocaust but to finish it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 01:38 PM

You know what? We have discovered the perpetual motion machine. Just connect Amos and Bearded Bruce together over a political issue, stand back, and watch.

If only there were a way to harness all that energy for some useful purpose... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 01:47 PM

But I'll listen to him sing, and stand him a beer anytime.


Not MY fault if he has a distorted view of the world...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 01:49 PM

Well, that's good. :-D There's a really wide disparity in political views in our local song circles here too, but we all seem to enjoy playing music together regardless.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 02:06 PM

My view only looks distorted to you, my friend, because you have overstrained your rosy lenses.

I ignore most of the crap you drag in from your right wiong pundits because they bloviate so much and rarely try to state things as they are. Take, just for example, this line: "In Obama's rhetorical universe of mist and fog, divided between gray and deeper gray, he drew one vivid line. Holocaust denial, he said, is "baseless," "ignorant" and "hateful." He talked about the "evil" of genocide, repudiated "lies about our history" and challenged Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to visit Buchenwald. Obama's intensity and clarity on this issue were unexpected -- and needed." The implication that this was one factual jewel in a perennial cloud of mist and ambiguity is not the case. But your man seems tio suffer from Alzheimer's where it helps his thirst for intense, if factless, rhetoric. IN terms of combining a broad point of view with a hard nose for facts, Obama's language skills put Gerson's to shame.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 02:11 PM

That's ok. Amos. I ignore most of the crap you drag in from your left wrong pundits because they bloviate so much and rarely try to state things as they are. Even then, I do read your posts to see if anything said has a basis in reality. I would hope you might do the same for mine, instead of consistantly attacking whoever it is I quote.

It is not one of MY pundits who said

"I mean, in a way, Obama's standing above the country, above -- above the world, he's sort of God."

That was Newsweek's Evan Thomas, who represents YOUR viewpoint, I believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 02:59 PM

It's true, Obama is phenomenally popular in the world...even much moreso outside the USA than in the USA. This is because he stirs people's hopes in a way they have not been stirred in a very long time. People are hungry for that kind of hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 03:00 PM

"Defending U.S. interests is neither arrogant nor disrespectful of others, but is instead the basic task of our presidents. Despite the 2008 election, neither the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, nor international terrorism, nor the challenges of geostrategic adversaries have in any way diminished.

Overseas "apology tours," public displays of empathy and inviting the likes of Iran to Fourth of July receptions at our embassies will not alter these underlying realities. Nor will reducing national-security budgets on such key items as missile defense and advanced weapons systems (while dramatically increasing unnecessary and inevitably inflationary domestic spending) make our adversaries more amenable to sweet reason. Sadly, such gratuitous indications of self-doubt and weakness only encourage the very adversaries whose favor we are currying.

The Obama administration finds itself surprised almost daily by, among other things:

• The recalcitrant and unyielding regime in North Korea, testing its nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

• Iran's persistence in pursuing precisely the same weapons programs, as well as continuing its activities as the world's central banker for terrorism.

• Hamas' continued refusal to renounce terrorism, acknowledge the state of Israel's existence and abide by prior Middle East agreements (which is hardly surprising, given that doing so would require Hamas to repudiate the fundamental principles on which it was founded).

• Russia's continued belligerent attitude toward former territories of the Soviet Union and Moscow's generally unhelpful attitude in dealing with North Korea, Iran, the Middle East and countless other problems.

Conservatives understand that these and numerous other threats are not anomalies in an otherwise peaceful and friendly world, but manifestations of the inevitable international clash of interests and philosophies. Conflict with our interest and values is not some unfortunate exception to normality, it is normality. While harmony is desirable, it is far from inevitable, and the causes of disharmony are just as natural and human as their opposites.

Understanding the Hobbesian nature of international relations fundamentally grounds conservative foreign policy in reality. In particular, conservatives reject the idea that America's actions are the foundation for most international discord, and that it is our deviation from international "norms" that must be "corrected" for the natural state of harmony to return.

To the contrary, in the last century, America has repeatedly sought to solve problems others have created, but which risk our own security. Left to ourselves, we would have been more than happy for the others to solve their own problems. That option, however, has not been open to us for quite some time, nor will it return in the foreseeable future, if ever.

The future of conservative national-security policy thus looks very much like its past, and, as in the past, will include considerable healthy debate among conservatives over concrete application of their principles. This is as it should be, both as sound philosophy and also because it makes for good domestic politics. The American people actually expect to be defended against international threats and adversaries, and they will undoubtedly punish any American president who does not understand and implement their strong and entirely justifiable views. That is why we may well see the future of conservative foreign policy bloom as early as 2012. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 03:07 PM

Rev. Wright says he doesn't regret severed relationship with president
By DAVID SQUIRES | 757-247-4639
June 10, 2009


HAMPTON – - The Rev. Jeremiah Wright says he does not feel any regrets over his severed relationship with President Barack Obama, a former member of the Chicago church in which Wright was the longtime pastor.

Wright also said that he had not spoken to his former church member since Obama became president, implying that the White House won't allow Obama to talk to him. He did not indicate whether he had tried to reach Obama.

"Regret for what... that the media went back five, seven, 10 years and spent $4,000 buying 20 years worth of sermons to hear what I've been preaching for 20 years?

"Regret for preaching like I've been preaching for 50 years? Absolutely none," Wright said.

Rev. Wright and President Obama Photo Wright said that when he went to the polls, he did not hold any grudge against Obama.

"Of course I voted for him; he's my son. I'm proud of him," Wright said. "I've got five biological kids. They all make mistakes and bad choices. I haven't stopped loving any of them.

"He made mistakes. He made bad choices. I've got kids who listen to their friends. He listened to those around him. I did not disown him."

Asked if he had spoken to the president, Wright said: "Them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter, that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office. ...

more

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 03:10 PM

Come on, Amos! You're falling behind. Post something by Olberman or the New York Times right quick and put this fellow in his place!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 03:32 PM

It is extremely disrespectful to your readers, BB, to use labels like "apology tours" simply because your preferred Rovian tactics of saber-rattling and economic bullying are being set aside for a more intelligent and effective grand of negotiation. And it is blind (or evil) of those who write such crap to flood the media with such distortions. You can make up your own mind which.

Why you keep spouting this crap is beyond me. I defy you to point to one action for which the Obama administration apologized inappropriately.

This is just slanted horse manure. And I think you know it. Armwaving and using such hot-button phrases is the stock in trade of the Hannities of the world. You can do better.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 03:45 PM

"This is just slanted horse manure. And I think you know it. Armwaving and using such hot-button phrases"

Nice to know I learned so well from your comments about Bush.


Economic bullying? You mean like giving the Unions ( that elected Obama) a far larger share of GM than the bondholders that had a far larger investment???

When Obama stops kicking dirt in the face of the investors I might stop calling his tactics bullying- but they will still be payoffs to his supporters.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 08:26 PM

"Everything Barack Obama, the Federal Reserve, and Congress are doing was predicted in startling detail almost two decades ago by a famous Nobel Prize-winning economist.

His name was Milton Friedman.

Though he passed away in 2006, in his prophetic book, Friedman showed how, facing massive deficits, the U.S. government would dramatically increase the money supply; why foreign countries would stop buying our debt; how the Fed would start buying our Treasury bills; and why this would call cause massive inflation.

He even predicted that our officials would claim inflation was no problem at all.

Amazingly all of this is coming to pass!

Make no mistake about it — the Obama administration is embracing massive inflationary deficit spending.

In just 100 days, Barrack Obama has more than doubled the U.S. money supply . . . committed the government to at least $7 trillion in new spending . . . and warned the American people to expect trillion-dollar deficits for the foreseeable future.

While the media has been falling over itself to praise Obama's "bold initiatives," the question no one has been asking is, "Where is all of this money coming from?"

Decades ago, Milton Friedman answered these questions clearly and precisely in his insightful — and very topical — book, Money Mischief: Episodes in Monetary History.

In Money Mischief, Friedman even warned that the coming inflation could "destroy" our country.

Here's what he wrote: "Inflation is a disease, a dangerous and sometimes fatal disease that, if not checked in time, can destroy a society." (Money Mischief, Page 191)

You see the end result of that process in countries like Zimbabwe today, where prices double every day, and it now takes a $10 billion Zimbabwe note to buy a single loaf of bread - assuming you can find one.

Could America suffer the same fate? Friedman wrote ominously, "The fate of a country is inseparable from the fate of its currency."

Even Warren Buffett recently admitted on CNBC that the only way for the U.S. to solve its woes was to inflate the currency.

There is little doubt that Obama's massive deficit spending will doom the dollar and our economy. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 01:04 AM

You know what, BB? If the silly bastards worldwide who have crippled the entire world's economy by creating an upayable mountain of debt would do one thing, they could solve this.

If they pardoned ALL the past load of totally unpayable debts and started over with a clean slate....

I'm serious. The debts that have been created in the world can't be paid off, because they were created out of thin air through irresponsible lending practices by major financial instituations who lent out vast amounts of fictional money in order to reap profits through interest charges on the loans.

So pardon the past debts. Wipe the book of debt clean. Start over.

And in future...do NOT allow our financial institutions to lend out 10 times or 100 times as much money as they have REAL money on deposit. Make that practice totally illegal. Arrest any bankers who are caught doing it and jail them. That would wipe out the inflationary bubble you are quite rightly worried about, but it would deprive the bankers of their favorite money tree. Thus, I suspect they would utterly oppose such measures being taken.

Thus, I expect it will not happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 02:30 PM

LH,

But if they can't use imaginary money, how could the government give that 1.5+ trillion away?

I agree with most of your post. But do you expect anyone who is owed money to?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 03:31 PM

Your response was evasive and non-material, Counselor.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 05:57 PM

Imaginary money is both given and received on a computer screen, BB, by the stroke of a key. It was never minted and it was never printed. It has no real value. The government did not create it. It's not real.

The world has been enslaved by ridiculous amounts of this imaginary money, created through bank loans (the biggest ones TO governments who must pay them back PLUS interest), and we're all paying daily to service the debt to the imaginary money. It IS the money-lenders (the major banks) who have enslaved the entire world in this fashion, and that is why we have inflation and why our dollars are worth less with every passing year.

We are living under a gigantic pyramid scheme, perpetrated by the major banks in collusion with the politicians who are at their beck and call. It has to stop.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 12:39 PM

Ah, but imaginary money has great value, senor Hack. If some of it is transferred to your account, you can turn it into cash, pay for meals out, airfare, hire help from all sorts of willing folks, buy interesting clothes and good brandy and decent cigars.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 12:55 PM

That's right, Amos! (grin) That's why it's so popular.

As long as everybody agrees to pretend that the phony money is real, the game goes on, but the money loses its value steadily. The problem is that all that easy credit created a worldwide balloon of non-existent money, and it all generated debt through interest charges, thus enlarging the already gigantic balloon of non-existent money every FURTHER...........................

and a lot of people got themselves so far into hock that they couldn't even afford to make their scheduled payments...

and their governments did the same thing...and had to raise taxes (income tax didn't exist in North America before the First World War!).....

and so many debtors defaulted that the lenders began to experience financial collapse themselves...

and finally.... POP!

The phony money balloon burst.

And there we are.

Complete greed combined with total irresponsibility has landed us in a bad spot. This, despite the fact that there are still just as many talented and capable people all over the world who can still do the same useful work...provided that the financial situation wasn't fucked by the wordwide practice of USURY.

Usury (lending money and charging interest on the loan) was once illegal in several of the world's great religions. Guess why? It's an immoral practice that allows someone to get money for doing absolutely NOTHING...for doing no real work at all. It should never have been made legal, but greed won out.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 03:00 PM

American Gays and Lesbians Feel Betrayed by Obama

By Marc Pitzke

More and more Americans support equal rights for gays and lesbians and oppose the ban on openly homosexual soldiers serving in the military. But Barack Obama seems to be behind the curve on gay rights -- and the calls for him to act are getting louder.

Not even the rain kept them away. First, there was only a handful, then a few dozen, and finally thousands. They marched from New York's West Village through the traffic to Union Square, chanting. Many carried posters and banners many with slogans like "Civil rights now," "Equality for all families" and "No tolerance for intolerance."

However, one banner showed a portrait of US President Barack Obama as a two-headed Janus figure. The left head was spouting Obama's famous 2008 campaign slogan, "Yes we can." But the right head was saying: "No we can't."

The recent march through Manhattan was officially directed against the refusal of the Supreme Court of California to annul the Proposition 8 referendum banning same-sex marriage. But many of the protesters -- who were mainly gay men and lesbians -- had another enemy in mind: Obama.

Obama's perceived hypocrisy makes the protestors almost more livid than Proposition 8 itself. In their opinion, Obama has chickened out of openly taking a stance on the latest act of the eternal American culture war surrounding gay marriage -- contrary to the hopes of gay Americans. "Where's Obama?" asks Lisa Ackerman, a lawyer who is marching through the rain with her girlfriend. "His silence speaks volumes."

Indeed, where is Obama? It's a question which is being posed increasingly often by gays and lesbians in the US. Despite their initial skepticism, they almost exclusively supported Obama in the presidential race once Hillary Clinton had been eliminated. In return, Obama had said he would be their "fierce advocate" and promised among other things to scrap the notorious Pentagon "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding gays in the US military and to help pave the way to the right to same-sex marriage.

But American gays and lesbians are still waiting in vain for Obama to fulfill his election promises. While the US in general is clearly heading in the direction of a relaxation of homophobic policies, the White House is shying away from the issue. Even worse, on some issues, it has actually put new stumbling blocks in the way of gay rights.

On Monday, the US Supreme Court sided with the Obama administration and refused to hear an appeal from former Army infantryman James Pietrangelo against the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The 1993 law, which bars openly homosexual soldiers from military service, relates to "the government's legitimate interest in military discipline," argued Obama's Solicitor General Elena Kagan in the administration's brief to the Supreme Court.

'Where Is Our New Deal?'

The Supreme Court's decision was just the latest in a series of incidents that have turned the American gay lobby against the president. As well as DADT (as the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is commonly known) and gay marriage, gay activists are frustrated by slow progress in the fight against AIDS and the ban on visas and green cards for people infected with HIV. For some, these cases confirm the doubts they already had about Obama when he asked the pastor Rick Warren -- who opposes gay marriage -- to give the invocation at his inauguration.

"Where's our fierce advocate?" wrote Richard Socarides, who advised former President Bill Clinton on gay issues, recently in the Washington Post. "Across a broad spectrum of issues -- including women's rights, stem cell research and relations with Cuba -- the Obama administration has shown a willingness to exploit this change moment to bring about dramatic reform. So why not on gay rights? Where is our New Deal?"

Admittedly Obama did issue a presidential proclamation declaring June "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month," a move applauded as a "nice start" by gay activist David Mixner on his blog. But many activists feel that Obama is lagging behind when it comes to concrete commitments.

With his reticence, Obama is bucking the national trend. The struggle for equality for homosexuals has become an "almost-inevitable march," said former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey, who outed himself and resigned from office in 2004, in an interview with the New York Times Magazine. Gay marriage has now been recognized in six states, and most activists see the California referendum as just a temporary setback." (der Spiegel)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 03:33 PM

"But American gays and lesbians are still waiting in vain for Obama to fulfill his election promises. "

And pray tell who ( besides bankers and Unions) is NOT still waiting?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 03:34 PM

sorry, last was me.


"But American gays and lesbians are still waiting in vain for Obama to fulfill his election promises. "

And pray tell who ( besides bankers and Unions) is NOT still waiting?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 04:06 PM

I assume you and your fellow Republicans are waiting anxiously for him to put his foot in his mouth and screw things up badly, Bruce. Sorry he has disappointed you so far. Why not direct your bitterness at a more harmful opponent instead of someone who is working hard to make improvements? Wouldn't it be more productive and useful?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 04:16 PM

Ah, Bruce, you know, it won't do--you can't get better if you use me as your reason for communicating what you communicate. I know I am not your role model, and if all you are doing with all this is trying to make me wrong through shabby mimicry, it just won't help you. And it certainly does not communicate to the real dialogue in any way. Let it go. Let it go. You'll be the better for it, honest.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 04:21 PM

You seem to be complaining a lot more than conservatives did about your comments- perhaps YOU need to take lessons from us?

Or maybe you just do not like being treated as you have treated others?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 05:21 PM

Ousted AmeriCorps watchdog defends waste probe
         
Ann Sanner And Pete Yost, Associated Press Writers – 1 min ago

WASHINGTON – An inspector general fired by President Barack Obama said Friday he acted "with the highest integrity" in investigating AmeriCorps and other government-funded national service programs.

Gerald Walpin said in an interview with The Associated Press that he reported facts and conclusions "in an honest and full way" while serving as inspector general at the Corporation for National and Community Service.

In a letter to Congress on Thursday, Obama said he had lost confidence in Walpin and was removing him from the position.

Walpin defended his work on Friday. "I know that I and my office acted with the highest integrity as an independent inspector general should act," he said.

Obama's move follows an investigation by Walpin finding misuse of federal grants by a nonprofit education group led by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is an Obama supporter and former NBA basketball star. Johnson and a nonprofit education academy he founded ultimately agree to repay half of $847,000 in grants it had received from AmeriCorps.

Walpin was criticized by the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento for the way he handled the investigation of Johnson and St. HOPE Academy.

"It is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as inspectors general," Obama said in the letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Vice President Joe Biden, who also serves as president of the Senate. "That is no longer the case with regard to this inspector general."

The president didn't offer any more explanation, but White House Counsel Gregory Craig, in a letter late Thursday to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, cited the U.S. attorney's criticism of Walpin to an integrity committee for inspectors general.

"We are aware of the circumstances leading to that referral and of Mr. Walpin's conduct throughout his tenure and can assure you that the president's decision was carefully considered," Craig wrote.

Walpin said he gave the integrity committee "a full and complete response" that was also signed by several people who worked on the case. "I have no question but that we acted totally properly," he said in the interview.

Grassley had written Obama a letter pointing to a law requiring that Congress be given the reasons an inspector general is fired. He cited a Senate report saying the requirement is designed to ensure that inspectors general are not removed for political reasons.

Grassley said Walpin had identified millions of dollars in AmeriCorps funds that were wasted or misspent and "it appears he has been doing a good job."

The inspector general found that Johnson, a former all-star point guard for the Phoenix Suns, had used AmeriCorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car.

In August 2008, Walpin referred the matter to the local U.S. attorney's office, which said the watchdog's conclusions seemed overstated and did not accurately reflect all the information gathered in the investigation.

"We also highlighted numerous questions and further investigation they needed to conduct, including the fact that they had not done an audit to establish how much AmeriCorps money was actually misspent," Acting U.S. Attorney Lawrence Brown said in an April 29 letter to the federal counsel of inspectors general.

Walpin's office made repeated public comments just before the Sacramento mayoral election, prompting the U.S. attorney's office to inform the media that it did not intend to file any criminal charges.

In settling the case, the government agreed to lift its suspension of any future grants to the academy and Johnson agreed to immediately repay $73,000 in past grants. The academy was given 10 years to repay the remaining $350,000.

Brown said at the time of the settlement that prosecutors determined there was no fraud, but rather a culture of "sloppiness" in St. HOPE's record-keeping.

Kevin Hiestand, chairman of the board of St. HOPE Academy, said in a statement it was "about time" Walpin was removed. "Mr. Walpin's allegations were meritless and clearly motivated by matters beyond an honest assessment of our program," he said.

Ken Bach, who works in the inspector general's office at the national service corporation, will be acting inspector general until Obama appoints someone to the position.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 05:22 PM

Well, I think I have made the point many times that there are important, substantive differences in intent between the two Administrations, and you have ignored those statements. But of course, conflating things as the same when they are different is surely the quintessential impulse of stupidity. So, I have asked you to be cognizant of certain important differences, and you have declined. This makes it rather clear that you are more interested inholding on to your justifications, bitterness, and "make-wrong" attitude than you are in having a dialogue on the merits.


So fare thee well, amigo.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 05:24 PM

House Health-Care Bill to Include $600 Billion in Tax Increases

By Laura Litvan

June 12 (Bloomberg) -- Health-care overhaul legislation being drafted by House Democrats will include $600 billion in tax increases and $400 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel said.

Democrats will work on the bill's details next week as they struggle through "what kind of heartburn" it will cause to agree on how to pay for revamping the health-care system, Rangel, a New York Democrat, said today. He also said the measure's cost will reach beyond the $634 billion President Barack Obama proposed in his budget request to Congress as a down payment for the policy changes.

Asked whether the cost of a health-care overhaul would be more than $1 trillion, Rangel said, "the answer is yes."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 05:30 PM

Amos,


"important, substantive differences in intent between the two Administrations"

Yes- the Bush administration was dedicated ( after 9/11) to the protection of the US and it's citizens. Obama seems, from his actions, to be dedicated to the protection of Banks and Unions.


You seem to believe that YOUR "justifications, bitterness, and "make-wrong" attitude " against Bush were somehow ok, while any criticsm of Obama is wrong.

Obama has feet of clay- or there would be no way that I could be critical. When he trancends humanity to become God, then I might join you in worship- until then, think about how others view what you see as heaven on earth.


Feel free to start adressing the facts of the criticsms, instead of attacking those who dare deny his god-hood.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 05:38 PM

Obama Hovers From on High


By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, June 12, 2009

"And the Spirit of God hovered upon the face of the waters"
-- Genesis 1:2



When President Obama returned from his first European trip, I observed that while over there he had been "acting the philosopher-king who hovers above the fray mediating" between America and the world. Now that Obama has returned from his "Muslim world" pilgrimage, even the left agrees. "Obama's standing above the country, above -- above the world. He's sort of God," Newsweek's Evan Thomas said to a concurring Chris Matthews, reflecting on Obama's lofty perception of himself as the great transcender.

Not that Obama considers himself divine. (He sees himself as merely messianic, or, at worst, apostolic.) But he does position himself as hovering above mere mortals, mere country, to gaze benignly upon the darkling plain beneath him where ignorant armies clash by night, blind to the common humanity that only he can see. Traveling the world, he brings the gospel of understanding and godly forbearance. We have all sinned against each other. We must now look beyond that and walk together to the sunny uplands of comity and understanding. He shall guide you. Thus:

(A) He told Iran that, on the one hand, America once helped overthrow an Iranian government, while on the other hand "Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians." (Played a role?!) We have both sinned; let us bury the past and begin anew.

(B) On religious tolerance, he gently referenced the Christians of Lebanon and Egypt, then lamented that the "divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence" (note the use of the passive voice). He then criticized (in the active voice) Western religious intolerance for regulating the wearing of the hijab -- after citing America for making it difficult for Muslims to give to charity.

(C) Obama offered Muslims a careful admonition about women's rights, noting how denying women education impoverishes a country -- balanced, of course, with this: "Issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam." Example? "The struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life."

Well, yes. On the one hand, there certainly is some American university where the women's softball team has received insufficient Title IX funds -- while, on the other hand, Saudi women showing ankle are beaten in the street, Afghan school girls have acid thrown in their faces, and Iranian women are publicly stoned to death for adultery. (Gays, as well -- but then again we have Prop 8.) We all have our shortcomings, our national foibles. Who's to judge?

That's the problem with Obama's transcultural evenhandedness. It gives the veneer of professorial sophistication to the most simple-minded observation: Of course there are rights and wrongs in all human affairs. Our species is a fallen one. But that doesn't mean that these rights and wrongs are of equal weight.

A CIA rent-a-mob in a coup 56 years ago does not balance the hostage-takings, throat-slittings, terror bombings and wanton slaughters perpetrated for 30 years by a thug regime in Tehran (and its surrogates) that our own State Department calls the world's "most active state sponsor of terrorism."

True, France prohibits the wearing of the hijab in certain public places, in part to allow the force of law to protect Muslim women who might be coerced into wearing it by neighborhood fundamentalist gangs. But it borders on the obscene to compare this mild preference for secularization (seen in Muslim Turkey as well) to the violence that has been visited upon Copts, Maronites, Bahais, Druze and other minorities in Muslim lands, and to the unspeakable cruelties perpetrated by Shiites and Sunnis upon each other.

Even on freedom of religion, Obama could not resist the compulsion to find fault with his own country: "For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation" -- disgracefully giving the impression to a foreign audience not versed in our laws that there is active discrimination against Muslims, when the only restriction, applied to all donors regardless of religion, is on funding charities that serve as fronts for terror.

For all of his philosophy, the philosopher-king protests too much. Obama undoubtedly thinks he is demonstrating historical magnanimity with all these moral equivalencies and self-flagellating apologetics. On the contrary. He's showing cheap condescension, an unseemly hunger for applause and a willingness to distort history for political effect.

Distorting history is not truth-telling but the telling of soft lies. Creating false equivalencies is not moral leadership but moral abdication. And hovering above it all, above country and history, is a sign not of transcendence but of a disturbing ambivalence toward one's own country.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 06:56 PM

Krauthammer is being a reactionary pisspot of bilious fulmination, and your perspective seems unusually vulnerable to his odors, I must say.

You are vigorously mischaracterizing my view, which in no wise approaches adulation, but strives for evenhandedness and knows the difference between war-mongering (regardless of justification) and diplomacy (regardless of the sound and fury of detractors and push-button rancor-vendors).

Why you lik epeople who speak in generalities, promote hatred and fling about such bile, I cannot say.

As for my own bile against Bush, he was given a responsibility to make America stronger, and he failed completely at it. He was given a fiscal trust and betrayed it. He wasted American lives by misestimation, bad planning, poor execution and being too much the ragdoll of profitmakers.

Obama is under the same pressures as Bush; so far he has stood up to them far better.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 07:27 PM

"but strives for evenhandedness "


Hardly.


You have failed again, in attacking the person rather than finding any fault in his facts or logic.


Sloppy, Amos, sloppy.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 08:09 PM

News report- if this was Bush, Amos would be screaming...





Obama taps more big donors for ambassadorships


Jun 12, 12:16 AM (ET)

By MATTHEW LEE

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama on Thursday tapped four big Democratic Party donors for plum ambassadorships in Europe and Latin America while naming six career diplomats to posts in Africa, the Mideast and the Pacific.

Washington lawyer Howard Gutman, who raised more than $500,000 for Obama's campaign and personally contributed the maximum $4,600 to it, was nominated to be the next U.S. envoy to Belgium, the White House said in a statement.

Gutman also contributed $2,300 to now Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics.

Obama named former Virginia Lt. Gov. Donald Beyer to be ambassador to Switzerland and Luxembourg. Beyer, who made his money as a car dealer, raised more than $500,000 for Obama and also contributed $4,600 to his campaign, according to the center.

Vinai Thummalapally, a Colorado business executive and Obama friend who raised between $100,000 and $200,000 for the campaign and donated $4,500 to it, was named the next U.S. ambassador to Belize. Thummalapally's wife, Barbara, contributed $2,800 to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Obama also named Washington lawyer Mark Gitenstein, who donated more than $4,000 to now Vice President Joe Biden's presidential campaign and contributed $1,500 to Clinton's campaign to be ambassador to Romania.

Career diplomats were nominated on Thursday to be envoys to Burundi, Tunisia, the Marshall Islands, Oman and Suriname. Obama also chose retired Army Gen. Alfonso Lenhardt to be ambassador to Tanzania.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 03:21 PM

You guys should try living together. It would be just like Ernie and Bert. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 03:32 PM

To the contrary, Bruce, I can think of a number of prime locations to which Obama should appoint Bush ambassador.

The problem with trying to discuss issues after they are presented by Krauthammer is that his writing is so full of rhetorical slants and fulminating clouds of emotive button-pushing that it is very difficult to isolate his actual propositions under all the scum. Nor, I think, worth much time to do so, because, like others who dance in Limbaughland under the full moon, his gold comes from his being angry, not from his being accurate. So he is not liekly (and as his acolyte, I suppose you may also be the same) to discuss issues by the light of reason. He's not vested in reason, but in harsh feelings. They are his stock in trade.

So although I plead guilty to an ad hominem remark, I must plead extenuating circumstances and aggravated provocation.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 03:43 PM

Something Bush would not have done, demonstrating very quick intelligence and humor, as well as compassion, on the part of the President.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 06:17 PM

"his writing is so full of rhetorical slants and fulminating clouds of emotive button-pushing that it is very difficult to isolate his actual propositions under all the scum"


So he took lessons from your choice of Bush comments as well???

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 07:08 PM

I would say probably not--more likely from the Mindless Windbags of the Right such as Hannity, Cheney, Savage, Rush and Coulter, none of whom seem to be able to present a complete and rational thought twice in a row.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 07:19 PM

But didn't they all take lessons from you and your NYT ... windbags?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 09:50 PM

I wish they were mine!!

Most of them are a good deal better informed and better connected than I cab hope to be.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 12:49 AM

An interesting piece in the New York Times dicusses the rising tide of unreason on the right wing of American -politics, abetted by the Fox faction and their ilk. But the problem is not rhetoric; it is the increase in ill-informed, radical hate talk which leads people to believe things that are not true and resort to violent solutions, or the contemplation of them. It would of course be a different matter if the threats were based on factual reports.

There is an entirely too large proportion of people in this country who only occasionally trip across logic by accident, and who prefer instead to act on the momentary stew of feelings they are surrounded by; this makes them vulnerable to rhetroical high-emotion low-reason persuasion by political, religious or social pundits who know how to push the buttons, if not how to parse the facts.

Contributing to this kind of unreason is not a good thing to do.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 01:24 AM

That's true, and it's not a good thing to do on either side of any political equation, as it were. Bad arithmetic yields incorrect data.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 12:34 AM

"Here's one thing Barack Obama does not have to worry about: the opposition. Approval ratings for Republicans hit an all-time low last week in both the New York Times/CBS News and Wall Street Journal/NBC News polls. That's what happens when a party's most creative innovations are novel twists on old-fashioned sex scandals. Just when you thought the G.O.P. could never match the high bar set by Larry Craig's men's room toe-tapping, along came Senator John Ensign of Nevada, an ostentatiously pious born-again Christian whose ecumenical outreach drove him to engineer political jobs for his mistress, her cuckolded husband and the couple's son. At least it can no longer be said that the Republicans have no plan for putting Americans back to work.

But as ever, the lack of an adversary with gravitas is a double-edged sword for Obama. It tempts him to be cocky and to coast. That's a rare flaw in a president whose temperament, smarts and judgment remain impressive. Yet it is not insignificant. Though we don't know how Obama will fare on all the challenges he faces this summer, last week's big rollout of his financial reform package was a big punt, an accommodation to the status quo. Given that the economy remains the country's paramount concern — and that all new polling finds that most Americans still think it's dire — this timid response was a lost opportunity. It violated the Rahm Emanuel dictum that "you never want a serious crisis to go to waste" and could yet prompt a serious political backlash." (NYT Column)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 05:32 AM

Guess Who Wishes Bush Was Back


By David S. Broder
Sunday, June 21, 2009

In a conversation the other day with a White House official, I heard something I'd never expected from an employee of Barack Obama's. "I wish," he said, "George Bush would speak up a little more."

In the five months since he left the presidency, Bush has immersed himself in his memoir. He has stayed home in Texas and rarely spoken publicly. The result has been that he has largely disappeared from the news and -- the point the Obama aide was making -- pretty much has been forgotten.

Bush's silence has made it harder for Obama to keep the public focused on Bush as being responsible for our present difficulties -- the weak economy, the unsettled wars, the scandals of Guantanamo and the detainee program.

It is not for lack of trying. Obama regularly reminds the public in his speeches and news conferences of all the problems he inherited from his predecessor. But to reporters covering the White House, those reminders have become familiar boilerplate. And since Bush won't fight back, they rarely get much coverage.

Five months into his tenure, Obama has become the only president the American people think about. And a series of polls last week showed that when Americans think about Obama, they are becoming increasingly critical.

The Wall Street Journal-NBC, the New York Times-CBS and the Pew Research Center polls all reported similar findings. Barack Obama retains his personal popularity, with overall job approval scores at upward of 60 percent. But when asked about specific important policies of the administration, the scores are much lower -- or even negative.


In Andrew Kohut's survey for Pew, the share of voters applauding Obama's handling of the economy declined from 60 percent in April to 52 percent now. He barely broke even on his approach to the General Motors and Chrysler bailouts, with 47 percent approving and 44 percent disapproving. By a 22-point margin, those polled disagree with spending billions to keep the companies operating.

For weeks, polls have consistently registered opposition to Obama's decision to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. His speech blaming Bush for opening the prison apparently did little to ease the political fallout.

The New York Times-CBS poll had more worrisome news. As the size of the budget deficits has become more evident, concerns about the budget policies of the administration have grown. By a 2-1 margin, this survey found that voters answered negatively when asked if Obama has developed a clear plan for dealing with the deficit. A 52 percent to 41 percent majority rejected the Obama priority for stimulating the economy at the cost of higher deficits. They said the focus should be on reducing the deficit.

Health care, Obama's latest and biggest fight, will provide another test of his leadership, with indications in several polls that Republicans and Democrats are taking opposing stands, despite the president's calls for a bipartisan bill.

At least until Iran exploded in popular protest against what appears to have been a rigged presidential election, there was broad approval here at home for Obama's handling of foreign policy. But the White House expects more criticism of the troop buildup in Afghanistan, with the summer likely to produce more fighting and higher casualties.

In sum, Obama has probably extracted most of the political benefit available from the high pitch of activity at home and abroad that has marked the early months of his presidency. Now people are starting to take a more critical look at the decisions he has made. And they are waiting, with varying degrees of patience, to see how the big policy gambles of the early days play out.

Obama is fortunate that the public does not see a clear alternative coming from congressional Republicans. But he misses being compared on a daily basis with his predecessor. Thus, the irony of Obama people saying, "Bring back Bush."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 07:43 AM

Well, I generally agreew ith David, but not on this one...

Sure, as some tough policy decisions get made the lobbiests crank up the attacks and with the Party-of-No opposing everything that Obama supports the poll numbers are going to flucuate from one policy to another but as for Obama's popularity ratings at this point in his presidency all I have heard is they are better than any of his predesessors so he must be doing somehting right...

I think the mood of the people, however, is that they would like to see a little more bipartisanship and with the Party-of-No playing out their hand we ain't going to get that...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 06:57 PM

So, Bobert, David Broder is a ok newsman when he toes the line, so to speak. In other words, when his column agrees with your POV. When he strays from that line, though, he is not such a good newsman. Right?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 07:23 PM

No, Dougie, David is still a great writer... We just happen to disaggree on this one... Hey, there isn't one person on the planet who I will agree 100%... That's life...

BTW, Happy Father's Day, Big Guy!!!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 06:56 AM

N.Korea accuses Obama of nuclear war plot

Jun 21 06:57 AM US/Eastern


North Korea has accused US President Barack Obama of plotting a nuclear war on the communist nation by reaffirming a US assurance of security for South Korea, the North's state media said.
In a first official response to last week's US-South Korean summit, the state-run weekly Tongil Sinbo said in its Saturday edition Obama and South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak "are trying to ignite a nuclear war".


"The US-touted provision of 'extended deterrence, including a nuclear umbrella' (for South Korea) is nothing but 'a nuclear war plan,'" Tongil Sinbo said.

It said it wasn't a coincidence that the United States has brought "nuclear equipment into South Korea and its surroundings and staged massive war drills every day to look for a chance to invade North Korea."

Pyongyang has created weeks of tension by conducting a second nuclear test and test-firing missiles.

At a summit with Lee in Washington Wednesday, Obama warned that North Korea is a "grave threat" and vowed to defend South Korea.

A Seoul presidential official told Yonhap news agency Lee would seek a written US commitment to provide a nuclear "umbrella" for Seoul as part of "extended deterrence" against Pyongyang.

North Korea detonated its second nuclear device on May 25, following the first one in 2006. It also went ahead with what Washington said was a disguised test of a long-range missile in April.

The United Nations Security Council in response agreed to tighter cargo inspections, a stricter arms embargo and new targeted financial curbs to choke off revenue for the North's nuclear and missile sectors.

In response Pyongyang has vowed to build more nuclear bombs and start enriching uranium for a new atomic weapons program.

Some analysts say the sabre-rattling is part of an attempt by 67-year-old ailing North Korean leader, Kim Jong-Il, to bolster a succession plan involving his youngest son, Kim Jong-Un.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 07:55 AM

Well, if Obama can hold the Republican war mongers in check then there ain't gonna be no more new wars under his administartion...

I did see that the Repubs cornered the House last week into an ill-thought out resolution... Ron Paul was the only voice of reason...

So, who knows... The Repubs still have well honed skills in whipping folks up into a lather when it comes to self righteousness and super-patriotism, two elements needed to before a president can order up and new and shiney war...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 08:02 AM

"Well, if Obama can hold the Republican war mongers in check then there ain't gonna be no more new wars under his administartion..."


I have such confidence in this Bobert(c)Fact....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 08:12 AM

Well, that's what it boils down to, Bruce...

The Repubs are full of mischief and love their wars 'cause they are real good at starting them... Not too good at managing and ending them but good at getting folks all lathered up...

We'll see...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 08:22 AM

And Democrats are idiots who take no action until war becomes the only choice- and then they get millions killed.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 09:53 AM

Nice to see that your mutual partisan respect for one another remains rotting in the dumpster. No wonder you have a country that can't come up with a decent foreign policy or a sensible domestic policy either.

Lincoln had it right: "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Your house is permanently divided against itself by the corrupt partisan 2-party system you have in place. The only thing that can save it, seems to me, is if the Democratic and Republican parties ceased to exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 12:40 PM

Hey, wait a minute, LH... Though I strongly disagree with the Repubs I also disagree with the Dems on lots of stuff, as well...

Just 'cuase I voted for Obama don't make me no stinkin' Democrat 'cause I'm still Green, thank you... That makes 3 political parties...

But I do agree that the Repubocrats purdy much have the deal sewn up...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 01:31 PM

Well, I was referring more in a collective sense to the American population as a group than to you and BB specifically as individuals, Bobert.

What I mean is that Americans, as a nation, are mesmerized by the divide between the Democrats and Republicans, and it keeps them uselessly battling with each other without ever coming up for air...and that is bad for your country. That is "a house divided".

I see no cure for it but an end to the party-dominated political system itself.

Partisan systems divide and permanently cripple a society by turning the citizens against each other and perpetuating those divisions. It's stupid. It's unnecessary. It's counterproductive. It damages true democracy. It's a bad idea. It should never have been done.

James Madison, one of your founding fathers, advised strongly against forming political parties in the newly born USA. He said it would result in the eventual destruction of a truly democratic system and domination of it by special interest groups. He was right.

You have been hijacked by 2 huge gangs of political scoundrels who serve monied special interests. They have divided and conquered you for their own ends.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 01:37 PM

How fortunate for you, LH, that you have the perspective, and the distance, and the secure, altitudinous remove, from which to diagnose our situation for us, and how blessed are we that you have chosen so to do!



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 01:39 PM

Amen!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 11:32 PM

Yeah, yeah... ;-) Have you been told today, Amos?

If the USA would leave the rest of the world alone, we wouldn't have to talk about you so much. There's a price to pay for being the Imperial Rome of this postwar era, you know, so you're just gonna have to put up with a little comment from the outlying "colonies".

I am against the divisive institution of political parties everywhere, by the way, not just in the USA. I think you know that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 08:42 AM

I think that the US's problems escalated in the 80s for several factors, LH, that aren't necessarially the two party system... First of all, Japan began kicking our butts... The steel industry was stolen by the Japanese... Our car manufacturers felt the Japanese competition squueze... Electronics??? The same... What came out of this was a reaction of American industry and the American worker to fight back...

Also, we had deregulation which shifted income to the upper 5%, who rather than reinvest it, used it to build grossly opulant house and rubbed their new found wealth in the other 95%'s faces...

We also had the rise of professional sports and branding and, well...

...bottom line, the US became very competitive and we got away from win-win toward win-lose and we are stuck in a win-lose cycle...

Oh sure, we talk about cooperation but we don't walk cooperation...

Now personally, I think that progressives are more willing to compromise than the conservative counterparts who are wedded to tax cuts and as little government as possible... The problem here is that thiese policies have not made our country stronger but less equitable and therefor weaker...

That, of course, is MO...

BB will have another opinion, fir sure...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 09:06 AM

"I think that progressives are more willing to compromise than the conservative counterparts who are wedded to tax cuts and as little government as possible..."

If by progressives you mean the present Democratic Party, I do disagree with this opinion. I see no effort on the part of the President or Congress to even consult or advise, much less compromise with the Republicans.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 09:14 AM

Obama Closes Doors on Openness

By Michael Isikoff | NEWSWEEK
Published Jun 20, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Jun 29, 2009


   
As a senator, Barack Obama denounced the Bush administration for holding "secret energy meetings" with oil executives at the White House. But last week public-interest groups were dismayed when his own administration rejected a Freedom of Information Act request for Secret Service logs showing the identities of coal executives who had visited the White House to discuss Obama's "clean coal" policies. One reason: the disclosure of such records might impinge on privileged "presidential communications." The refusal, approved by White House counsel Greg Craig's office, is the latest in a series of cases in which Obama officials have opted against public disclosure. Since Obama pledged on his first day in office to usher in a "new era" of openness, "nothing has changed," says David -Sobel, a lawyer who litigates FOIA cases. "For a president who said he was going to bring unprecedented transparency to government, you would certainly expect more than the recycling of old Bush secrecy policies."

The hard line appears to be no accident. After Obama's much-publicized Jan. 21 "transparency" memo, administration lawyers crafted a key directive implementing the new policy that contained a major loophole, according to FOIA experts. The directive, signed by Attorney General Eric Holder, instructed federal agencies to adopt a "presumption" of disclosure for FOIA requests. This reversal of Bush policy was intended to restore a standard set by President Clinton's attorney general, Janet Reno. But in a little-noticed passage, the Holder memo also said the new standard applies "if practicable" for cases involving "pending litigation." Dan Metcalfe, the former longtime chief of FOIA policy at Justice, says the passage and other "lawyerly hedges" means the Holder memo is now "astonishingly weaker" than the Reno policy. (The visitor-log request falls in this category because of a pending Bush-era lawsuit for such records.)

Administration officials say the Holder memo was drafted by senior Justice lawyers in consultation with Craig's office. The separate standard for "pending" lawsuits was inserted because of the "burden" it would impose on officials to go "backward" and reprocess hundreds of old cases, says Melanie Ann Pustay, who now heads the FOIA office. White House spokesman Ben LaBolt says Obama "has backed up his promise" with actions including the broadcast of White House meetings on the Web. (Others cite the release of the so-called torture memos.) As for the visitor logs, LaBolt says the policy is now "under review."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 09:51 AM

Interesting points you make, Bobert. I don't for a minute believe that the conservatives are truly against "big government"! Quite the contrary. What they are in favor of is a very big government that is really a consortium of very wealthy private entities who work together to share the spoils and who effectively ARE the government. Their employees aren't on government payroll, but the companies themselves are sustained by government-arranged contracts and that's where the public money goes. Government by corporate monopoly in other words. That is a different form of government, and it pretends it isn't big government, but it is. Bush spent massively when he was in office, and it went to the benefit of people like Haliburton and Blackwater and many other such companies who landed lucrative contracts from the government. The corporates control legislation through their money, their connections, and their lobbyists. They have Congress in their pocket. That's a government by corporate oligarchy.

I think what most damaged your society was the period of de-regulation that was brought in by Ronald Reagan. In the short term, it resulted in rapid growth (due to much easy money being made available by lending institutions). In the long term, it bankrupted the entire society, because the money wasn't real. The banks created it out of thin air (by making loans), and we are now paying the price for that. It was a giant pyramid scheme, and it has gone bust as all pyramid schemes eventually do.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 01:11 PM

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0609/Obama_calls_on_HuffPost_for_Iran_question.html

June 23, 2009
Categories: Blogs

Obama calls on HuffPost for Iran question

President Obama, during today's news conference, departed from White House protocol by calling on The Huffington Post's Nico Pitney second, in between the AP and Reuters.

However, it seemed more like a choreographed moment than break with tradition, as Obama said he knew Pitney was in attendance and would probably have a question about Iran.

According to POLITICO's Carol Lee, The Huffington Post reporter was brought out of lower press by Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest and placed just inside the barricade for reporters a few minutes before the start of the press conference.

CBS Radio's Mark Knoller, a veteran White House correspondent, said over Twitter it was "very unusual that Obama called on Huffington Post second, appearing to know the issue the reporter would ask about."



By Michael Calderone 12:51 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 02:28 PM

You carefully avoid pointing out, Bruce, in your rush to make Obama look bad, that the HuffPo question producedone of his weakest answers in the conference, and was anything but a placating softball querstion. But distinctions like that might esacape you. Bush's lackey-journalists never pinned him.

In other news the conservative New Republic comments:

"Critics such as Krugman and Frum are correct that surrendering intellectual ground comes at a cost. Our most successful presidents articulate clear, forceful public rationales for their beliefs --think of Roosevelt or Truman excoriating reactionary Republicans at home, or Truman, Kennedy, or Reagan standing up to the Soviets internationally. It is a mistake, however, to view Obama's strategy as an act of submission.

Consider how Obama explained his approach toward Iran during a recent interview with Newsweek:

    Now, will it work? We don't know. And I assure you, I'm not naive about the difficulties of a process like this. If it doesn't work, the fact that we have tried will strengthen our position in mobilizing the international community, and Iran will have isolated itself, as opposed to a perception that it seeks to advance that somehow it's being victimized by a U.S. government that doesn't respect Iran's sovereignty.

This is a perfect summation of Obama's strategy. It does not presuppose that his adversaries are people of goodwill who can be reasoned with. Rather, it assumes that, by demonstrating his own goodwill and interest in accord, Obama can win over a portion of his adversaries' constituents as well as third parties. Obama thinks he can move moderate Muslim opinion, pressure bad actors like Iran to negotiate, and, if Iran fails to comply, encourage other countries to isolate it. The strategy works whether or not Iran makes a reasonable agreement.

The results remain to be seen. But it eerily resembles the way Obama has already isolated the GOP leadership. Obama began his presidency by elaborately courting the opposition party. Republicans in Congress believed that, by flamboyantly withholding cooperation, they could deny Obama his stated goal of bipartisan harmony and thus render him a failure. Instead, they wound up handing Obama the alternative victory of appearing to be the reasonable party. Polls showed that the public, by overwhelming margins, believed that Obama was trying to work with Republicans and that Republicans were not reciprocating.

Likewise, by defusing the complaint among Islamists that the United States disrespects their religion, Obama can more easily force the Iranian leadership to negotiate on the terms of its stated goals. This is actually "a hard-nosed tactic of community organizers," as American Prospect editor Mark Schmitt wrote in 2007. "One way to deal with that kind of bad-faith opposition is to draw the person in," Schmitt explained, "treat them as if they were operating in good faith, and draw them into a conversation about how they actually would solve the problem."

This apparent paradox is one reason Obama's political identity has eluded easy definition. On the one hand, you have a disciple of the radical community organizer Saul Alinsky turned ruthless Chicago politician. On the other hand, there is the conciliatory post-partisan idealist. The mistake here is in thinking of these two notions as opposing poles. In reality it's all the same thing. Obama's defining political trait is the belief that conciliatory rhetoric is a ruthless strategy."

Jonathan Chait -- senior editor at The New Republic.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 03:52 PM

MONDAY, JUNE 22ND, 2009 AT 2:29 PM
A Significant Breakthrough to Assist Our Seniors
Posted by Katherine Brandon

Today, the President announced a landmark agreement with pharmaceutical companies, who pledged $80 billion in prescription drug discounts over the next 10 years. This compromise is the latest step towards a new consensus amongst health care stakeholders to help reduce costs and provide quality care for all Americans –- last month a coalition of health care industry leaders agreed to $2 trillion in savings over 10 years.

The President was joined by Senators Max Baucus and Chris Dodd, and introduced by AARP President Barry Rand, who called the plan a "new opportunity" for those who have been burdened by the costs of prescription drugs.

The President announces the agreement
(President Barack Obama speaks about the agreement to lower drug costs for seniors, Monday, June 22, 2009,
in the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House.   With the President are, from left, CEO of AARP Barry Rand, Senator Max Bachaus (D-MT) and Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT). Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy)
The agreement, which was reached between Sen. Baucus, Administration officials, and the nation's pharmaceutical companies, will ultimately reduce the price of prescription drugs by half for millions of America's seniors. As part of the upcoming health care reform legislation, drug manufacturers that participate in Medicare Part D will either pay a rebate to Medicare or offer a substantial discount of at least 50 percent on prescription drugs to seniors who fall within the infamous "doughnut hole"— payments between $2700 and $6153.75 not covered by Medicare. The deal will help close this unfair gap in coverage, providing relief for millions of seniors who have been burdened by these out-of-pocket expenses, making it easier for them to get the prescriptions that they need.
In addition to providing half-price discounts, the pharmaceutical companies will offer other discounts and savings to total an $80 billion reduction in costs. The President said this historic compromise marks a turning point in the journey towards health care reform that will lower costs for all Americans:

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 02:40 AM

(sorry- not at regular machine)
Amos,

You said that I was pointing something out. Like you, in the anti-Bush threads, I am merely pointing out the "Public Opinion" about someone. You have no idea if I even agree with the postings.

Sorry if you find that having your OOW questioned is so uncomfortable...





Here is another:

:"Stay Tuned for More of 'The Obama Show'

Daytime TV's newest star is good at staying on script. (By Marvin Joseph -- The Washington Post)

By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, June 24, 2009

In his first daytime news conference yesterday, President Obama preempted "All My Children," "Days of Our Lives" and "The Young and the Restless." But the soap viewers shouldn't have been disappointed: The president had arranged some prepackaged entertainment for them.

After the obligatory first question from the Associated Press, Obama treated the overflowing White House briefing room to a surprise. "I know Nico Pitney is here from the Huffington Post," he announced.

Obama knew this because White House aides had called Pitney the day before to invite him, and they had escorted him into the room. They told him the president was likely to call on him, with the understanding that he would ask a question about Iran that had been submitted online by an Iranian. "I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet," Obama went on. "Do you have a question?"

Pitney recognized his prompt. "That's right," he said, standing in the aisle and wearing a temporary White House press pass. "I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian."

Pitney asked his arranged question. Reporters looked at one another in amazement at the stagecraft they were witnessing. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel grinned at the surprised TV correspondents in the first row.

The use of planted questioners is a no-no at presidential news conferences, because it sends a message to the world -- Iran included -- that the American press isn't as free as advertised. But yesterday wasn't so much a news conference as it was a taping of a new daytime drama, "The Obama Show." Missed yesterday's show? Don't worry: On Wednesday, ABC News will be broadcasting "Good Morning America" from the South Lawn (guest stars: the president and first lady), "World News Tonight" from the Blue Room, and a prime-time feature with Obama from the East Room.

"The Obama Show" was the hottest ticket in town yesterday. Forty-five minutes before the start, there were no fewer than 107 people crammed into the narrow aisles, in addition to those in the room's 42 seats. Japanese and Italian could be heard coming from the tangle of elbows, cameras and compressed bodies: "You've got to move! . . . Oh, God, don't step on my foot!" Some had come just for a glimpse of celebrity. And they wanted to know all about him. "As a former smoker, I understand the frustration and the fear that comes with quitting," McClatchy News's Margaret Talev empathized with the president before asking him how much he smokes.


Obama indulged the question from the studio audience. "I would say that I am 95 percent cured. But there are times where I mess up," he confessed. "Like folks who go to AA, you know, once you've gone down this path, then, you know, it's something you continually struggle with."

This is Barack Obama, and these are the Days of Our Lives.

As if to compensate for the prepackaged Huffington Post question, Obama went quickly to Fox News for a predictably hostile question from Major Garrett. "In your opening remarks, sir, you said about Iran that you were appalled and outraged," Garrett said. "What took you so long?

"I don't think that's accurate," Obama volleyed testily, calling his toughening statements on Iran "entirely consistent."

The host of "The Obama Show" dispatched with similar ease a challenge from CBS's Chip Reid, asking whether his hardening line on Iran was inspired by John McCain. "What do you think?" Obama replied with a big grin. That brought the house down. And the studio audience laughed again when ABC's Jake Tapper tried to get Obama to answer another reporter's question that he had dodged. "Are you the ombudsman for the White House press corps?" the president cracked.

The laughter had barely subsided when the host made another joke about Tapper's reference to Obama's "Spock-like language about the logic of the health-care plan."

"The reference to Spock, is that a crack on my ears?" the president asked.

But yesterday's daytime drama belonged primarily to Pitney, of the Huffington Post Web site. During the eight years of the Bush administration, liberal outlets such as the Huffington Post often accused the White House of planting questioners in news conferences to ask preplanned questions. But here was Obama fielding a preplanned question asked by a planted questioner -- from the Huffington Post.

Pitney said the White House, though not aware of the question's wording, asked him to come up with a question about Iran proposed by an Iranian. And, as it turned out, he was not the only prearranged questioner at yesterday's show. Later, Obama passed over the usual suspects to call on Macarena Vidal of the Spanish-language EFE news agency. The White House called Vidal in advance to see whether she was coming and arranged for her to sit in a seat usually assigned to a financial trade publication. She asked about Chile and Colombia.

A couple of more questions and Obama called it a day. "Mr. President!" yelled Mike Allen of Politico. "May I ask about Afghanistan? No questions about Iraq or Afghanistan?"

Sorry: Those weren't prearranged. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,BEARDEDBRUCE
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 02:48 AM

Amos,

aMOS,

" in your rush to make Obama look bad, that the HuffPo question producedone of his weakest answers in the conference, and was anything but a placating softball querstion."


So, from the following comment you are saying above that not only is Obam doing what Bush was criticised for doing, but that he is lass compatent at it as well?



"During the eight years of the Bush administration, liberal outlets such as the Huffington Post often accused the White House of planting questioners in news conferences to ask preplanned questions. But here was Obama fielding a preplanned question asked by a planted questioner -- from the Huffington Post.

Pitney said the White House, though not aware of the question's wording, asked him to come up with a question about Iran proposed by an Iranian. And, as it turned out, he was not the only prearranged questioner at yesterday's show. Later, Obama passed over the usual suspects to call on Macarena Vidal of the Spanish-language EFE news agency. The White House called Vidal in advance to see whether she was coming and arranged for her to sit in a seat usually assigned to a financial trade publication. She asked about Chile and Colombia. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 06:35 AM

Iran's Ahmadinejad compares Obama to Bush
         
By Parisa Hafezi and Fredrik Dahl Parisa Hafezi And Fredrik Dahl – 1 hr 51 mins ago

TEHRAN (Reuters) – President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused President Barack Obama of behaving like his predecessor on Iran and called on him to apologize for what he called U.S. interference following the Iranian elections.

EDITORS' NOTE: Reuters and other foreign media are subject to Iranian restrictions on their ability to report, film or take pictures in Tehran.

Obama has ramped up his previously muted criticism, saying he was "appalled and outraged" by a crackdown on protests which followed Ahmadinejad's disputed re-election.

"Mr Obama made a mistake to say those things ... our question is why he fell into this trap and said things that previously (former U.S. President George W.) Bush used to say," the semi-official Fars News Agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

About 20 people have been killed in the demonstrations, but police and militia have flooded Tehran's streets since Saturday, quelling the majority of protests after the most widespread anti-government unrest since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

The turmoil has dimmed prospects for Obama's outreach to Iran over its nuclear programme, with Tehran blaming Britain and the United States for fomenting violence.

"I hope you avoid interfering in Iran's affairs and express your regret in a way that the Iranian nation is informed of it," Ahmadinejad said.

Iran's reformist opposition leaders have vowed to press on with legal challenges to an election they say was rigged.

The wife of opposition leader Mirhossein Mousavi, who says he won the poll, said it was a "duty to continue legal protests to preserve Iranian rights."

Mousavi supporters said they would release thousands of balloons on Friday imprinted with the message "Neda you will always remain in our hearts" -- a reference to the young woman killed last week who has become an icon of the protests.

Riot police swiftly dispersed a group of about 200 demonstrators with teargas on Wednesday, but the protest was a far cry from marches last week that attracted tens of thousands.

Protest cries of Allahu Akbar were heard from Tehran rooftops again overnight, although they were much more short-lived than on previous evenings in the capital.

COUNTRY "DEEPLY SPLIT"

The unrest has exposed unprecedented rifts within Iran's clerical establishment, with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who normally stays above the political fray, siding strongly with Ahmadinejad.

"My personal judgment is that this is a country deeply split and emotionalized," a Western diplomat in the region said. The protests had shown how dissatisfied some parts of society were with the way Iran was run -- to the chagrin of its leadership.

"I think they are deeply shocked," the diplomat said. The authorities had managed to impose outward stability, but had paid a heavy moral price, he added.

Khamenei has upheld the result of the June 12 presidential poll and has warned opposition leaders they would be responsible for any bloodshed.

Iran's top legislative body, the Guardian Council, has also ruled out a call from Mousavi to annul the election.

A spokesman for the council, which must approve the poll, said it had looked into all complaints but found no major fraud or irregularities, state Press TV reported on Thursday.

The spokesman said the vote was "among the healthiest elections ever held in the country" since the revolution.

The crackdown on the protests has stalled U.S. efforts to reach out to Tehran both over its nuclear programme and to seek its help in stabilizing Afghanistan.

The United States withdrew invitations to Iranian diplomats to attend U.S. Independence Day celebrations on July 4.

It was the first time since Washington cut diplomatic ties with Tehran in 1980 that Iranian diplomats had been invited to the embassy parties, but the move to withdraw the invites was largely symbolic as no Iranians had even responded.

U.S. ENGAGEMENT "DELAYED"

"The president's policy of engagement is obviously delayed, but we are going to have to deal with the government of Iran," Senator John Kerry, chairman of the influential Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Reuters.

The best U.S. option for pressuring Iran, the world's fifth biggest oil producer, was to drive down crude prices by reducing America's dependence on imported energy, Kerry said.

Mohammad Marandi, who is the head of North American Studies at Tehran University, said mistrust of the United States and Britain was rife, partly due to the "very negative" role of U.S.- and British-funded Persian-language television stations.

"They are working 24 hours a day spreading rumors and trying to turn people against each other," he told Reuters.

"In the short term relations will definitely get worse, but in the long term the U.S. really has to re-think its policy and to recognize that regime change is not possible in Iran."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 07:30 AM

Tilting at Green Windmills


By George F. Will
Thursday, June 25, 2009

The Spanish professor is puzzled. Why, Gabriel Calzada wonders, is the U.S. president recommending that America emulate the Spanish model for creating "green jobs" in "alternative energy" even though Spain's unemployment rate is 18.1 percent -- more than double the European Union average -- partly because of spending on such jobs?

Calzada, 36, an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, has produced a report that, if true, is inconvenient for the Obama administration's green agenda, and for some budget assumptions that are dependent upon it.

Calzada says Spain's torrential spending -- no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources -- on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada's report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies -- wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation -- sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency -- of capital. (European media regularly report "eco-corruption" leaving a "footprint of sleaze" -- gaming the subsidy systems, profiteering from land sales for wind farms, etc.) Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs elsewhere in Spain's economy.

The president's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, was asked about the report's contention that the political diversion of capital into green jobs has cost Spain jobs. The White House transcript contained this exchange:


Gibbs: "It seems weird that we're importing wind turbine parts from Spain in order to build -- to meet renewable energy demand here if that were even remotely the case."

Questioner: "Is that a suggestion that his study is simply flat wrong?"

Gibbs: "I haven't read the study, but I think, yes."

Questioner: "Well, then. [Laughter.]"

Actually, what is weird is this idea: A sobering report about Spain's experience must be false because otherwise the behavior of some American importers, seeking to cash in on the U.S. government's promotion of wind power, might be participating in an economically unproductive project.

It is true that Calzada has come to conclusions that he, as a libertarian, finds ideologically congenial. And his study was supported by a like-minded U.S. think tank (the Institute for Energy Research, for which this columnist has given a paid speech). Still, it is notable that, rather than try to refute his report, many Spanish critics have impugned his patriotism because he faulted something for which Spain has been praised by Obama and others.

Judge for yourself: Calzada's report can be read at http://tinyurl.com/d7z9ye. And at http://tinyurl.com/ccoa5s you can find similar conclusions in "Yellow Light on Green Jobs," a report by Republican Sen. Kit Bond, ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee's subcommittee on green jobs and the new economy.

What matters most, however, is not that reports such as Calzada's and the Republicans' are right in every particular. It is, however, hardly counterintuitive that politically driven investments are economically counterproductive. Indeed, environmentalists with the courage of their convictions should argue that the point of such investments is to subordinate market rationality to the higher agenda of planetary salvation.

Still, one can be agnostic about both reports while being dismayed by the frequency with which such findings are ignored simply because they question policies that are so invested with righteousness that methodical economic reasoning about their costs and benefits seems unimportant. When the president speaks of "new green energy economies" creating "countless well-paying jobs," perhaps they really are countless, meaning incapable of being counted.

For fervent believers in governments' abilities to control the climate and in the urgent need for them to do so, believing is seeing: They see, through their ideological lenses, governments' green spending as always paying for itself. This is a free-lunch faith comparable to that of those few conservatives who believe that tax cuts always completely pay for themselves by stimulating compensating revenue from economic growth.

Windmills are iconic in the land of Don Quixote, whose tilting at them became emblematic of comic futility. Spain's new windmills are neither amusing nor emblematic of policies America should emulate. The cheerful and evidently unshakable confidence in such magical solutions to postulated problems is yet another manifestation -- Republicans are not immune: No Child Left Behind decrees that by 2014 all American students will be proficient in math and reading -- of what the late senator Pat Moynihan called "the leakage of reality from American life."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 06:52 AM

Emotion, few details, in Obama's health care pitch


Jul 1, 8:00 PM (ET)

By PHILIP ELLIOTT and CHARLES BABINGTON


ANNANDALE, Va. (AP) - President Barack Obama wanted to put a human face on his plans to overhaul health care, and a Virginia supporter did just that Wednesday. Fighting back tears, Debby Smith, 53, told Obama of her kidney cancer and her inability to obtain health insurance or hold a job.

The president hugged her - she's a volunteer for his political operation - and called her "exhibit A" in an unsustainable system that is too expensive and complex for millions of Americans.

story

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 09:53 AM

Washington Post sells access, $25,000+

By MIKE ALLEN | 7/2/09 8:04 AM EDT

For a price, The Washington Post offers lobbyists off-the-record access to 'those powerful few.'

For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post is offering lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to "those powerful few" — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and the paper's own reporters and editors.


The astonishing offer is detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he feels it's a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its "health care reporting and editorial staff."


The offer — which essentially turns a news organization into a facilitator for private lobbyist-official encounters — is a new sign of the lengths to which news organizations will go to find revenue at a time when most newspapers are struggling for survival.


And it's a turn of the times that a lobbyist is scolding The Washington Post for its ethical practices.


"Underwriting Opportunity: An evening with the right people can alter the debate," says the one-page flier. "Underwrite and participate in this intimate and exclusive Washington Post Salon, an off-the-record dinner and discussion at the home of CEO and Publisher Katharine Weymouth. ... Bring your organization's CEO or executive director literally to the table. Interact with key Obama administration and congressional leaders …


"Spirited? Yes. Confrontational? No. The relaxed setting in the home of Katharine Weymouth assures it. What is guaranteed is a collegial evening, with Obama administration officials, Congress members, business leaders, advocacy leaders and other select minds typically on the guest list of 20 or less. …


"Offered at $25,000 per sponsor, per Salon. Maximum of two sponsors per Salon. Underwriters' CEO or Executive Director participates in the discussion. Underwriters appreciatively acknowledged in printed invitations and at the dinner. Annual series sponsorship of 11 Salons offered at $250,000 … Hosts and Discussion Leaders ... Health-care reporting and editorial staff members of The Washington Post ... An exclusive opportunity to participate in the health-care reform debate among the select few who will actually get it done. ... A Washington Post Salon ... July 21, 2009 6:30 p.m."


POLITICO has asked The Washington Post for a response, and will post it when it arrives.


more

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 10:20 AM

Speaking of leakage of reality, does the pontificator you are copying and pasting have any hard numbers, or is he doomed to wander forever in a cloud of nounless generalities and woebegone opinions?

Not having been halfg as obsessed with theminutiae of the administration as BB is, I don't know the exact actual context of Obama's remarks, nor the actual numbers and causes of SPain's current finances.

As regards energy, the issue is pretty simple: the value of the energy produced needs to exceed the amortization and maintenance of the units which produce it, with perhaps a quality factor added to the computation for the hard to measure but undeniable benefits of renewability versus oil-fueld energy production.

What the devil is this guy talking about? ANd what are the specifics? And why, without them, is this worth a BB C&P Special? Even though he says he is imitating me in everything he does, that doesn't make it a good idea.


A


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 10:46 AM

YOU are the one who established ( from YOUR posts) the " cloud of nounless generalities and woebegone opinions?" I am just faithfully following the path laid out for me by those who have gone before.





BUT:
"the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs elsewhere in Spain's economy. "

" And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation -- sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency -- of capital."


Hard enough number for you?


"Judge for yourself: Calzada's report can be read at http://tinyurl.com/d7z9ye. And at http://tinyurl.com/ccoa5s you can find similar conclusions in "Yellow Light on Green Jobs," a report by Republican Sen. Kit Bond, ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee's subcommittee on green jobs and the new economy. "


I know, YOU never provided the real sources of any of your claims, but I thought I might deviate from your path in this instance.


Amos,

You state : "I don't know the exact actual context of Obama's remarks"

Shall I treat you now as you treated me when I said I did not know something about Bush???

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 11:10 AM

This reminds me of Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner...except the odds are more evenly matched. Either participant may run off the cliff, jump the shark, etc...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 11:16 AM

Bruce:

Treat me as you like. Why you insist on continuing your role as the wounded partridge escapes me. The proposition that creating jobs in the alternative energy sector loses jobs somewhere else strikes me as pretty superficial and hard to support. If it is true, why is that any more than normal market dynamics, buggy whips giving way to auto bodies?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 01:35 PM

July 6 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. service industries from retailers to homebuilders shrank last month at the slowest pace in nine months, as measures of new orders and employment increased.

The Institute for Supply Management’s index of non- manufacturing businesses, which make up almost 90 percent of the economy, rose more than forecast to 47 from 44 in May, according to data from the Tempe, Arizona-based group. Readings less than 50 signal contraction.

The index’s third straight monthly improvement reflects signs of stabilization in housing and consumer spending and increased demand from overseas as a gauge of export orders rose to the highest level since February 2008. Still, mounting job losses and stagnant wages are likely to restrain some domestic purchases, limiting the impact of any recovery.

The economy is “no longer contracting but it’s certainly not back to healthy growth,â€쳌 said Robert Stein, senior economist at First Trust Advisors in Lisle, Illinois. “We’re kind of in that interim stage where you could still lose a lot of jobs but things are gradually rising.â€쳌

The index was projected to increase to 46, according to the median forecast in a Bloomberg News survey of 64 economists. Estimates ranged from 44 to 48.

The ISM non-manufacturing industries index of employment rose to 43.4 from 39 the prior month, and its gauge of new orders increased to 48.6 from 44.4.

‘Encouraging Report’

A gauge of export orders gained to 54.5 from 47 while a measure of prices paid rose to 53.7 from 46.9.

“Overall, it’s an encouraging report,â€쳌 Anthony Nieves, chairman of the ISM survey, told reporters on a conference call from Beverly Hills, California. “We’re starting to see this leveling off. In the next few months, we might see some uptick.â€쳌

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 12:48 AM

That was NOT really a post by Amos! The Freds have taken over his mind and he is now a helpless automaton serving their dark agenda for a takeover of Planet Earth. Note the strange alien symbols that are scattered here and there through his post. It's a dead giveaway. The Freds have him in thrall. He's like one of those things in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". He must be stopped!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 09:52 AM

Better men than you have tried, LH, and ended up regretting it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 10:43 AM

LOL! Yes, well, I am simply exhorting others to stop you, Amos, while I sit back and watch the fur fly....good entertainment. I'm what you call an instigator. A rabble-rouser. A shit-disturber.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 12:52 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama is backing efforts to create a new government program to provide long term care insurance as part of the broader health care overhaul.

The voluntary insurance program, sponsored by Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, would pay a modest daily cash benefit of at least $50 that people could use for in-home services or nursing home bills.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a letter to Kennedy that the administration supports the program because it would help elderly and disabled people stay in their own homes. But the Congressional Budget Office is questioning the program's long-range solvency. A Senate committee could vote Tuesday on the plan.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 12:55 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) — Saying global warming poses unprecedented threats to Americans' way of life, four of President Barack Obama's top environmental and energy officials urged the Senate on Tuesday to pass legislation to reduce the pollution linked to the planet's rising temperature.

The heads of the Energy Department, Agriculture Department, Interior Department and Environmental Protection Agency told a Senate panel it should pass a bill similar to one the House narrowly cleared late last month. That legislation would impose the first limits on greenhouse gases, eventually leading to an 80 percent reduction by mid-century by putting a price on each ton of climate-altering pollution.

"We will not fully unleash the potential of the clean energy economy unless this committee, and the Senate, put an upper limit on the emissions of heat-trapping gases that are damaging our environment," Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in prepared testimony. Salazar acknowledged that another Senate panel has already advanced a bill that would boost the amount of energy generated from renewable sources.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu warned that a projected temperature increase would make the world a much different place, and said the only way to avoid that outcome is by enacting legislation.

"Denial of the climate change problem will not change our destiny; a comprehensive energy and climate bill that caps and then reduces carbon emissions will," Chu said.

The appearance of the three Cabinet secretaries and EPA administrator signals the beginning of the Senate's work on a climate bill. The committee hopes to draft and advance legislation before the August recess, and Senate leaders have said they want to take up the measure this fall, before talks on a new global treaty to reduce heat-trapping gases.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 01:22 PM

We won't know too much about Obama until we see what he does with Israel and immigration.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 02:14 PM

I don't see that those are such diagnostic issues, Rig. WHy do you choose them as your litmus test? Seems to me you can know a lot about Obama by studying all that had already occurred.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 02:30 PM

One thing I enjoy is knowing there is someone in the WHite House with a deft sense of humor.

" President Obama took another whack at his colorfully mouthed chief of staff Friday night, when, in remarks to journalists at the Radio and Television Correspondents' Dinner, he compared Mr. Emanuel to a camel.

"In Egypt, we had the opportunity to tour the pyramids," Mr. Obama said, referring to his trip earlier this month. "And by now, I'm sure you've all seen the pictures of Rahm on that camel. I admit, I was a little nervous about the whole situation. I said at the time, 'This is a wild animal known to bite, kick and spit. And who knows what the camel could do.' " (June 17 NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 04:46 PM

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1910208,00.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 03:40 PM

"U.S. Opens Path to Asylum for Victims of Sexual Abuse

    By JULIA PRESTON
Published: July 15, 2009

The Obama administration has opened the way for foreign women who are victims of severe domestic beatings and sexual abuse to receive asylum in the United States. The action reverses a Bush administration stance on an issue at the center of a protracted and passionate legal battle over the possibilities for battered women to become refugees.

In addition to meeting the existing strict conditions for being granted asylum, abused women need to show a judge that women are viewed as subordinate by their abuser, according to a court filing by the administration, and must also show that domestic abuse is widely tolerated in their country.

The administration laid out its position in an immigration appeals court filing in the case of a woman from Mexico who requested asylum, saying she feared she would be murdered by a common law husband there. According to court documents filed in San Francisco, the man repeatedly raped her at gunpoint, held her captive, stole from her and at one point attempted to burn her alive when he learned she was pregnant.

The government submitted its legal brief in April, but the woman only recently gave her consent for the confidential case documents to be disclosed to The New York Times. The government has marked a clear, although narrow, pathway for battered women seeking asylum, lawyers said, after thirteen years of tangled court arguments, including resistance from the Bush administration to recognize any of those claims."...NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 11:24 AM

Most schools have poor accountability systems and inadequately track student outcomes. They have little information about what works. They have trouble engaging students on campus. Many remedial classes (60 percent of students need them) are a joke, often because expectations are too low.

The Obama initiative is designed to go right at these deeper problems. It sets up a significant innovation fund, which, if administered properly, could set in motion a spiral of change. It has specific provisions for remedial education, outcome tracking and online education. It links public sector training with specific private sector employers.

Real reform takes advantage of community colleges' most elemental feature. These colleges educate students with wildly divergent interests, goals and abilities. They host students with radically different learning styles, many of whom have floundered in traditional classrooms.

Therefore, successful reform has to blow up the standard model. You can't measure progress by how many hours a student spends with her butt in a classroom chair. You have to incorporate online tutoring, as the military does. You have to experiment with programs like Digital Bridge Academy that are tailored to individual learning styles. You have to track student outcomes, as the Lumina Foundation is doing. You have to build in accountability measures for teachers and administrators.

Maybe this proposal, too, will be captured by the interest groups. But its key architects, Rahm Emanuel in the White House and Representative George Miller, have created a program that is intelligently designed and boldly presented.

It's a reminder that the Obama administration can produce hope and change — when the White House is the engine of policy creation and not the caboose. (Republican columnist for the NYT David Brooks)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 01:03 PM

(waiting on BillD to comment on lack of quotes for the last post)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 01:06 PM

Obama hasn't done much for American-resident chimpanzees or other great apes yet, not to mention monkeys. I am reserving judgement until he does.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 05:52 PM

Freshman Dems oppose Pelosi's tax increase

By Mike Soraghan
Posted: 07/17/09 02:23 PM [ET]

Twenty-one freshman Democratic House members have signed a letter opposing their leadership's plan to raise taxes to finance a healthcare overhaul.

Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) circulated the letter, saying that the income surtax on the wealthy would place an undue burden on small businesses, some of which pay taxes in the same way as an individual. The letter had 22 signers, all freshmen except for Rep. Paul Hodes (D-N.H.), who is in his second term.

"Especially in a recession, we need to make sure not to kill the goose that will lay the golden eggs of our recovery," the letter said. "We are concerned that this will discourage entrepreneurial activity."

Polis voted against the plan at the Education and Labor Committee markup Friday as a protest against the tax. But the letter itself did not threaten that its signers would vote against the bill. Instead, it asks for a different source of money to be found, and says more cost savings should be found so that less money is needed.

Freshman members, who are worried about the taxes and other controversial aspects of the bill, have had two meetings with leadership in recent days. On Friday, they went to the White House for a meeting with President Obama .

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has backed down slightly on the tax, saying it could be lowered if more cost savings could be found in the system. But she has said there will be some sort of tax on high-earners.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 05:54 PM

And not that I expect anyone to bother reading this, but...




http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=328

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 08:39 PM

"July 17, 2009
Categories: House Democrats

Big Dem cash dump on eve of climate vote

Three House Democratic leaders who were whipping members on the climate change bill gave tens of thousands in campaign cash to party moderates around the time of the 219-212 vote on June 26, according to Federal Election Commission records.

It's impossible to tell if that torrent of cash was an attempt to schmear wavering Democrats -- or just part of the usual cash dump made by leaders on the eve of the June 30 quarterly fundraising deadline.

Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC) doled out $28,000 to reps who eventually voted yes on June 24, two days before the big vote -- on a day when House leaders were doing some heavy-duty arm-twisting.

Clyburn recipients who voted for the bill included a who's-who of battleground district Dems: Steve Driehaus, D-OH ($2,000); Martin Heinrich, D-NM ($2,000); Suzanne Kosmas, D-Fla. ($4,000); Betsy Markey, D-Colo. ($2,000); Carol Shea-Porter, D-NH ($2,000), Baron Hill, D-Ind. ($2,000); Alan Grayson, D-Fla. ($2,000); Leonard Boswell, D-Iowa ($2,000); Jim Himes, D-Conn. ($2,000); Mary Jo Kilroy, D-OH ($2,000); Kurt Schrader, D-Ore. ($2,000); Jerry McNerney, D-Calif. ($2,000) and Tom Perriello, D-Va. ($2,000).

On the other hand, Clyburn also gave at least $14,000 to Democrats who voted no despite his pressure: Mike Arcuri, D-NY ($2,000); Marion Berry, D-Ark. ($2,000); Bobby Bright, D-Ala. ($2,000); Chris Carney, D-Penn. ($2,000); Chet Edwards (D-Tx.), Travis Childers , D-Miss. ($2,000); Parker Griffith, D-Ala. ($2,000) and Harry Mitchell, D-NM ($2,000).

The same pattern held true for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who gave $4,000 to yes-voting Ohio Democrat Zack Space and the same amount to no-voting Chris Carney.

House Energy and Commerce Henry Waxman gave at least $16,000 to yes-voters on June, 25, FEC records show.

A Waxman campaign spokesman said the payouts were part of the usual "end-of-quarter activity."

Ken Spain, communications director of the National Republican Congressional Committee emails this response:

"If this was a concerted effort by the Democratic leadership to purchase votes for Nancy Pelosi's national energy tax at the eleventh hour, then it is unconscionable at best and corrupt at worst. The sad fact for those Democrats who were seemingly bought and paid for, is that it will take a lot more money than they received to defend such an atrocious vote."

UPDATE: Democrats have responded, turning up their own list of vulnerable Republicans who received leadership money at the end of the reporting period. Not surprisingly, they're dismissive of Republican accusations that votes were bought.

"What House Republican leaders may be lacking in solutions for the American people, they more than make up for in hypocrisy and bogus charges," said DCCC spokesman Ryan Rudominer. "Considering the long list of contributions that Leader Boehner gave to his own rank and file right after their 'just say no' vote to creating jobs and reducing America's dependence on foreign oil, their false accusations against Democrats are at best phony outrage and at worst, hypocrisy of the highest order."

Boehner gave $2,000 each in late June to Reps. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.); Chris Lee (R-N.Y.), Erik Paulsen (R-Minn.), Joseph Cao (R-La.), Judy Biggert (R-Ill.), Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), Dan Lungren (R-Calif.), and Thad McCotter (R-Mich.). All of these Republicans are among the most vulnerable politically."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0709/Big_Dem_cash_dump_on_eve_of_climate_vote.html?showall

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 08:53 PM

None of that sheds any light on human-ape-monkey relations in contemporary America.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 09:26 PM

LH - That's too tempting. I won't say it!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 06:28 AM

" The Squandered Stimulus

By Robert J. Samuelson
Monday, July 20, 2009

It's not surprising that the much-ballyhooed "economic stimulus" hasn't done much stimulating. President Obama and his aides argue that it's too early to expect startling results. They have a point. A $14 trillion economy won't revive in a nanosecond. But the defects of the $787 billion package go deeper and won't be cured by time. The program crafted by Obama and the Democratic Congress wasn't engineered to maximize its economic impact. It was mostly a political exercise, designed to claim credit for any recovery, shower benefits on favored constituencies and signal support for fashionable causes.

As a result, much of the stimulus's potential benefit has been squandered. Spending increases and tax cuts are sprinkled in too many places and, all too often, are too delayed to do much good now. Nor do they concentrate on reviving the economy's most depressed sectors: state and local governments; the housing and auto industries. None of this means the stimulus won't help or precludes a recovery, but the help will be weaker than necessary.

How much is hard to determine. By year-end 2010, the package will result in 2.5 million jobs, predicts Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy.com. But as Zandi notes, all estimates are crude. They involve comparing economic simulations with and without the provisions of the stimulus. The economic models must make assumptions about how fast consumers spend tax cuts, how quickly construction projects begin and much more.

Depending on the assumptions, the results vary. When the Congressional Budget Office made job estimates, it presented a range of 1.2 million to 3.6 million by year-end 2010. Whatever the actual figures, they won't soon mean an increase in overall employment. They will merely limit job losses. Since late 2007, those have totaled 6.5 million, and there are probably more to come.

On humanitarian grounds, hardly anyone should object to parts of the stimulus package: longer and (slightly) higher unemployment benefits; subsidies for job losers to extend their health insurance; expanded food stamps. Obama was politically obligated to enact a campaign proposal providing tax cuts to most workers -- up to $400 for individuals and $800 for married couples. But beyond these basics, the stimulus plan became an orgy of politically appealing spending increases and tax breaks.


......
There are growing demands for another Obama "stimulus" on the grounds that the first was too small. Wrong. The problem with the first stimulus was more its composition than its size. With budget deficits for 2009 and 2010 estimated by the CBO at $1.8 trillion and $1.4 trillion (respectively, 13 and 9.9 percent of gross domestic product), it's hard to argue they're too tiny. Obama and congressional Democrats sacrificed real economic stimulus to promote parochial political interests. Any new "stimulus" should be financed by culling some of the old.

Here, as elsewhere, there's a gap between Obama's high-minded rhetoric and his performance. In February, Obama denounced "politics as usual" in constructing the stimulus. But that's what we got, and Obama likes the result. Interviewed recently by ABC's Jake Tapper, he was asked whether he would change anything. Obama seemed to invoke a doctrine of presidential infallibility. "There's nothing that we would have done differently," he said. "


Entire article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/19/AR2009071901762.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 06:36 AM

"The key to understanding Obama's predicament is to realize that while he ran convincingly as a repudiation of Bush, he is in fact doubling down on his predecessor's big-government policies and perpetual crisis-mongering. From the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists to gays in the military to bailing out industries large and small, Obama has been little more than the keeper of the Bush flame. Indeed, it took the two of them to create the disaster that is the 2009 budget, racking up a deficit that has already crossed the historic $1 trillion mark with almost three months left in the fiscal year.

Beyond pushing the "emergency" $787 billion stimulus package (even while acknowledging that the vast majority of funds would be released in 2010 and beyond), Obama signed a $410 billion omnibus spending bill and a $106 billion supplemental spending bill to cover "emergency" expenses in Iraq and Afghanistan (and, improbably, a "cash for clunkers" program). Despite pledges to achieve a "net spending cut" by targeting earmarks and wasteful spending, Obama rubber-stamped more than 9,000 earmarks and asked government agencies to trim a paltry $100 million in spending this year, 0.003 percent of the federal budget.

In the same way that Bush claimed to be cutting government even while increasing real spending by more than 70 percent, Obama seems to believe that saying one thing, while doing another, somehow makes it so. His first budget was titled "A New Era of Fiscal Responsibility," even as his own projections showed a decade's worth of historically high deficits. He vowed no new taxes on 95 percent of Americans, then jacked up cigarette taxes and indicated a willingness to consider new health-care taxes as part of his reform package. He said he didn't want to take over General Motors on the day that he took over General Motors.

Such is the extent of Obama's magical realism that he can promise to post all bills on the Internet five days before signing them, serially break that promise and then, when announcing that he wouldn't even try anymore, have a spokesman present the move as yet another example of "providing the American people more transparency in government."
What the new president has not quite grasped is that the American people understand both irony and cognitive dissonance. Instead, Obama has mistaken his personal popularity for a national predilection toward emergency-driven central planning. He doesn't get that Americans prefer the slower process of building political consensus based on reality, and at least a semblance of rational deliberation rather than one sky-is-falling legislative session after another.

On this last point, Obama is a perfect extension of Bush's worst trait as president. In the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush administration pushed through the Patriot Act, a massive, transformative piece of legislation that plainly went unread even as Congress overwhelmingly voted aye. Bush whipped up an atmosphere of crisis every time he sensed a restive Congress or a dissatisfied electorate. And at the end of his tenure, he rammed through the TARP bailout at warp speed, arguing that the United States yet again faced catastrophe at the hands of an existential threat.
.....

Bush learned the hard way that running government as a perpetual crisis machine leads to bad policy and public fatigue. Obama's insistence on taking advantage of a crisis to push through every item on the progressive checklist right now is threatening to complete that cycle within his first year.


What are his options? First, stop doing harm. Throwing money all over the economy (and especially to sectors that match up with Democratic interests) is the shortest path to what Margaret Thatcher described as the inherent flaw in socialism: Eventually you run out of other people's money.

No matter how many fantastical multipliers Obama ascribes to government spending, with each day comes refutation of the administration's promises on jobs and economic growth. Even his chief source on the topic, economic adviser Christina Romer, now grants that calculating jobs "created or saved" by Team Obama is simply impossible.

Which leads to the second point: Stop it with the magical realism already.

Save terms such as "fiscal responsibility" for policies that at least minimally resemble that notion. Don't pretend that a budget that doubles the national debt in five years and triples it in 10 is the work of politicians tackling "the difficult choices." Americans have a pretty good (if slow-to-activate) B.S. detector, and the more you mislead them now, the worse they'll punish you later. Toward that end, producing real transparency instead of broken promises is the first step toward building credibility.

That the administration is now spending millions of dollars to revamp its useless stimulus-tracking site Recovery.gov is one more indication that, post-Bush, the White House still thinks of citizens as marks to be rolled.

Finally, it's time to connect the poster boy for hope to the original Man From Hope. After Bill Clinton bit off more domestic policy than even he could chew, leading to a Republican rout in the midterm elections of 1994, the 42nd president refocused his political intelligence on keeping his ambitions and, as a result, the size of government growth, limited. Though there is much to complain about in his record, the broad prosperity and mostly sound economic policy under his watch aren't included.

This shouldn't be a difficult task for Obama. As a political animal, he has always resembled Clinton more than Carter. This might help him avoid the Carteresque pileup he's driving into. Far more important, it just might help the rest of us. "



entire article

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 05:26 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/presidential-approval-tracker.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 05:52 PM

"The key to understanding Obama's predicament is to realize that while he ran convincingly as a repudiation of Bush, he is in fact doubling down on his predecessor's big-government policies and perpetual crisis-mongering. From the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists to gays in the military to bailing out industries large and small, Obama has been little more than the keeper of the Bush flame. Indeed, it took the two of them to create the disaster that is the 2009 budget, racking up a deficit that has already crossed the historic $1 trillion mark with almost three months left in the fiscal year. "

If that is so, BB, it confirms exactly what I have long felt which is that the Republicans and Democrats unfailingly serve the very same entrenched powers and interests...not the public...and that no matter which one of them you elect, the same basic agenda inevitably goes forward.

What do you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 07:10 PM

I think you are both very nearsighted and incapable of seeing differences. This is just more hogwash and rhetorical generalizing. The idea that Bush, in all his eight years, would accomplish as much for the general betterment of the nation as Obama will have done in his first two, is to laugh, Monsieur, all your rhetoric-spouting naiveté aside. To laugh, you heat? Ha, ha! Ho, ho!! C'est a rire, mon vieux ivrogne!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 05:17 PM

With his "political capital on the line," President Obama "won a crucial victory on Tuesday when the Senate voted to strip out $1.75 billion in financing for seven more F-22 jet fighters from a military authorization bill." The "nation's premier fighter-jet program" was conceived in the waning days of the Cold War to defend against "a highly advanced enemy fighter fleet," but the jets have "yet to fly a single combat mission in Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else." Limiting the F-22 to the 187 already authorized was "a key policy victory for Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who has been campaigning against the plane since April" as a "niche, silver bullet solution" against a non-existent threat. As Glenn Greenwald noted, this fight is not about the overall military budget: "Barack Obama campaigned on a platform of increased defense spending.  True to his word, Obama's 2010 fiscal year budget calls for $534 billion in defense spending (not including the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan)." Rather, it was a battle of political will between the influence of defense contractors and the legitimate national security interests of the United States. "If the Department of Defense can't figure out a way to defend the United States on a budget of more than half a trillion dollars a year," Gates argued during the F-22 debate, "then our problems are much bigger than anything that can be cured by a few more ships and planes." Following the dramatic vote, Obama responded, "I reject the notion that we have to waste billions of taxpayer dollars on outdated and unnecessary defense projects to keep this nation secure."

'HUGE HUGE VICTORY': "This is a big deal," declared Slate's Fred Kaplan. "I think it is fair to say that this is a huge huge victory for Obama and Gates," military analyst Max Bergmann agreed, "and is a big step forward toward instituting a strategic shift within the Pentagon." "It's a win for Obama and Gates," Steven Benen wrote, "but just as important, it's a win for military priorities, fiscal discipline, and changing how the system operates." The political stakes were high, as "Obama stuck his neck out and threatened the first veto of his presidency" over this "indefensible defense budget boondoggle." Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Lawrence Korb explained that a defeat on the F-22 would make it hard for Gates "to be an effective Secretary of Defense during the rest of his tenure." When the plan to cut F-22 funding was announced, executive director of the Project On Government Oversight Danielle Brian warned, "This is going to be a real test of Obama's ability to push back on the Congress." "Just last week, conventional wisdom held that the $1.75 billion authorization would easily survive a challenge on the floor." Now, "the 58-to-40 vote clearly gives the Obama administration more leeway to overhaul military spending."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 05:31 PM

"If that is so, BB, it confirms exactly what I have long felt which is that the Republicans and Democrats unfailingly serve the very same entrenched powers and interests...not the public...and that no matter which one of them you elect, the same basic agenda inevitably goes forward.

What do you think? "

I am not arguing with you on this topic- you appear to have a good grasp of the situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 07:57 PM

Thank you. I wish it wasn't so, but I believe it is.

Kind of like ancient Rome that way. The patricians always run the show and the plebes get bread and circuses...enough to keep them pacified most of the time.

It's like that in Canada too. No matter which party we elect, the same BS just keeps happening over and over again. The rich get richer. The general social infrastructure deteriorates gradually. We get embroiled in foreign wars that were not of our choosing and are not in our collective interest. Our young men (and women) die for nothing on some distant piece of foreign land.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Jul 09 - 10:04 AM

"Some observers questioned whether the president should have so strongly backed Gates, a longtime friend, over the police who arrested him without fully knowing exactly what took place between the professor and Crowley.

"Obama is the president for all American not just black Americans," said Democratic political strategist and ABC News consultant Donna Brazile.
"


Not often I AGREE with Brazille.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jul 09 - 01:07 PM

Regarding that, BB, I think Charley Noble summed it up perfectly when he said this on the "Gates" thread:

"This story is more grist for the mill for those who want the American people to focus on other problems than enacting comprehensive and affordable health care and restoring our economic viability, problems that divide us rather than programs that bring us together.

Obama usually demonstrates more political sense than to be drawn into such a potentially divisive dispute, even if it were the case of a respected colleague that he had known for a long time. But shame on the talk-show hosts and political pundits who are exploiting this sad incident.

Charley Noble

****

If ever I've seen a tempest in a teapot, and much ado about almost nothing at all, that story is it. What a frikkin' waste of people's time it is to obsess about some cops who overreacted a bit, and a bad-tempered and tired homeowner who overreacted a bit when he was caught in a frustrating situation he had no reason to expect. They all showed some lack of good judgement. So what? Those sort of things happen every day in the USA...and in Canada...and wherever there are stressed-out cops and stressed-out people whom those cops are dealing with. Obama's main error was to get involved in it at all...but Gates is a personal friend of his.

If any one of us had heard of a personal friend of ours being arrested by some cops at his own house over a break-in report...well, our first assumption would have been that the cops acted "stupidly", wouldn't it? ;-) And it would take a fair bit of evidence to the contrary to get any one of us to come around to the notion that it might have possibly been our friend's fault too, wouldn't it?

But we might begin to consider that possibility if we weren't totally stubborn about it. (and most of the people here are totally stubborn once they've made an initial judgement of any kind).

Obama's a guy who is willing to admit to having made a mistake. He's done so before. I wonder if Gates is willing to admit to having made a mistake? Maybe not. Doesn't sound like it. How about the cop? Maybe not him either. If so...they'd be acting just like most of the people on this forum...stubborn to the bitter end.

In any case, the whole Gates incident is utterly trivial, and it's being exploited now by an irresponsible media...and by people who'd like to damage Barack Obama...and by other people who are obsessed with divisive racial issues. In all three of those cases, they are not people who are doing anything good...they're just causing a bunch of useless controversy, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jul 09 - 10:24 PM

"SIX months ago, when President Obama and I took office, we were confronted with an economic crisis unparalleled in our lifetime. The nation was hemorrhaging more than 700,000 jobs a month, the housing market was in free fall, and the fate of the financial system hung in the balance. Credible economists were handicapping the probability of a depression. The actions we took — passing the Recovery Act, stabilizing the banking system, pressing to get credit flowing again and helping responsible homeowners — brought us back from the precipice. Monthly job losses are down, financial markets are improved, and economic contraction has slowed. We still have a long way to go, but clearly we are closer to recovery today than we were in January. The Recovery Act has been critical to that progress.

Notwithstanding this progress, the nature of the Recovery Act remains misunderstood by many, and misconstrued by others: critics have suggested that the entire $787 billion is being spent on pet programs. As the person leading the administration's efforts to put the Recovery Act into effect, I want to set the record straight.

The single largest part of the Recovery Act — more than one-third of it — is tax cuts: 95 percent of working Americans have seen their taxes go down as a result of the act. The second-largest part — just under a third — is direct relief to state governments and individuals. The money is allowing state governments to avoid laying off teachers (14,000 in New York City alone), firefighters and police officers and preventing states' budget gaps from growing wider.

And those hardest hit by the recession are getting extended unemployment insurance, health coverage and other help to get through these tough times. The bottom line is that two-thirds of the Recovery Act doesn't finance "programs," but goes directly to tax cuts, state governments and families in need, without red tape or delays.

As for the final third, the act is financing the largest investment in roads since the creation of the Interstate highway system; construction projects at military bases, ports, bridges and tunnels; long overdue Superfund cleanups; the creation of clean energy jobs of the future; improvements in badly outdated rural water systems; upgrades to overtaxed mass transit and rail systems; and much more. These investments create jobs today — and support economic growth for years to come. Far from being a negative, the wide array of these investments is needed given the incredible diversity of the American economy.

Projects are being chosen without earmarks or political consideration, and many contracts have come in under budget. More than 30,000 projects have been approved, and thousands are already posted on recovery.gov — providing a high level of transparency and accountability. Taxpayers should know that we have not hesitated to reject proposals that have failed to meet our merit-based standards.

The care with which we are carrying out the provisions of the Recovery Act has led some people to ask whether we are moving too slowly. But the act was intended to provide steady support for our economy over an extended period — not a jolt that would last only a few months. Instead of quick-hit rebates, we are giving Americans a tax cut in each paycheck. Instead of pumping out all the state aid immediately, we are spreading it over the two years that it will be needed. Road projects, energy projects and construction projects are being started as soon as they pass review, contracts are competitively bid and reporting systems are in place.

Even with such care being taken, we have already committed more than one-fourth of the Recovery Act's total funds, and we are on track to meet the deadline set when the act was passed in February — spending 70 percent by the end of September 2010.

The Recovery Act is not the cure for all our economic ills — no single piece of legislation could be. But how many government initiatives can point to both large numbers of projects coming in under budget and a Government Accountability Office finding that we are ahead of schedule in key areas?

It is true that the act's effort to address multiple problems simultaneously makes it an easy target for second-guessing. Critics have argued that the tax cuts are too small (or too large); that too much (or not enough) aid is going to rural areas; that too little (or too much) is being spent on roads. Recently, some have even criticized the act for helping support soup kitchens and food banks.

But the way I see it, our balanced approach recognizes that there is no silver bullet, no single thing, that can address the many and complex needs of America's vast economy. We need relief, recovery and reinvestment to cope with our multifaceted crisis — and only 159 days after it was signed by President Obama, the Recovery Act is already at work providing all three."

(Joe Biden is the vice president of the United States.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Jul 09 - 11:42 PM

What we've learned since the election is Joe Biden is an idiot.

             But here's what I've learned about the Economic Stimulus Program. The only thing they've been able to do in our area is to overlay existing streets with asphalt paving. The reason is, to do anything else, like build a bridge for instance, requires design, geo-technical reports, environmental impact statements, reports of local seismic activities, permits, permit fees, and etc.

             I bid jobs for a heavy construction firm in Oregon. I spend most of my time bidding on overlaying one street or another, some state highway, a parking lot for the fire department, but nothing that would really help the flow of traffic. The reason, the jobs that would help with traffic are not shovel ready for the above mentioned reasons.

             This money is being wasted. Not only that, the demand for asphalt based materials is now driving the cost of fuel up.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 04 Aug 09 - 03:16 PM

Obama administration withholds data on clunkers
         

Brett J. Blackledge, Associated Press Writer – 42 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration is refusing to quickly release government records on its "cash-for-clunkers" rebate program that would substantiate — or undercut — White House claims of the program's success, even as the president presses the Senate for a quick vote for $2 billion to boost car sales.

The Transportation Department said it will provide the data as soon as possible but did not specify a time frame or promise release of the data before the Senate votes whether to spend $2 billion more on the program.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Sunday the government would release electronic records about the program, and President Barack Obama has pledged greater transparency for his administration. But the Transportation Department, which has collected details on about 157,000 rebate requests, won't release sales data that dealers provided showing how much U.S. car manufacturers are benefiting from the $1 billion initially pumped into the program.

The Associated Press has sought release of the data since last week. Rae Tyson, spokesman for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said the agency will provide the data requested as soon as possible.

DOT officials already have received electronic details from car dealers of each trade-in transaction. The agency receives regular analyses of the sales data, producing helpful talking points for LaHood, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs and other officials to use when urging more funding.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 09 - 03:21 PM

They say they will release the data as soon as possible--presumably meaning as soon as they digest it and reformat it. I don't see that this constitutes withholding.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 04 Aug 09 - 03:25 PM

sorry:

Waiting until AFTER the Senate vote?


Amos, I have this Obama-approved oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 04 Aug 09 - 03:31 PM

above was my post - can't put cookie on this machine.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 09 - 04:11 PM

Wait, I don't get it--you are speculating as to their meaning, in an uncharitable way, and asserting I am being naive? Yet you seem to have no data whatsoever to support your speculation.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Aug 09 - 04:49 PM

Amos,

I posted the article as it was presented- ** I ** am not specyulating at all, just presenting the article for critical evaluation. Feel free to argue the points brought up in the article- but it indicates that the information is, and has been available, as it is being used to push the administration agenda, but is NOT being allowed out to the public.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Aug 09 - 10:03 AM

Obama Squelches His Truth Whisperers

By Ruth Marcus
Wednesday, August 5, 2009

Does President Obama care more about passing health-care reform that truly gets costs under control, or more about getting reelected? Does he care more about getting the nation's fiscal house in order, or more about getting reelected?

Right now, the evidence points to getting reelected. Exhibit A came at Monday's White House briefing: 45 minutes of press secretary Robert Gibbs restating the president's "clear commitment in the clearest terms possible, that he's not raising taxes on those who make less than $250,000 a year."

Duh, some of you may say. Self-preservation is the first instinct of any politician. Breaking promises and raising taxes is a combination that is toxic to electoral hopes, and it's naive to expect Obama to walk the tax plank in the midst of the health-care fight. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/04/AR2009080402423.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Aug 09 - 01:36 PM

Obama has been in office for about 200 days. Here, he describes what he's been doing to voters in Indiana. The record of accomplishment, so far, certainly looks better than all of the last eight miserable eyars.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Aug 09 - 01:38 PM

One Thousand!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Aug 09 - 11:23 AM

"...And things have been looking pretty good. American influence is rising abroad, and at home nobody in the White House appears to be plotting to undermine our civil rights on a daily basis.

The economy's looking kind of stimulated. These things take time, but the "cash for clunkers" part of the plan seems to be working like a charm. Believe it or not, it turns out that Americans will buy a lot more cars if you pay them a bunch of money to do it.

The Senate is going to plow some more money into the clunker program, once it finishes Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court. The debate has taken the concept of anticlimactic to a whole new level — although the Republican Jon Kyl's announcement that he's read the wise Latina speech "many times" did seem new, in a slightly disturbing way.

Still, even some of the Republicans who warned that she might become "untethered" after her elevation and start committing empathy admitted that Obama has picked an impressive candidate to become the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice. Good work, White House.

And then there was the administration's first big coup of the week, Bill Clinton's trip to North Korea to rescue the two jailed American journalists. This goes to show how Hillary Clinton will surprise you every time. When it comes to the secretary of state's life story, I thought the one unbendable rule was that whenever he was most needed, Bill was going to be most unhelpful. But there he was at the Burbank airport, delivering the journalists to their families and getting that nice hug from Al Gore.

We're still trying to figure out what North Korea wanted. Prestige? New weapons talks? Was the weird, ailing Kim Jong-il working out a succession plot on behalf of one of his sons? He has three, although everyone seems to have written off the oldest since he got picked up using a false passport to get to Tokyo Disneyland. Personally, I like the one who Newsweek says went to Swiss boarding school and wrote an essay about how he'd like to fight terrorism with Jean-Claude Van Damme. But we'll probably wind up with the one who makes his sister call him "General Comrade."

Since everyone running North Korea seems to be crazy, it might be safest to work under the assumption that the motives were crazy, too. Maybe the nation's elite were involved in a high-stakes scavenger hunt, with a list of items that included a 1979 almanac, a matchbook from an Indonesian nightclub, and a picture of Bill Clinton sitting next to the Dear Leader and looking like he was stuffed.

Anyhow, Laura Ling and Euna Lee are home. Well done, everybody.

Once the Senate leaves town, the Obamas can go to Martha's Vineyard and relax. True, there's no health care bill yet, and members of Congress are getting yelled at about socialized medicine by people who appear to have been sitting in their attics since the anti-tax tea parties, listening for signs of alien aircraft. But on the bright side, they've finally got something to distract them from the president's birth certificate...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Aug 09 - 11:46 AM

(Above was an excerpt from NYT Columnist Gail Collins).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 06 Aug 09 - 03:36 PM

August 6th, 2009
After 6 Months, More View Obama's Presidency as a 'Failure' Than Bush's

Posted by Tom Bevan


A rather surprising finding from the newly released CNN poll. Question three on the national survey of 1,136 adults (which includes an oversample of African-Americans) asks, "Do you consider the first six months of the Obama administration to be a success or a failure?"

Thirty-seven percent (37%) said they believe the Obama administration is a "failure," while 51% consider it a "success" and 11% say it's still "too soon to tell."

An identical question was asked of the Bush administration in an August 2001 CNN/Gallup/USA Today survey. At the time, 56% said the Bush administration was a "success" while only 32% considered it a "failure."


http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/08/06/after-6-months-more-view-obamas-presidency-as-a-failure-than-bushs/

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Aug 09 - 03:49 PM

Bruce:

The insinuations of your post just another illogical turd to your long string, for two reasons:

1. RCP itself aggregates approval surveys done all over the country. According to their collection, the approval rating for Obama is 53% to 40%.
________________________________________Approve__Disapprove
RCP Average        7/27 - 8/5        --        53.7        40.8.

2. It seems pretty obvious to me that the comparison of Bush's and Obama's first 200 days is largely a function of how deep the shit was in which the nation had been immersed by their predecessors. ALl that number tells me is it was easier to slide along on Clinton's accomplishments than it was to fix Bush's catastophic bungling.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Aug 09 - 03:53 PM

Sotomayor Wins Senate Approval for High Court

In 68 to 31 vote, Sotomayor becomes 111th Supreme Court justice and first ever of Hispanic descent; all 31 votes against her came from GOP.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Aug 09 - 10:28 PM

More chimps view Chongo's 2008 run for the presidency as a "failure" than was the case after his previous run in 2004! 63% of chimps polled said that Chongo's 2008 run for the White House was a "failure". 36% said his 2008 run was a success, because it brought more national attention to primate rights and species equality issues. 1% either refused to answer the question or threw poop at the pollster.

Whereas in 2004 the same questions and answers came out this way:

42% of chimps - "It was a failure."
22% of chimps - "It was a success."
35% of chimps - "Who the hell is Chongo?"
1% of chimps - "Get outta my face right now or I'll rip yer friggin' ears off!"

One thing is crystal clear. Chongo's national profile has gone up since 2004, even though he only got 0.000015% of the vote nationwide. More chimps know about Chongo than was the case 5 years ago.

This bodes well for the future of Chongo's presidential aspirations.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 02:53 PM

After the Thrill Is Gone

By Michael Gerson
Friday, August 7, 2009

Barack Obama's political honeymoon is over.

It was steamy and nice while it lasted. The 44th president was elected as a voice of reason transcending stale ideological debates and a symbol of unity in a nation long afflicted by bigotry. He seemed, on brief public acquaintance, to be pragmatic, positive, steady, moderate and thoughtful. In the months following his election, Obama expanded his support well beyond the coalition that had voted for him in November, attracting many seniors and white men -- working-class and college-educated -- who had supported John McCain.

But, as Ron Brownstein argued last week on NationalJournal.com, recent polls have revealed a president "back to something like square one in his political coalition." Obama's core support remains strong. His post-election gains, however, have largely dissipated. According to Brownstein, the president "failed to convert many voters who gave him a second look after preferring John McCain last year." Obama still dominates the political landscape, but he has not changed its contours.

Honeymoons always end. But it is fair to ask: What did Obama use this initial period of unique standing and influence to achieve? It will seem strange to history, and probably, eventually, to Obama himself, that the president's main expenditure of political capital and largest legislative achievement was a $787 billion stimulus package he did not design and that ended up complicating the rest of his policy agenda. Such a pleasant honeymoon -- yet all we got was this lousy stimulus bill.

President Obama staked the initial reputation of his administration on the wisdom, restraint and economic innovation of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic congressional leadership. It was a mistake. The legislation they produced plugged the fiscal holes in state budgets and Medicaid, and it indulged eight years of pent-up Democratic spending demands on priorities from education to child care to Amtrak. The package did little to promote investment, job creation or economic growth. By one estimate, about 12 cents of every dollar spent was devoted to genuine economic stimulus. While Obama himself remains popular, support for his largest legislative achievement now stands at 34 percent.

This massive expenditure became the political context for the health-care debate. Because the national debt has increased by more than $1 trillion since Obama took office, the president was forced to make his case for health reform based on long-term cost savings. An immediate increase in spending, he argued, would be more than offset by eventual reductions in federal health spending.

But this case collapsed in a series of Congressional Budget Office estimates stating that both House and Senate health approaches would expand deficits during the current 10-year budget window and beyond. As it stands, Democratic plans create an expensive new health entitlement, make promises of cost savings that are insufficient or nebulous, raise taxes in economically destructive ways and cost more to the government in the long term.

Once again, Obama deferred to Democratic congressional leaders instead of producing a detailed plan of his own. Once again, their failures have become his own.

All this has combined to raise serious public concerns about spending, deficits and debt -- the main ideological achievement of Obama's political honeymoon, but probably not one he intended. The administration's primary economic spokesmen -- Tim Geithner and Larry Summers -- have hinted at the eventual need for broad tax increases to close the deficit. But the tax hikes required for Democratic health reform have an opportunity cost; they can't be used in a future

deficit-reduction deal. And such a deal would certainly require the president to break his unequivocal pledge not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. No amount of administration trial balloons or explanation -- "Golly, the Republicans messed things up even worse than we thought" -- will make this broken promise palatable.

So these are the main accomplishments of the Obama honeymoon: a widely criticized stimulus package, a health debate poorly begun and a growing, potentially consuming deficit problem. The initial period of Obama's presidency has revealed an odd mixture of boldness and timidity. A bold, even fiscally reckless, embrace of the priorities of the Democratic left. A timid, and politically unwise, deference to the views and approaches of the Democratic congressional leadership.

Obama can, of course, recover, as other presidents have. But he did not take full advantage of his honeymoon -- and he will not get it back.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 02:55 PM

Health-Care Reform: A Better Plan

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, August 7, 2009

In 1986, Ronald Reagan and Bill Bradley created a legislative miracle. They fashioned a tax reform that stripped loopholes, political favors, payoffs, patronage and other corruptions out of the tax system. With the resulting savings, they lowered tax rates across the board. Those reductions, combined with the elimination of the enormous inefficiencies and perverse incentives that go into tax sheltering, helped propel a 20-year economic boom.

In overhauling any segment of our economy, the 1986 tax reform should be the model. Yet today's ruling Democrats propose to fix our extremely high-quality (but inefficient and therefore expensive) health-care system with 1,000 pages of additional curlicued complexity -- employer mandates, individual mandates, insurance company mandates, allocation formulas, political payoffs and myriad other conjured regulations and interventions -- with the promise that this massive concoction will lower costs.

This is all quite mad. It creates a Rube Goldberg system that simply multiplies the current inefficiencies and arbitrariness, thus producing staggering deficits with less choice and lower-quality care. That's why the administration can't sell Obamacare.

The administration's defense is to accuse critics of being for the status quo. Nonsense. Candidate John McCain and a host of other Republicans since have offered alternatives. Let me offer mine: Strip away current inefficiencies before remaking one-sixth of the U.S. economy. The plan is so simple it doesn't even have the requisite three parts. Just two: radical tort reform and radically severing the link between health insurance and employment.

(1) Tort reform: As I wrote recently, our crazy system of casino malpractice suits results in massive and random settlements that raise everyone's insurance premiums and creates an epidemic of defensive medicine that does no medical good, yet costs a fortune.

An authoritative Massachusetts Medical Society study found that five out of six doctors admitted they order tests, procedures and referrals -- amounting to about 25 percent of the total -- solely as protection from lawsuits. Defensive medicine, estimates the libertarian/conservative Pacific Research Institute, wastes more than $200 billion a year. Just half that sum could provide a $5,000 health insurance grant -- $20,000 for a family of four -- to the uninsured poor (U.S. citizens ineligible for other government health assistance).

What to do? Abolish the entire medical-malpractice system. Create a new social pool from which people injured in medical errors or accidents can draw. The adjudication would be done by medical experts, not lay juries giving away lottery prizes at the behest of the liquid-tongued John Edwardses who pocket a third of the proceeds.

The pool would be funded by a relatively small tax on all health-insurance premiums. Socialize the risk; cut out the trial lawyers. Would that immunize doctors from carelessness or negligence? No. The penalty would be losing your medical license. There is no more serious deterrent than forfeiting a decade of intensive medical training and the livelihood that comes with it.

(2) Real health-insurance reform: Tax employer-provided health-care benefits and return the money to the employee with a government check to buy his own medical insurance, just as he buys his own car or home insurance.

There is no logical reason to get health insurance through your employer. This entire system is an accident of World War II wage and price controls. It's economically senseless. It makes people stay in jobs they hate, decreasing labor mobility and therefore overall productivity. And it needlessly increases the anxiety of losing your job by raising the additional specter of going bankrupt through illness.

The health-care benefit exemption is the largest tax break in the entire U.S. budget, costing the government a quarter-trillion dollars annually. It hinders health-insurance security and portability as well as personal independence. If we additionally eliminated the prohibition on buying personal health insurance across state lines, that would inject new and powerful competition that would lower costs for everyone.

Repealing the exemption has one fatal flaw, however. It was advocated by candidate John McCain. Obama so demagogued it last year that he cannot bring it up now without being accused of the most extreme hypocrisy and without being mercilessly attacked with his own 2008 ads.

But that's a political problem of Obama's making. As is the Democratic Party's indebtedness to the trial lawyers, which has taken malpractice reform totally off the table. But that doesn't change the logic of my proposal. Go the Reagan-Bradley route. Offer sensible, simple, yet radical reform that strips away inefficiencies from the existing system before adding Obamacare's new ones -- arbitrary, politically driven, structural inventions whose consequence is certain financial ruin.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 04:26 PM

U.S. Economy Lost 247,000 Jobs in July

The pace of job losses in the United States slowed more than
expected in July and the unemployment rate dropped for the
first time since April 2008, the latest indication that
recession was easing. The economy lost 247,000 in July, after
a 443,000 loss in June, the Labor Department said. The
jobless rate dropped to 9.4 percent from 9.5 percent

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 05:00 PM

"Obama's Tone-Deaf Health Campaign

The president shouldn't worry about the protestors disrupting town hall meetings. He should worry about the Americans who have been sitting at home listening to him.

By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ

It didn't take chaotic town-hall meetings, raging demonstrators and consequent brooding in various sectors of the media to bring home the truth that the campaign for a health-care bill is, to put it mildly, not going awfully well. It's not hard now to envision the state of this crusade with just a month or two more of diligent management by the Obama team—think train wreck. It may one day be otherwise in the more perfect world of universal coverage, but for now disabilities like the tone deafness that afflicts this administration from the top down are uninsurable.

Consider former ABC reporter Linda Douglass—now the president's communications director for health reform—who set about unmasking all the forces out there "always trying to scare people when you try to bring them health insurance reform." People, she charged, are taking sentences out of context and otherwise working to present a misleading picture of the president's proposals. One of her key solutions to this problem—her justly famed message encouraging citizens to contact the office at [e-mail] if they got an email or other information about health reform "that seems fishy"—set off a riotous flow of online responses. (The word "fishy," with its police detective tone, would have done the trick all by itself.)

These commentaries, packed with allusions to the secret police, the East German Stasi and Orwell, were mostly furious. Others quite simply hilarious. Ms. Douglass, who now has, in her public appearances, the air of a person consigned to service in a holy order, was not amused.

Neither has she seemed to entertain any second thoughts about the tenor of a message enlisting the public in a program reeking of a White House effort to set Americans against one another—the good Americans protecting the president's health-care program from the bad Americans fighting it and undermining truth and goodness.

She intended no such outcome, doubtless. That this former journalist, now a communications director, failed to notice anything amiss in the details of that communiqué is a bit odd but not altogether surprising.

Crusades are busy endeavors, the enlistees in this one, like those in every undertaking of this White House, concerned with just one message. Which is that the Obama administration is in possession of vital answers to ills and inequities that have long afflicted American society (whether Americans know it or not), and that those opposed to those answers and that vision are cynics, or operatives of the powerful vested interests responsible for the plight Americans find themselves in (whether they know it or not), or political enemies bent on destroying the Obama administration.

It shouldn't have been surprising, either, that the tone of much of the commentary on the town-hall protests was what it was. There was Mark Halperin for one, senior political editor for Time, bouncing off his chair, Sunday, in agitation over all the media coverage of this rowdiness—"a horrible breakdown of our political culture, our media culture" and so "bad for America," as he told CNN's Howard Kurtz. "I'm embarrassed about what's going on, as an American." The disruptions and coverage thereof distorted serious discussion, he explained. Mark Shields said much the same on Friday's PBS NewsHour, if with less excitation, pointing out that these events were "not good for the democratic process," and were a breakdown of civil debate.

There was no such hand-wringing over the decline of civil debate, during, say, election 2004, when cadres of organized demonstrators carrying swastika-adorned pictures of George W. Bush routinely swarmed about, and packed rallies. There was also that other "breakdown of our media culture," that will dwarf all else as a cause for embarrassment, the town-hall coverage included, for the foreseeable future. That would be, of course, the undisguised worshipful reporting of the candidacy of Barack Obama.

That treatment, or rather its memory—like the adulation of his great mass of voters—has had its effect on this president, and not all to the good. The election over, the warming glow of those armies of supporters gone, his capacity to tolerate criticism and dissent from his policies grows thinner apace. His lectures, explaining his health-care proposals, and why they'll be good for everybody, are clearly not going down well with his national audience.

This would have to do with the fact that the real Barack Obama—product of the academic left, social reformer with a program, is now before that audience, and what they hear in this lecture about one of the central concerns in their lives—his message freighted with generalities—they are not prepared to buy. They are not prepared to believe that our first most important concern now is health-care reform or all will go under.

The president has a problem. For, despite a great election victory, Mr. Obama, it becomes ever clearer, knows little about Americans. He knows the crowds—he is at home with those. He is a stranger to the country's heart and character.

He seems unable to grasp what runs counter to its nature. That Americans don't take well, for instance, to bullying, especially of the moralizing kind, implicit in those speeches on health care for everybody. Neither do they wish to be taken where they don't know they want to go and being told it's good for them.

Who would have believed that this politician celebrated, above all, for his eloquence and capacity to connect with voters would end up as president proving so profoundly tone deaf? A great many people is the answer—the same who listened to those speeches of his during the campaign, searching for their meaning.

It took this battle over health care to reveal the bloom coming off this rose, but that was coming. It began with the spectacle of the president, impelled to go abroad to apologize for his nation—repeatedly. It is not, in the end, the demonstrators in those town-hall meetings or the agitations of his political enemies that Mr. Obama should fear. It is the judgment of those Americans who have been sitting quietly in their homes, listening to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 Aug 09 - 03:14 PM

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Thursday, August 13, 2009

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 29% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-seven percent (37%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -8 (see trends).

Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter is feeling the heat of the health care debate. He now trails Republican Pat Toomey by double digits in an early look at the potential 2010 race. Two months ago, Specter led by double digits. Most Pennsylvania voters oppose the Congressional health care reform effort. Also, Specter's lead is shrinking in his Democratic Primary match-up with Congressman Joe Sestak.

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 also available on Twitter.

Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That's the lowest level of total approval yet recorded. The President's ratings first fell below 50% just a few weeks ago on July 25. Fifty-two percent (52%) now disapprove.

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans disapprove along with 65% of those not affiliated with either party. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of Democrats offer their approval. Most women (51%) offer their approval while most men (56%) disapprove. For more measures of the President's performance, see Obama By the Numbers and recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Aug 09 - 04:21 PM

This just in!

More chimps view Bearded Bruce's thread "BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration" as a failure to effectively challenge Amos's view of Barack Obama than as a success. 62% of chimps polled said that the thread was a failure, both as political comment and as satire. 37% said it was a success, because it has brought considerably more annoyance to Amos than Little Hawk's fights with him over Chongo Chimp have. 0.999998% said they don't give a damn either way about it, and one unidentified chimp threw poop at the computer screen and yelled "Kill Winacott!". It is not known who he was referring to when he said that, but people with the surname Winacott have been alerted to the danger of possible primate attack.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Aug 09 - 04:33 PM

You checked with 500,000 chimps?? There ARE that many left??????


bb

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 Aug 09 - 04:44 PM

Sorry- If you rounded it only requires 1000 chimps...

So less than 1 percent don't care??

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Aug 09 - 05:36 PM

That's correct. Not bad, eh? I would have expected 98% of them not to care, but it turns out that most chimps are far more addicted to these kind of political threads than I had anticipated.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Aug 09 - 06:04 PM

Sinking fast!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 Aug 09 - 06:07 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Retail sales disappointed in July and the number of newly laid-off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits rose unexpectedly last week. The latest government reports reinforced concerns about how quickly consumers will be able to contribute to a broad economic recovery.

"There is really no positive spin to put on these numbers," Jennifer Lee, an economist with BMO Capital Markets, wrote in a research note. "The U.S. consumer remains very weak. The jobs situation, while slowly improving, is still dismal."

The Commerce Department said Thursday that retail sales fell 0.1 percent last month. Economists had expected a gain of 0.7 percent.

While autos, helped by the start of the Cash for Clunkers program, showed a 2.4 percent jump -- the biggest in six months -- there was widespread weakness elsewhere. Gasoline stations, department stores, electronics outlets and furniture stores all reported declines.

Some of Europe's largest economies also benefited from government programs to support the auto industry. Germany and France returned to economic growth in the second quarter, raising hopes the recession in the 16-country euro area may end sooner than thought. Europe's two biggest economies each grew 0.3 percent from the previous three-month period, surprising analysts and technically ending their worst recession in decades.

The July dip in U.S. retail sales was the first setback following two months of modest gains. Excluding autos, sales fell 0.6 percent, worse than the 0.1 percent rise economists had forecast. And excluding both auto and gas purchases, retail sales fell 0.4 percent -- the fifth straight monthly decline.

Households are working to pay down debt and add to savings, longer-term trends along with little job growth making it "probable that the U.S. consumer will not be much of a help during the early stages of the economic recovery," Joshua Shapiro, chief U.S. economist at consulting firm MFR Inc., wrote in a note to clients.

The Labor Department said initial claims increased to a seasonally adjusted 558,000, from 554,000 the previous week. Analysts expected new claims to drop to 545,000, according to Thomson Reuters.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 03:41 PM

Majority of Americans doubt Obama stimulus results: poll
         

… Mon Aug 17, 11:29 am ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) – A majority of Americans believe that a 787-billion-dollar stimulus package passed six months ago with support from President Barack Obama has had no effect or even made the US economy worse.

A USAToday/Gallup poll released Monday found that 41 percent of Americans think the spending has made the US economy better, but 57 percent believe it has either made no difference or worsened the recession that began in 2007.

The paper noted, however, that while economists do not agree on impact of the package on the economy, most believe the recession would have been worse without the stimulus.

But respondents were skeptical about the effects of the massive expenditure on their personal finances, with just 18 percent saying their fortunes had improved, and 68 percent saying they had seen no change.

Americans also expressed pessimism about the long-term effects of the package, which combined 288 billion dollars in tax cuts and 499 billion in new spending for a variety of projects, including infrastructure renewal.

On the long-term prospects for the US economy, opinion was evenly divided, with 38 percent saying it would improve the economy and 38 percent saying it would make things worse. Twenty-two percent expected no difference.

Expectations were even lower for the long-term effects of the stimulus for individuals, with just 29 percent expecting things to get better because of the increased government spending and most expecting their situation to either worsen -- 34 percent -- or stay the same -- 36 percent.

The poll, which surveyed 1,010 adults between August 6 and 9, also found concern about the way money is being spent to try and boost the US economy.

Over three-quarters of those questioned -- 78 percent -- said they were either "very worried" or "somewhat worried" that money from the economic stimulus was being "wasted."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 04:21 PM

"...The woman went to an airplane hangar in Belgrade, Mont., the other day, prepared to actually listen to President Obama talk about health care reform in America.

She has watched, the way the rest of us have watched, as the debate about health care has turned into a sideshow and in some cases even more of a freak show than Glenn Beck's. Now she wanted to see for herself, along with more than 1,000 others, if it would happen this way in Montana.

This is what she said about the event when it was over:

"Yes, there were a few protesters en route. But the Montanans who were excited to hear the President far outnumbered the fringe groups."

Then she said this about Obama: "He was smart, fair, funny."

So this wasn't an occasion when people with legitimate concerns and legitimate points to make were overwhelmed by the wing nuts and screamers who take their marching orders from right-wing radio and television and the Internet.

Those idiots come to these town hall meetings more to be seen than heard, and think creating chaos makes them great Americans.

Those people have been convinced by the current culture that we are dying to hear from them, and the louder the better. People who think that all they need to star in their own reality series is a couple of TV crews. But then this is Twitter America now, where no thought is supposed to go unspoken.

We hear that all of this is democracy in action. It's not. It's boom-box democracy, people thinking that if they somehow make enough noise on this subject, they can make Obama into a one-term President.

The most violent opposition isn't directed at his ideas about health care reform. It is directed at him. It is about him. They couldn't make enough of a majority to beat the Harvard-educated black guy out of the White House, so they will beat him on an issue where they see him as being most vulnerable...."

Read more here in the Daily News.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 04:26 PM

Conservatives Now Outnumber Liberals in All 50 States, Says Gallup Poll

Monday, August 17, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief


(CNSNews.com) - Self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals in all 50 states of the union, according to the Gallup Poll.

At the same time, more Americans nationwide are saying this year that they are conservative than have made that claim in any of the last four years.

In 2009, 40% percent of respondents in Gallup surveys that have interviewed more than 160,000 Americans have said that they are either "conservative" (31%) or "very conservative" (9%). That is the highest percentage in any year since 2004.

Only 21% have told Gallup they are liberal, including 16% who say they are "liberal" and 5% who say they are "very liberal."

Thirty-five percent of Americans say they are moderate.

During Republican President George W. Bush's second term, the number of self-identified conservatives as measured by Gallup dropped, riding at a low of 37% as recently as last year.

According to new data released by Gallup on Friday, conservatives outnumber liberals in all 50 states--including President Obama's home state of Illinois--even though Democrats have a significant advantage over Republicans in party identification in 30 states.

"In fact, while all 50 states are, to some degree, more conservative than liberal (with the conservative advantage ranging from 1 to 34 points), Gallup's 2009 party ID results indicate that Democrats have significant party ID advantages in 30 states and Republicans in only 4," said an analysis of the survey results published by Gallup.

"Despite the Democratic Party's political strength-- seen in its majority representation in Congress and in state houses across the country--more Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal," said Gallup's analysis.

"While Gallup polling has found this to be true at the national level over many years, and spanning recent Republican as well as Democratic presidential administrations, the present analysis confirms that the pattern also largely holds at the state level," said Gallup. "Conservatives outnumber liberals by statistically significant margins in 47 of the 50 states, with the two groups statistically tied in Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts."

Massachusetts, Vermont and Hawaii are the most liberal states, even though conservatives marginally outrank liberals even there. In Massachusetts, according to Gallup, 30% say they are conservative and 29% say they are liberal, a difference that falls within the margin of error for the state. In Vermont, 29% say they are conservative and 28% say they are liberal, which also falls within the survey's margin of error for the state. In Hawaii, 29% say they are conservative and 24% say they are liberal, which falls within the margin of error for that state.

In one non-state jurisdiction covered by the survey, liberals did outnumber conservatives. That was Washington, D.C., where 37% said they were liberal, 35% said they were moderate and 23% said they were conservative.

Even in New York and New Jersey, conservatives outnumber liberals by 6 percentage points, according to Gallup. In those states, 32% say they are conservative and 26% say they are liberal. In Connecticut, conservatives outnumber liberals by 7 points, 31% to 24%.

Alabama is the state that comes closest to a conservative majority. In that state, according to Gallup, 49% say they are conservative and 15% say they are liberal.

In President Obama's home state of Illinois, conservatives outnumber liberals, 35% to 23%.

Gallup's results were derived from interviewing 160,236 American adults between Jan. 2, 2009 and June 30, 2009.

Even though conservatives outnumber liberals in all 50 states, in 21 of these states self-identified moderates outnumber conservatives, and in 4 states the percentage saying they are conservative and the percentage saying they are moderate is exactly the same.

The two states with the highest percentage of self-identified moderates are Hawaii and Rhode Island, where 43% say they are moderate.

For a ranking of all 50 states by the advantage that self-identified conservatives have over self-identified liberals see the Gallup analysis here.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 04:43 PM

President Obama made clear Monday that he favors the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, and intends to ask Congress to repeal the 13-year-old law that denies benefits to domestic partners of federal employees and allows states to reject same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Obama has long opposed the law, which he has called discriminatory. But his Justice Department has angered the gay community, which favored Obama by a wide margin in last year's election, by defending the law in court. The administration has said it is standard practice for the Justice Department to do so, even for laws that it does not agree with.

The Justice Department did so again Monday in its response in Smelt v. United States, a case before a U.S. District Court in California. But, for the first time, the filing itself made clear that the administration "does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal."

Obama and his senior advisers have made that statement before, but never in a court brief. In addition, Obama issued a statement noting that, although his administration is again defending DOMA in court, "this brief makes clear...that my administration believes the act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress."

"While we work with Congress to repeal DOMA, my administration will continue to examine and implement measures that will help extend rights and benefits to LGBT couples under existing law," Obama said in the statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 04:44 PM

"Conservatives Now Outnumber Liberals in All 50 States, Says Gallup Poll"

No wonder! You live in a country, BB, where the word "liberal" carries a connotation sort of like "child molester" or "rapist" or "vampire". What would you expect? ;-D

In Canada we have a major political party called "the Liberals" and they've won more past elections than any other party!!!!!!!!! That should tell you something about the difference. "Liberal" is not a bad word in Canada. Neither is conservative. We have a major party called the Conservatives too.

The USA is like the Land of Oz, and I don't mean Australia. It's in a mad reality bubble all its own, and you have to see it from outside the USA to realize just how mad it is.

****

However, you might find this post I made on another thread interesting:

What if you can't vote the system out, because the major political parties are all controlled by the same great financial interests?

I have seen numerous angry attempts by an aroused public in both Canada and the USA to "vote the system out". I have not seen one of those attempts actually succeed.

All I've seen is a change of actors on the stage...a shuffling of masked avengers...heros and villains...rather like replacing one pair of wrestlers at the WWF with another after the bell rings to end the last match.

It's a "work" (wrestling term). It's a staged performance to mesmerize the public and make them think they have genuine representation. It's not a truly representative process at all, it's just a big PR show to divide and conquer at election time, bought and paid for by the people you will never get to cast a vote for or against. You don't even know who they are or where they live or what they are doing.

That's how the $ySStem is designed. From the very top down. Like a pyramid. And it works every time. The public cannot identify the oppressor at the top, because the oppressor has no known face. All they can do is blame it all on Bush...or Reagan...or Clinton...or Obama. That's equivalent to blaming the entire corrupt wrestling game on Hulk Hogan or The Undertaker or Jake the Snake Roberts.

But people are fooled by that kind of thing, because the face of a "bad guy" or the face of a "good guy" is something they can relate to on a visceral level. They can understand it. Bush was presented as a "good guy" to rescue the country in 2000. The
controllers and the public were all finished with him by 2008. Obama was then presented as a "good guy" to rescue the country in 2008. Wait and see what happens to Obama in the next 4 to 8 years. Obama is not the man in control. No president is the man in control. They are figureheads. If one tries to actually take control (as John Kennedy tried to), then guess what happens to him? You either serve as a compliant figurehead or you are disposed of (one way or another)...and whoever you are, you're just temporary. But the $ySStem, like a corporation, is NOT temporary. It goes on and on, theoretically it is immortal just like a corporation. It can only die eventually by its own stupidity and madness or at the hand of a mightier external system, but not by your vote. Your vote cannot bring it down.

The only American politicians I've seen who resolutely opposed what the $ySStem is doing in the last election were Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Accordingly, they had no chance of being the guy selected to run for president by their respective parties. They were small enough fish that the $ySStem could laugh at them in its media, marginalize them, and not worry too much about them. If they'd been big enough fish to actually threaten the status quo...well, then more extreme methods would have been found to silence them. As it was, that was not necessary. The main candidates, groomed and chosen by the $ySStem, were the only ones that really counted. That was Hillary and Obama, and maybe Edwards. McCain was set up to take the fall, in my opinion, but he'd have made a fine $ySStem man anyway...only it was time to kick the new "bad guys" (Republicans) out and bring the new "good guys" (Democrats) in. Next time it may be exactly the other way around, but it won't change anything except who gets to wear which mask.

Will Obama get 4 years? Or will he get 8? We'll have to wait and see how that goes. After him? There'll be another "face" chosen as a mask to put in front of the $ySStem's faceless power.

The selection of Obama was brilliant, by the way. I've never seen a more effective selection of a presidential candidate in order to dramatically shift attitudes around the world toward the USA in a more positive direction...and God knows, it sure was time to do something about THAT! Bush's last 8 years of military folly had made the USA the most feared and detested country on Earth.

What will Obama do with all that political capital? What will his Masters let him do? I wonder?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 05:05 PM

LH,

And I have disagreed with you in what way?

I voted for McCain as the lesser of two evils- at least he would not have had a congress that allowed anything he wanted. A pity many here have never read about "King Log and King Stork"

How much to bail out GM for 6 months, when they cannot fund NASA 50 billion over the next 12 years to go back to the moon? Or the amount needed to find thos NEO ( Eear Earth Objects) that might hit us, BEFORE it is too late?How many jobs would that produce? The bailouts $787,000,000,000.00 +) have provided jobs for who, beside bankers and such- what tangible assets has it given us?

It looks to me like the only way to regain full employment and economic growth is a full-fledged conventional war- so that lets out Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and any of their allies.

Are you SURE you feel comfortable up there in Canada??? Small population, lots of resources, and not much of a language problem-

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 05:43 PM

I'm not suggesting you've disagreed with me. ;-)

Do we feel comfortable up here in Canada? Well, no, matter of fact we feel pretty nervous being situated right next to the hungry animal that is corporate America. We've felt nervous ever since 1812, I think. But what can you do? Our politicians are in your corporations' pocket anyway, financially speaking, so as a Canadian citizen one just hopes for the best in a vulnerable situation.

Interesting point you make about McCain not having such a compliant Congress. Very interesting. But the controllers would get what they want from either McCain or Obama, I think. The trouble is, with Obama as the friendly face they may be able to fool people a lot easier than with John McCain.

I find it utterly extraordinary that 700 billion dollars (and maybe a lot more than that) was given to the very people who have created the present financial catastrophe...the banks...so they can be more powerful than ever and be rewarded for committing economic terrorism. Sounds to me like they planned it that way, frankly. By creating a financial freefall and getting a bailout you can buy up a lot of people's assets dirt cheap and get richer than ever on the sufferings of the general public. What a deal. Like having your own private money tree. The big fish gobble up the little fish.

Have you done some reading about the Federal Reserve Bank, how it came into being in the early 20th century, and what sort of entity it really is?

Dennis Kucinich wants the Federal Reserve Bank (which is in fact a privately owned corporation) to be put under control of the US Treasury Dept. Nationalized. Sounds like a damn good idea to me. He also wants an end to the fractional reserve system that our banks use so they can loan out at least 10 times more money than they really have on deposit and draw interest on billions of dollars that they created out of thin air with the stroke of a computer key. Ending that would be another damn good idea. He's whistling in the wind, of course, because Congress will never have the guts to do that.

Ever read about Ron Paul's ideas on tax reform? More good ideas...but not a chance in hell that they'll ever happen. The moneylenders aren't just in the temple (government)...they OWN it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 02:21 PM

Obama's discussion in Colorado on health care included the following points:

"First of all, what we’re proposing is a common-sense set of consumer protections for people with health insurance, people with private insurance. I expect that after reform passes, the vast majority of Americans are still going to be getting their insurance from private insurers. So we’ve got to have some protections in place for people like Nathan, people like you.

So insurance companies will no longer be able to place an arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive or charge outrageous out-of-pocket expenses on top of your premiums. That’s what happened to Nathan and his wife. Their son was diagnosed with hemophilia when he was born. The insurance company then raised the premiums for his family and for all his coworkers who were on the same policy. The family was approaching their cap.

And so on top of worrying about taking care of their son, they had the added worry of trying to find insurance that would cover him â€" plus thousands and thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs. Nathan and his wife even considered getting a divorce so that she might possibly go on Medicaid.

Now thankfully, Colorado’s law doesn’t allow coverage for small businesses to permanently exclude preexisting conditions like his son’s, so eventually they found insurance. But they’re paying increasing premiums and they still have to face the prospect of hitting their new cap in the next few years.

Those are the stories I hear all over the country. I heard from a teenager in Indiana diagnosed with leukemia. The chemotherapy and intensive care he received cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. His family hit their lifetime cap in less than a year. They had insurance. So the insurance wouldn’t cover a bone marrow transplant and the family couldn’t afford all the money that was needed. The family turned to the public for help, but the boy died before he could receive that transplant.

If you think that can’t happen to you or your family, think again. Almost 90 percent of individual health insurance policies have lifetime benefit limits. And about a third of family plans in the individual insurance market have lifetime limits under $3 million. If you or your spouse or your child gets sick and you hit that limit, it’s suddenly like you have no insurance at all.

And this is part of a larger story, of folks with insurance, paying more and more out of pocket. In the past few years, premiums have nearly doubled for the average American family. Total out-of-pocket costs have increased by almost 50 percent â€" that’s more than $2,000 per person. And nobody is holding these insurance companies accountable for these practices. And by the way, your employer is paying even more, and you may not even see the costs of it except for the fact that’s why you’re not getting a raise â€" (applause) â€" because it’s going into your health care instead of your salary and income.

So we’re going to ban arbitrary caps on benefits. We’ll place limits on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses. No one in America should go broke because they get sick. (Applause.)

Now, insurance companies will also be stopped from cancelling your coverage because you get sick or denying coverage because of your medical history. (Applause.) Again, if you think this has nothing to do with you, think again. A recent report found that in the past few years, more than 12 million Americans were discriminated against by insurance companies because of a preexisting condition. When we get health insurance reform, those days will be over. And we will require insurance companies to cover routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies. That saves money; it saves lives. (Applause.)

At the same time â€" I just want to be completely clear about this; I keep on saying this but somehow folks aren’t listening â€" if you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan. Nobody is going to force you to leave your health care plan. If you like your doctor, you keep seeing your doctor. I don’t want government bureaucrats meddling in your health care. But the point is, I don’t want insurance company bureaucrats meddling in your health care either. (Applause.)

So just to recap here, if you’re one of nearly 46 million people who don’t have health insurance, you will finally have quality, affordable options. If you do have health insurance, we will help make that insurance more affordable and more secure. Under the reform proposals that we’ve put out there, roughly 700,000 middle-class Coloradans will get a health care tax credit. More than a million Coloradans will have access to a new marketplace where you can easily compare health insurance options; 87,000 small businesses in Colorado will be aided by new tax benefits, so when they’re doing the right thing for their employees, they’re not penalized for it. (Applause.) And we will do all of this without adding to our deficit over the next decade, largely by cutting waste and ending sweetheart deals for insurance companies that don’t make anybody any healthier. (Applause.)

Now here â€" if you don’t â€" I know there’s some skepticism: Well, how are you going to save money in the health care system? You’re doing it here in Grand Junction. (Applause.) You know â€" you know that lowering costs is possible if you put in place smarter incentives; if you think about how to treat people, not just illnesses; if you look at problems facing not just one hospital or physician, but the many system-wide problems that are shared. That’s what the medical community in this city did, and now you’re getting better results while wasting less money. And I know that your senator, Michael Bennet, has been working hard on legislation that’s based on putting the innovations that are here in Grand Junction into practice across the system, and there’s no reason why we can’t do that. (Applause.)

So the fact is, we are closer to achieving reform than we’ve ever been. We have the American Nurses Association, we have the American Medical Association on board, because America’s doctors and nurses know how badly we need reform. (Applause.) We have â€" we have broad agreement in Congress on about 80 percent of what we’re trying to achieve. We have an agreement from drug companies to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors â€" $80 billion that can cut the doughnut hole that seniors have to deal with on prescription drug plans in half. (Applause.) The AARP supports this policy, and agrees with us that reform must happen this year.

But look, because we’re getting close, the fight is getting fierce. And the history is clear: Every time we’re in sight of reform, the special interests start fighting back with everything they’ve got. They use their influence. They run their ads. And let’s face it, they get people scared. And understandably â€" I understand why people are nervous. Health care is a big deal. In fact, whenever America has set about solving our toughest problems, there have always been those who’ve sought to preserve the status quo by scaring the American people.

That’s what happened when FDR tried to pass Social Security â€" they said that was socialist. They did â€" verbatim. That’s what they said. They said that everybody was going to have to wear dog tags and that this was a plot for the government to keep track of everybody. When JFK and then Lyndon Johnson tried to pass Medicare, they said this was a government takeover of health care; they were going to get between you and your doctor â€" the same argument that’s being made today.

These struggles have always boiled down to a contest between hope and fear. It was true when Social Security was born. It was true when Medicare was created. It’s true in today’s debate.   ..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 02:47 PM

Amos,

You forgot to mention that Social Security was implemented with the promise that the number ( SSI) would NEVER be used for identification...

So much for government promises.

Just think how much more efficient the healthcare would be if there were implanted chips with a person's medical information on it. After all, we can trust this (and all future) government(s) not to place political information on it, or use it to identify where people are, or any kind of monitoring of people.


And I have this bridge in NYC to sell you for a real bargain price...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 03:08 PM

Obama Assasination Cartoon Beck's Brigade

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 06:17 PM

"In speeches to college graduation classes, Bob distilled the essence of his years-long ruminations on America for young people just starting out in life:

"Always love your country — but never trust your government!

"That should not be misunderstood. I certainly am not advocating civil disobedience, must less insurrection or rebellion. What I am advocating is to not expect too much from government and be wary of it power, even the power of a democratic government in a free country.

"Ours is one of the mildest, most benevolent governments in the world. But it too has the power to take your wealth and forfeit your life. ... A government that can give you everything can take everything away."

Robert Novak

http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/1721876,robert-novak-sun-times-081809.article

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 07:30 PM

So much for government promises.

Yeah, Bruce, we all know you're the illegitimate son of Ronald Reagan & the president of the "I Hate FDR" club.

Move on, already, or piss off.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 07:33 PM

Oh, the humanity.....



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 07:40 PM

Greg F.

I invite you to discus the topic, and cease the attacks on those who disagree with you. You only show that you have no basis in fact for your arguements.



As full of shit as you are, you obviously don't excrete any waste whatsover.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 08:24 PM

Bruce:

Seems to me that sometimes, in the battle between hope and fear, you leap lightly over the fence to fight on the side of fear.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 08:28 PM

When you apply those critical skills to the obvious flaws ( lack of payment et al) of the Obama administration that you so eagerly used on Bush, I might not need to keep pointing out that there is a BIG difference between INTENT and RESULT.

ANY power that you give the Obama administration will be used by ALL future ones, including the next Reagan or Bush.

Think about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 10:29 PM

This coming from YOU, Bruce? With YOUR posting history?

You only show that you have no basis in fact for your arguements.

I don't know whether to laugh or puke!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 10:32 PM

Puke- let some of that shit out!

You have more than enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 12:39 PM

Former Obama supporter Warren Buffett:

We're Going to Be Crushed Under Mountain of Debt

Posted Aug 19, 2009 11:51am EDT by Henry Blodget in Investing, Media, Newsmakers, Recession, Banking
Related: tbt, tlt, udn, uup, brk-a, brk-b, spy

A highly influential American has finally hit the panic button about the tremendous mountain of debt the country is piling up.

Last year, Warren Buffett says, we were justified in using any means necessary to stave off another Great Depression. Now that the economy is beginning to recover, however, we need to curtail our out-of-control spending, or we'll destroy the value of the dollar and many Americans' life savings.

Some not-so-fun facts from Buffett's editorial today in the New York Times:

    * Congress is now spending 185% of what it takes in
    * Our deficit is a post WWII record of 13% of GDP
    * Our debt is growing by 1% a month
    * We are borrowing $1.8 trillion a year

$1.8 trillion is a lot of money. Even if the Chinese lend us $400 billion a year and Americans save a remarkable $500 billion and lend it to the government, we'll still need another $900 billion.

So, where's it going to come from? Most likely the printing press. And, ultimately, Buffett says, that will destroy the value of the dollar.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 12:54 PM

I share Buffett's concern, and hope, for starters, that the cost-reductions inherent in the Obama health-care reform plan are rapidly implemented, instead of producing more wing-nut caterwauling and falsification of reality. Secondly, I would appreciate seeing a sharp streamlining and targeted efficiency-improvement of our defense budget such that we end up doing what we actually need to do, not doing what we do not need to do, and paying only for what we intend to get. The amount of fat layered into even a small defense contract of any purpose these days is astonishing.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 12:57 PM

Well, off the top, two places it could come from:

1. Return taxes to the levels and schedules they were at in the Eisenhower Administration - before the give-away to the Rich engendered by Reagan & his voodoo economics succesors.

2. Stop the assinine military occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.

That should about cover it.

Repaying the debt Bush & the BuShites racked up may take a bit longer. Let the Republicans come up with a way out of that one- they're responsible for it, after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 01:14 PM

And do read the WHOLE op-ed piece, folks.

Here's a few quotes from Buffett that Sawz apparently missed:

"Here, the United States is spewing a potentially damaging substance into our economy — greenback emissions.
To be sure, we've been doing this for a reason I resoundingly applaud... A meltdown, though, was avoided, with a gusher of federal money playing an essential role in the rescue. The United States economy is now out of the emergency room and appears to be on a slow path to recovery."

"With government expenditures now running 185 percent of receipts, truly major changes in both taxes [emphasis mine]and outlays will be required."

"I want to emphasize that there is nothing evil or destructive in an increase in debt that is proportional to an increase in income or assets. As the resources of individuals, corporations and countries grow, each can handle more debt. The United States remains by far the most prosperous country on earth, and its debt-carrying capacity will grow in the future just as it has in the past."

And, for the record, the title of Buffett' piece is "The Greenback Effect", not "We're Gonna Be Crushed...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 02:02 PM

Obama promise:


"Make no mistake: We need to end an era in Washington where accountability has been absent, oversight has been overlooked, your tax dollars have been turned over to wealthy CEOs and the well-connected corporations," Obama said at an Oct. 1 campaign stop in Wisconsin. "You need leadership you can trust to work for you, not for the special interests who have had their thumb on the scale. And together, we will tell Washington, and their lobbyists, that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign. You have. They will not run my White House. You'll help me run my White House."

Reality as per the New York Times:

"Not to worry, Jim Messina, the deputy White House chief of staff, told the hospital lobbyists, according to White House officials and lobbyists briefed on the call. The White House was standing behind the deal, Mr. Messina told them, capping the industry’s costs at a maximum of $155 billion over 10 years in exchange for its political support."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 02:06 PM

Well, Greg, you see, in the battle between hope and fear, Sawz is definitely on the Fear side; so he likes to alter things to make them look as skeery as he can, which considering the source is less than he would like.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 02:51 PM

So what was altered? Have you got something factual say?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 03:23 PM

Well, the title was dramatically altered to make it sound scary, for one thing. That is a fact, no?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 03:29 PM

In the battle between clinging to faith and facing unpleasant and hard new realities, Amos is still clinging to faith. But for how long?

The USA has been Tony-Blaired by Barack Obama and the Democratic Party bosses and their owners. Whoever planned it did it brilliantly, I must say. It was even more brilliantly done than in Tony Blair's case. Those planners are damn good at what they do. It's no wonder they run the country...and most of the world. I wonder what's next on their agenda?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 03:32 PM

In the battle between paranoid delusions of conspiracy and ordinary complexity, Little Hawk clings brave to the side of delusion. But, I wonder, for how long?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 07:11 PM

It will be cold comfort when I get the last laugh on this one, Amos. I wish you were right about it, but I doubt that you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 10:35 PM

First the unions get their payoff, now...




"Firms with Obama ties profit from health push
         

Sharon Theimer, Associated Press Writer – Wed Aug 19, 6:08 pm ET

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's push for a national health care overhaul is providing a financial windfall in the election offseason to Democratic consulting firms that are closely connected to the president and two top advisers.

Coalitions of interest groups running at least $24 million in pro-overhaul ads hired GMMB, which worked for Obama's 2008 campaign and whose partners include a top Obama campaign strategist. They also hired AKPD Message and Media, which was founded by David Axelrod, a top adviser to Obama's campaign and now to the White House. AKPD did work for Obama's campaign, and Axelrod's son Michael and Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe work there.

The firms were hired by Americans for Stable Quality Care and its predecessor, Healthy Economy Now. Each was formed by a coalition of interests with big stakes in health care policy, including the drug maker lobby PhRMA, the American Medical Association, the Service Employees International Union and Families USA, which calls itself "The Voice for Health Care Consumers."

Their ads press for changes in health care policy. Healthy Economy Now made one of the same arguments that Obama does: that health care costs are delaying the country's economic recovery and that changes are needed if the economy is to rebound.

There is no evidence that Axelrod directly profited from the group's ads. Axelrod took steps to separate himself from AKPD when he joined Obama's White House. AKPD owes him $2 million from his stock sale and will make preset payments over four years, starting with $350,000 on Dec. 31, according to Axelrod's personal financial disclosure report.

A larger issue is a network of relationships and overlapping interests that resembles some seen in past administrations and could prove a problem as Obama tries to win the public over on health care and fulfill his promise to change the way Washington works, said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a government watchdog group.

"Even if these are obvious bedfellows and kind of standard PR maneuvers, it still stands to undercut Obama's credibility," Krumholz said. "The potential takeaway from the public is 'friends in cahoots to engineer a grass roots result.'"

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said that Axelrod has had no communications with Healthy Economy Now or with Americans for Stable Quality Care, and his payments aren't affected by the ad contracts. Axelrod's son, a salaried AKPD employee, doesn't work with either coalition "or stand to benefit from that work," LaBolt said.

"David Axelrod has fully complied with the toughest-ever ethics rules for administration officials, including divesting from AKPD before the administration began," LaBolt said.

Ken Johnson, a PhRMA senior vice president, said GMMB and AKPD were the only two firms working on the $24 million in ads. He declined to reveal how much each was paid beyond saying that each received a small percentage of the total. The coalition's campaign team decided to hire the two firms, he said.

"In a perfect world, it's a distraction we don't need right now, but these are very gifted consultants who have done very good work," Johnson said. "And it's also important to remember that at the end of the day, the coalition partners determine the message."

Healthy Economy Now spokesman Jeremy Van Ess said the two firms were hired because "they are the best at what they do. Period." The coalition didn't seek approval or direction on any of its activities from the White House, said Van Ess, a partner in a consulting firm that has worked on Democratic Senate election activities and a former speechwriter for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

AKPD and GMMB both proudly proclaim their connections to Obama on their Web sites.

AKPD has a full page on Axelrod that includes pictures of Obama. In one photo, Obama hugs Plouffe on election night.

"We are deeply honored to have been part of Barack Obama's historic campaign to change America and the world," GMMB says on its Web site. GMMB's partners include Jim Margolis, a senior strategist for Obama's presidential campaign.

Both GMMB and AKPD also have worked for Democrats this year. The Democratic National Committee paid AKPD at least $106,000 for polling, media production, communication consulting and travel costs from February through April. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee paid GMMB roughly $75,000 from February through June for ads. And GMMB took in at least $9,000 this year from Senate leader Reid's political action committee for communications consulting."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 11:12 PM

This is what Obama gets for begging Republican Senators to help Health Reform... Honesty Integrity and Good Citizenship

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 11:19 PM

< a href=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/73765.html>Who's Behind the Health Reform Protests--an interesting analysis.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Aug 09 - 07:33 AM

$24 mil, BB? Chump change compared to what the Repubs are pouring into their current lies & disinformation campaign.

Gee whiz- they worked for the Obama Campaign before the faxt. And everything's legal and above-board, unlike the shenanigans of Buckshot Cheney & other Bush officials.

Where's the story, BB?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Aug 09 - 09:45 AM

Greg F:

That was the entire article that I read. I did not leave anything out.
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/306287/Buffett-We're-Going-to-Be-Crushed-Under-Mountain-of-Debt?tickers=tbt,tlt,udn,uup,brk-a,brk-b,spy
Amos: I did not alter the title. I am sorry if it scares you. You voice concern about excessive spending but you seek to discredit anyone who agrees.


Obama August 8 2009:

"We're losing jobs at less than half the rate we were when I took office," the president said in the White House Rose Garden, taking comfort in a report showing that "only" 247,000 jobs were lost in July, the smallest monthly drop since last August. And in an unexpected reversal, the unemployment rate dropped to 9.4 percent from 9.5 percent the previous month.

Reality:

AP 9/20/09 WASHINGTON – The number of first-time claims for unemployment benefits rose unexpectedly for the second straight week, a sign that jobs remain scarce even as other data show the economy is stabilizing.

The Labor Department said Thursday the number of new jobless claims rose to a seasonally adjusted 576,000 last week, from a revised figure of 561,000. Wall Street economists expected a drop to 550,000, according to a survey by Thomson Reuters.

Economists closely watch initial claims, which are considered a gauge of layoffs and an indication of companies' willingness to hire new workers.

The figures are volatile, and had been trending down, after remaining above 600,000 for most of this year. The new report indicates that the labor market is still weak. In a healthy economy, initial claims are usually around 325,000 or below.

The four-week average of initial claims, which smooths out fluctuations, rose for the second straight week to 570,000. [half of 600,000?]

The number of people remaining on the benefit rolls dropped by 2,000 to 6.24 million. Analysts had expected a slight decline. The continuing claims figures lag initial claims by a week.

When federal emergency programs are included, the total number of jobless benefit recipients was 9.18 million in the week that ended Aug. 1, the most recent data available. That was down from 9.25 million in the previous week. Congress has added up to 53 extra weeks of benefits on top of the 26 typically provided by the states.

The large number of people remaining on the rolls is an indication that unemployed workers are having a hard time finding new jobs.

Still, layoffs have slowed recently. The department said earlier this month that companies cut 247,000 jobs in July, a large amount but still the smallest number in almost a year.

The unemployment rate dipped to 9.4 percent in July from 9.5 percent, its first drop in 15 months. But many private economists and the Federal Reserve think the rates could top 10 percent by next year.

The recession, which began in December 2007 and is the longest since World War II, has eliminated a net total of 6.7 million jobs.

More job cuts were announced this week. Bethesda, Md.-based defense contractor Lockheed Martin Corp. said it will eliminate about 800 jobs in its space systems division, and San Francisco-based video and audio conferencing company Polycom Inc. said it will cut 3 percent of its 2,600 person work force.

Among the states, Tennessee had the largest increase in claims with 2,525 for the week ended Aug. 8, which it attributed to more layoffs in the transportation equipment, industrial machinery, and rubber and plastics industries. The next largest increases were in North Carolina, Wisconsin, Georgia and Washington.

California reported the largest drop in claims of 5,635, which it attributed to fewer layoffs in the construction, trade and service industries. Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Delaware had the next largest decreases.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Aug 09 - 11:02 AM

Speaking of Mountains of Debt and the people who benefit from it at OUR collective expense...read this story about Goldman Sachs:

Rolling Stone article on Goldman Sachs

A brief quote from the article:

"Any attempt to construct a narrative around all the former Goldmanites in influential positions quickly becomes an absurd and pointless exercise, like trying to make a list of everything. What you need to know is the big picture: If America is circling the drain, Goldman Sachs has found a way to be that drain — an extremely unfortunate loophole in the system of Western democratic capitalism, which never foresaw that in a society governed passively by free markets and free elections, organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy.

They achieve this using the same playbook over and over again. The formula is relatively simple: Goldman positions itself in the middle of a speculative bubble, selling investments they know are crap. Then they hoover up vast sums from the middle and lower floors of society with the aid of a crippled and corrupt state that allows it to rewrite the rules in exchange for the relative pennies the bank throws at political patronage. Finally, when it all goes bust, leaving millions of ordinary citizens broke and starving, they begin the entire process over again, riding in to rescue us all by lending us back our own money at interest, selling themselves as men above greed, just a bunch of really smart guys keeping the wheels greased. They've been pulling this same stunt over and over since the 1920s — and now they're preparing to do it again, creating what may be the biggest and most audacious bubble yet."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Aug 09 - 12:55 PM

Greg F.

I realize you have little to do with the truth, but Cheney removed himslf far more from his previous company than these cronies of Obama- and THAT was not enough to keep away allegations from the Left.

It seems to me that many of the complaints here about actions of the Right are similar to the complaints that were made about actions of the Left during Bush's administrations. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, I guess I an entitled to repeat what I was told back then, when I commented it was unfairly applied:

SUCK IT UP, AND LIVE WITH IT!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Aug 09 - 06:47 PM

BB: again, you're certainly entitled to your own opinion, but you aren't entitled to your own facts.

Live with THAT.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Aug 09 - 06:50 PM

Sawz: that's the problem with blogs & other tertiary sources; can never tell if they've got it right.

Original Buffett op-ed piece was in the NY Times.

Check it out.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 03:07 PM

"The biggest problem for President Obama in today's ABC News/Washington Post poll is this: only 49 percent of Americans are confident that he'll "make the right decisions for the country's future" -- down from 60 percent in April.

Voters still like Obama. His overall job approval is steady at 57 percent. But they're screaming "listen to us" and "slow down." And they're worried he's getting in over his head.

Blaming the GOP for blocking health care will make Democrats feel better. But it may turn off Independents who are already abandoning Obama (17 point drops in handling health care and overall job approval)."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/08/obama-needs-confidence-boost.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 03:36 PM

"Obama Snares Palin, Media in Wide Blame-Game Net

Commentary by Caroline Baum


Aug. 19 (Bloomberg) -- When the political winds shift -- when a party is voted out of power or a policy is panned by the public -- Washington turns to its favorite pastime: the blame game.

And so it is with President Barack Obama, who tripped on his sprint to the health-care-reform finish line. Voters, it seems, want to understand a little more about what ObamaCare will mean for them, what it will do to the doctor-patient relationship, and what it will cost future generations in higher taxes and, yes, rationed supply.

Rather than examine the public's concerns, the plans' inconsistencies or the sheer irresponsibility of trying to ram something this big and complicated through Congress without a small-scale trial, the Obama administration is pointing fingers. Lots of them. Most of the targets are just plain silly.

1. Conservative groups

When liberal activists, including trade unions, Acorn and MoveOn.org, protested against anything and everything President George W. Bush said or did, it was called grassroots democracy.

When conservative groups encourage supporters to attend town hall meetings and make their sentiments known to their congressmen, it's un-American, disruptive and the work of right- wing extremists.

Madame Hypocrite

Where was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, when President George W. Bush was being compared to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis? She was a "fan of disrupters" in those days, as she told anti-war protesters at a January 2006 town hall meeting in San Francisco. Pelosi only developed a thin skin (too much plastic surgery?) when the Democrats took control of the executive and legislative branches of government.

The effort to blame right-wing groups is transparent. If my feedback on a recent column is indicative of the political persuasion and demographic distribution of the protesters, these are ordinary Americans energized by the debate, frustrated at not having a voice and motivated to exercise their right of free speech. Attempts to smear opponents and shut down debate are, well, un-American.

2. Insurance Companies

Garnering support for health-insurance reform by demonizing insurance companies is a cheap shot, albeit one that resonates with the public. After all, these are the faceless bureaucrats who deny or pay claims in a seemingly arbitrary manner and refuse or cancel coverage if you cost them too much money.

Stubborn Facts

Facts are stubborn things, this White House is quick to remind us. And in this case, the facts don't support the vilification.

If insurance companies were gouging the public, the evidence would show up in one of two places, according to Graef Crystal, a compensation expert in Santa Rosa, California, and occasional Bloomberg News columnist: excessive executive pay or excessive returns to shareholders.

His analysis of five major health insurers shows just the opposite: below-market pay and below-market shareholder returns.

"There's no case here for undue enrichment of shareholders" or over-compensating CEOs, Crystal finds.

Health care needs a major overhaul, but that's no reason to make scapegoats out of insurance companies.

3. The Media

I couldn't believe my ears when I heard Obama point the finger at the media at his town hall meeting last week in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

Fishing Expedition

The president, defending the White House's fishing expedition for "fishy" e-mails on health-insurance reform (suspended this week by popular demand), blamed the media for "distorting what's taken place."

Is this the same media that was in the pocket for candidate Obama and waltzed us through the honeymoon? If Bush had been as reliant on his teleprompter as Obama, or said "Cinco de Cuatro" when he meant "Cuatro de Mayo," the press would have been all over him for being inept.

Sorry, Mr. President, you have no idea what it means for the media to distort what's taken place. The long-gone Bush administration is getting more negative press than you are.

4. Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin, the recently retired governor of Alaska, 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate and Democrat's favorite whipping boy (or girl), created a stir with a reference to death panels on Facebook. Palin said she didn't want her parents or Down-Syndrome baby to "have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide" what kind of medical care should be allocated to these less productive members of society.

Blame the Democrats

This is the same Sarah Palin whose foreign policy experience was summed up during the campaign by her ability "to see Russia from land here in Alaska." This is the same Sarah Palin credited with changing the terms of the debate? C'mon. That's too laughable to address.

Besides, there's a kernel of truth in what she said. Like all goods and services, medical care is a scarce resource that must be rationed. The only question is how: by the market (price) or by government mandate.

If government is doing the rationing, what exactly will bureaucrats use to determine who gets what care and who doesn't?

Opposition to fast-track health-insurance reform is coming from Obama's own party. Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota and one of six Finance Committee members involved in bipartisan negotiations, said on Fox News Sunday that the goal is to "get this right," not meet some "specific timetable."

He said the Senate lacks enough votes to pass a bill with a public option. "To continue to chase that rabbit, I think, is just a wasted effort."

There's always room for one more -- the Democrats -- on Obama's blame-game list. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 05:26 PM

God, what reeking hypocrisy and disingenuousness.

The shit-stirring behind the insurance-led screamdown that made such a flap was incited panic based on extreme falsification. She calls it "inviting people to express their views". THis is just sheer dishonesty.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 06:50 PM

"By doing so much, so fast, Obama never sufficiently educated the public on the logic behind his policies. He spent little time explaining the biggest bailouts in U.S. history, which he inherited but supported and expanded. And then he lost crucial support on the left by not following up quickly with new and stricter rules for Wall Street. On Friday, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman echoed a concern widely shared among leading liberals. "I don't know if administration officials realize just how much damage they've done themselves with their kid-gloves treatment of the financial industry, just how badly the spectacle of government supported institutions paying giant bonuses is playing."


By doing so much so fast, Obama jammed the circuits on Capitol Hill. Congress has a hard time doing even one big thing well at a time. Congress is good at passing giveaways and tax cuts, but has not enacted a transformative piece of social legislation since President Bill Clinton's welfare reform of 1996. "There's a reason things up here were built to go slowly," said another Democratic aide.


By doing so doing so much, so fast, he has left voters — especially independents — worried that he got an overblown sense of his mandates and is doing, well, too much too fast. A Washington Post-ABC News poll published Friday found that independents' confidence in Obama's ability to make the right decisions had dropped 20 points since the Inauguration, from 61 percent to 41 percent. "


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26341.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 06:59 PM

Amos,

It seems like you have forgotten your comments. If you will not hold Obama to the same standards that you held Bush, you are admitting that Bush did nothing wrong except to mangel the English Language- THAT I think you can show supporting FACTS for.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 07:10 PM

Dear Bruce:

My comment on the disingenous rot being presented by Caroline Baum stands; her remarks are shallow, hypocritical and disingenuous. The idea of equating an industry-incited panic with a grass -roots protest is simply mendacious.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 07:22 PM

The idea that the protests against Bush were not coordinated on a political level by the Left is far more ridiculous, yet you seem to imply that at the time.

Just admit that the Right is now using the same tactics that the Left did against Bush, and stop complaining about tactics that you were happy with when they were in support of something you approved of.

They were LOUSY tactics when the Left used them ( as I have said) and IMO they are lousy tactics when the Right uses them- but in BOTH cases, the right to freedom of speech overrides (our) protests.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 07:51 PM

Sorry, only the last entry was supposed to be pasted:

Another day, another Obama lie on ObamaCare:

"On a conference call with progressive religious leaders late Wednesday afternoon, President Barack Obama aggressively challenged his Republican critics' "misinformation" blitz, arguing the claim by many social conservative groups that his health care proposal would subsidize and mandate reproductive care is a blatant fabrication, and insisted they were "bearing false witness."

"You've heard this is all going to mean government funding of abortion," the President said. "Not true."

But as with many of Obama's statements regarding his health care proposal, his seemingly forthright claim is simply 'not true.' Before a crowd of Planned Parenthood executives and contributors in 2007, then-Senator Obama explicitly pledged to not yield on "the fundamental issue" of abortion, adding that "reproductive care is basic care, it is essential care."

The right to an abortion, Obama said, "is at the center and at the heart of the plan that I proposed."

"Essentially, what we are doing is to say that we're gonna set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don't have health insurance. It will be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services," Obama said to applause" "


Can a clone remove the previous ( of my ) messages?

*-{E

---

When a poster is prolific, how is a moderator supposed to know which message to delete? Please specify date, time, and thread name.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 09:19 PM

AP , WASHINGTON
Thursday, Aug 20, 2009, Page 7

US President Barack Obama, right, meets with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington on Tuesday.
PHOTO: EPA
US President Barack Obama won lavish praise on Tuesday from his guest, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, and spoke of an "extraordinary opportunity" for making peace in the Middle East.

Obama said he was encouraged by US efforts to restart talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

Seated next to Mubarak, who was making his first visit to the US capital in five years, Obama thanked the Egyptian for joining him in trying to construct a deal that has eluded world leaders for more than six decades.

Returning the compliment, Mubarak asserted that Obama's speech to the world's Muslims, delivered in Cairo in June, had convinced Arabs that the US truly was an honest broker.

The 81-year-old Egyptian leader, who was estranged from the former Bush administration, said Obama had "removed all doubts about the United States and the Muslim world."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 09:22 PM

ASHINGTON (JTA) -- Two Jewish religious streams praised President Obama's efforts to achieve universal health care.

Statements this week from the Reform movement's Central Conference of American Rabbis and Agudath Israel of America, an Orthodox umbrella group, praised the president for pressing toward universal coverage.


The Reform rabbis' statement lambasted the distortions of some opponents of the plan.

"We deplore the spreading of calumnies by those who would falsely claim that proposed reforms would set up 'death panels' or would mandate government-funded abortions," the statement said. "The CCAR has long supported both reproductive liberty and early, proactive end-of-life decision making. We are pleased that proposed legislation would provide incentives to physicians engaged in critical conversations with their patients. We would oppose further restrictions to abortion care access in any health care reform package."

Aguda's letter to President Obama said efforts to "make health care more accessible to the uninsured and underinsured should be applauded."

It made the case for ensuring the continuance of the physician-patient statement under any system that emerges.

Bureaucrats, the letter said, may not recognize the priorities of patients as acutely as doctors: "What of the anguish of infertile husbands and wives? Will treatment be withheld if the 'cost-benefit' ratio is too high?"

The Aguda letter also urged taking into account patients' different religious outlooks.

"Jewish tradition places great emphasis on the preservation of human life, which retains its sanctity even under the most dire of medical circumstances," the letter said. "As such, Jewish law may require medical interventions that others might not regard as 'quality enhancing' or 'cost effective.'"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 11:32 PM

Bruce:

As a vociferous participant in the protest against Bush, as you yourself have witnessed, I can offer testimony that I was not coordinated, bought, persuaded or directed by anyone on the left in my protest against his heinous disregard for the Constitution or for the traditions of American dignity and intelligence in public, to name a few.

So, I am sorry to say that there is a world of differnce. It is true that some lefterly centers like MoveON picked up on the growing anger and discontent he fomented; but there were huge protests against, for example, the Iraq war and the bullying of the election before MoveOn even came into existence.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Aug 09 - 01:40 AM

Actually, the money doesn't have to be printed at all. It just has to be created instantly on an electronic balance sheet by the stroke of a computer key. Presto! It appears out of thin air and is suddenly in the deposits at some bank when that bank makes a loan (to the government or anyone else).

Don't be so foolish as to imagine that all this phony money gets printed! It doesn't. The amount of actual printed paper money and coins in circulation at any given time is a very small percentage of the total money that is supposedly out there...probably as little as 5% of it.

The rest exists merely on bank statements and electronic records and balance sheets at banks and other institutions. Is it real? Yes and no. It isn't real in itself at all, it's a total fiction and a fraud...but it has real effects on the whole society because it creates DEBT, and that debt generates interest charges.

You should read up on how the banks create new money all the time through fractional reserve lending and charging interest to the borrowers. The government doesn't create that money, the banks create it...out of thin air. They create it by making loans, billions in loans, and getting those loans deposited straight back into the banking system, and charging interest on them on top of that! It's an ever-expanding pyramid scheme that generates debt for society and profits for the banks.

The government simply mints and prints enough bills and coins that ordinary people are enabled to handle daily transactions and have some money in their pocket to do that, but the hard cash put out by the mint is a mere fraction of the whole false money bubble.

What you are quite right about, though, is that the banks have committed the greatest robbery in history...they've robbed the public, and put the government irredeemably in debt, and the government is just their helpless servant in that exercise. It's the banks who are in control of the situation.

Go to Google and look up this article: Inside The Great American Bubble Machine

Inside the Great American Bubble Machine

If you take the time to read it, you'll see just what I'm talking about.

Most of that money will NEVER be printed. It doesn't need to be in order to generate the debt. It just needs to sit on a computer somewhere, that's all. It's an idea, not an actual bunch of printed bills.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Aug 09 - 02:43 AM

Example of what has happened in the last 44 years to our money:

A subway ride in Toronto cost 10 cents in the mid-60s. It now costs $2.75 in 2009. But a subway ride is really worth exactly what it was in 1960 in real terms, so what has happened to the money? The money "supply" has inflated by 27 and a half times in 44 years! Thus a dollar is now worth 1/27 of what it was in 1965.

Now, do you really think the government did that? Did the government put 27 1/2 times more bills and coins into circulation in the present than back it did back in 1965. Hell no. They didn't do anything of the sort. It was the banks, the lending institutions who increased the "money supply" by 27 1/2 times over that period through their endless pyramid scheme which works by creating vast amounts of new money through banks loans, and generating interest charges on it. That is a constantly expanding bubble of imaginary money...made real by being writteon on balance sheets and recorded on ledgers...but NOT made real by printing the requisite amount of legal tender. Good God no. Nothing of the sort.

This 700 billion $ bailout the banks got? Where do you think it came from? Did the government mint the money? Hell no. The banks created it as a loan to the government. The government borrowed the money from the banks and then gave it back to the banks as a "bailout" and will have to pay the banks INTEREST on it too! The so-called Federal Reserve Bank is a privately owned corporation that acts in its own interests. It is not a government institution any more than Federal Express is. Look that up too and check it out.

It is the (biggest) banks who call the tune, and the government dances. As for the smaller banks, they fail...as was intended...and the bigger banks then gobble them up at a bargain price, and the whole system gets consolidated in fewer and fewer hands.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Peace
Date: 22 Aug 09 - 02:47 AM

Little Hawk, we were saying just that a few years back. I think we were ridiculed with shit like "wearing your aluminium hat today?" Anyone asked you about your hat so far?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Aug 09 - 12:02 PM

GOWWBDIS, are you any relation to the similarly-strident and superior guest known as GfS? Maybe her sister or sompn?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Aug 09 - 12:31 PM

You are quite correct, my deleted friend, the Obama administration is doing much the same as the Bush administration and all the previous administrations have done. It's cooperating fully with the great banks and the other huge financial interests that run this society for their own gain and it's doing exactly what benefits those interests. That's because the government is already so deep in hock to those financial interests with past debt that there seems to be no way out but to continue playing ball in the usual way. Besides, the politicians are mostly individually bought through incessant financial lobbying in any case. It's been happening that way for a long time. Matter of fact, it started way back in Woodrow Wilson's term of office.

The illusory division between Democrats and Republicans...or the Right and the Left...is a smokescreen that hides the real agenda. It's a very handy smokescreen for the controllers, because it keeps the public fighting with each other instead of abandoning those 2 political parties and taking up arms together against their real oppressors who are the great financiers...not the figurehead politicians who do their bidding. How can the public fight a faceless enemy? They don't even recognize it. They're rather fight over individuals like Obama and McCain...because those are public faces they can recognize, and that is where the public just gets lost in a huge media-spun illusion.

I fully agree that the many good and hope-filled people who voted for Obama have been had. The people who pinned their hopes on McCain/Palin have also been had...on the other side of the "divide and conquer" coin. I profoundly wish that it wasn't so.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Aug 09 - 11:28 AM

"This week the journalist Ronald Kessler's new behind-the-scenes account of presidential security, "In the President's Secret Service," rose to No. 3 on The Times nonfiction best-seller list. No wonder there's a lot of interest in the subject. We have no reason to believe that these hugely dedicated agents will fail us this time, even as threats against Obama, according to Kessler, are up 400 percent from those against his White House predecessor.

But as we learned in Oklahoma City 14 years ago — or at the well-protected Holocaust museum just over two months ago — this kind of irrational radicalism has a myriad of targets. And it is impervious to reason. Much as Coburn fought an antiterrorism bill after the carnage of Oklahoma City, so three men from Bagdad, Ariz., drove 2,500 miles in 1964 to testify against a bill tightening federal controls on firearms after the Kennedy assassination. As the historian Richard Hofstadter wrote in his own famous Kennedy-era essay, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics," these Arizona gun enthusiasts were convinced that the American government was being taken over by a "subversive power." Sound familiar?

Even now the radicals are taking a nonviolent toll on the Obama presidency. Obama complains, not without reason, that the news media, led by cable television, exaggerate the ruckus at health care events. But why does he exaggerate the legitimacy and clout of opposition members of Congress who, whether through silence or outright endorsement, are surrendering to the nuts? Even Charles Grassley, the supposedly adult Iowa Republican who is the Senate point man for his party on health care, has now capitulated to the armed fringe by publicly parroting their "pull the plug on grandma" fear-mongering.

For all the talk of Obama's declining poll numbers this summer, he towers over his opponents. In last week's Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll, only 21 percent approve of how Republicans in Congress are handling health care reform (as opposed to the president's 41 percent). Should Obama fail to deliver serious reform because his administration treats the pharmaceutical and insurance industries as deferentially as it has the banks, that would be shameful. Should he fail because he in any way catered to a decimated opposition party that has sunk and shrunk to its craziest common denominator, that would be ludicrous.

The G.O.P., whose ranks have now dwindled largely to whites in Dixie and the less-populated West, is not even a paper tiger — it's a paper muskrat. James Carville is correct when he says that if Republicans actually carried out their filibuster threats on health care, it would be a political bonanza for the Democrats.

In last year's campaign debates, Obama liked to cite his unlikely Senate friendship with Tom Coburn, of all people, as proof that he could work with his adversaries. If the president insists that enemies like this are his friends — and that the nuts they represent can be placated by reason — he will waste his opportunity to effect real change and have no one to blame but himself...."

from The Guns of August

   
By FRANK RICH
NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Aug 09 - 11:35 AM

The basic program is to drive up fear, hatred, and division between different groups of people in the society through extreme rhetoric. So Fox agitates the most doctrinaire Christians and hardline conservatives with those sort of scare stories. At the same time, the more liberal media outlets agitate their constituency with other types of scare stories from the opposite angle. The 2 sets of stories work in tandem to great effect. Both sides drive up the fear and outrage factor in the population. Christians get scared of gays and atheists. Gays get scared of Christians. Atheists get scared. Conservatives get scared. Liberals get scared. People on this forum get scared.

They all think to themselves...."if only it weren't for those bastards (the other section of the population that they're scared of)...this would be a decent country!"

That keeps the public disorganized and it consumes their energy in fruitlessly fighting with each other. It provokes a few violent incidents here and there which helps to further drive up the fear factor. This provides apparent justification for increasing police powers and reducing civil rights and surveillance in order to "protect" people. It results in the world's largest per capita prison population.

The screws on society tighten.

The people actually running the show benefit from all that and increase their control.

If the shit REALLY hits the fan someday, they will declare martial law. And at that point the game is up. They will have won totally, they will have established their fascist New Order, and the public will have lost the game by wasting all its energy fighting amongst itself and against itself instead of challenging its real masters and controllers.

This is not a fight between the "Right" and the "Left". It's just made to look that way in order to keep ordinary people divided against themselves. It's a fight between a few incredibly rich "haves" (who own both the conservative and the liberal major media outlets) and 150 million "have-nots".

Amos and BB...you two are playing out that drama against each other daily right here on this thread. You're both members of the 150 million "have-nots" and you're wasting your energy on fighting with each other over the phony left/right divide. The people at the top would be quite pleased at seeing you do that. It helps their cause.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Aug 09 - 12:20 PM

LH:

You are dreaming a wide but shallow dream, in which you are using a small fragment of our natures to inspire cartoon characters. But you are not tracking with reality. As it happens both Bruce and myself are employed technical professionals working in steady jobs (last I checked) and earning adequate livings. We are not have-nots by any ordinary sense of the word. Furthermore your continuous erection of aa high-level conspiracy of rich capitalists steering the world to their own ends is jejeune and, I would say, naive. THe real world is far more complex than that.

My caterwauling with Bruce does not detract from my affection for him.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Aug 09 - 12:38 PM

I am not suggesting that you are have-nots by any ordinary sense of the word, Amos. You have to consider the context in what I say. I'm suggesting that you are not multi-billionaires. If you were, you'd be dealing with a whole different deck of cards.

There's a point some people get to in life where no matter how much they have, it's never enough. They get caught up in the game...and the game is only about one thing: winning. You win by getting more. The more you get, the bigger the "win".

Therein lies the problem.

And, yes, I know that you get along fine with each other. I get along fine with DougR too...despite the fact that we disagree on almost everything when it comes to politics. ;-) I get along with him well because I respect him as a human being, and he knows that. I'm sure you and BB also respect each other as human beings, and that's all that's really needed to get along with other people (most of the time).

The real world is complex...yes. But society is run, ultimately, by one thing: money. He who can control the most money calls the shots. This is true in any marketplace, and in any world power structure. The most money buys whatever it wants to, hires as much firepower as it wants to, invades whom it wants to, passes what laws it wants to, controls what media outlets it wants to, runs which banks it wants to, and there's not a thing that you or I can do to stop that.

Specially if we don't even know who is giving the orders or where he lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Aug 09 - 01:47 PM

George SOros,who aspires to philosophy as well as to financial trading, makes the point that it is impossible to get a clear analysis of a system within which one is a participant. He extends the discussion much firther but he raises a good point, I think--we are all shooting in the dark, extrapolating against our best efforts to imagine probabilities, through an unknwon series of filters, emotional biases. and so on.

Given this through-a-glass-darkly syndrome as an inherent part of the human condition I would argue that it makes little sense for us to get very heated up about our partial analyses; it makes sense to educate oneself as best one can and try to do better and support those who are seriously trying to do the same. Obama is such a person. I have no idea how successful he will turn out to be, given the rivers of human emotional fire through which he has to wade. But I am pretty sure he is not signing in with a conspiratorial power clique at the top of the world. Billionaires are human beings, just like centenaires.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Aug 09 - 04:17 PM

Good post, Amos. I agree that "we are all shooting in the dark, extrapolating against our best efforts to imagine probabilities, through an unknown series of filters, emotional biases. and so on."

Indeed. That is the human condition, and it always has been. We all attempt to be ojective, we sincerely try to ascertain the truth, but we can't help but do so through our own set of filters and emotional biases. It's when people refuse to admit to their own fallibility in that sense that they get really unreasonable. I'm readily willing to admit to my fallibility in that sense...and I think you are too.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 06:09 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The $787 billion stimulus package passed in February will fuel a recovery in the moribund U.S. economy this year, Congress' non-partisan budget watchdog said on Tuesday.

"Economic activity will begin to rebound in the second half of 2009, largely the result of fiscal stimulus," the Congressional Budget Office said in its assessment of the federal budget and U.S. economy.

The stimulus has become a political hot potato amid record budget deficits and public concern over federal spending.

Congressional Republicans, who voted overwhelmingly against the stimulus package, have portrayed it as a pork-laden boondoogle that has done little to counter the effects of the worst economic downturn since World War Two.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said the stimulus money should be diverted to reduce the budget deficit, which the White House and the CBO estimate will reach a record $1.6 trillion for this fiscal year that ends on September 30.

Democrats, with an eye on next year's midterm congressional elections, have been eager to highlight the effects of the stimulus money as it makes its way to the public.

"The Recovery Act, even while it added to the short-term deficit, staved off catastrophe and is bringing this recession to an end," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said after the CBO released its report.

The government had paid out about $80.9 billion in stimulus funds as of August 14, according to the White House.

The stimulus act's impact on the economy will grow through the end of the year and peak in the first half of 2010, the CBO said, though estimates are difficult because there is no way to know for sure how the economy would have performed without it.

The stimulus will boost gross domestic product between 1.4 percent and 3.8 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009 and between 1.1 percent and 3.4 percent in the fourth quarter of 2010, the budget experts said. By the end of 2013 its effect will be minimal.
...

Reuters

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 11:55 AM

A brief and very clear exposition of Obama's health-care reform requirements is available by clicking on the link <==.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 12:43 PM

Washington Post:

Why Obamacare Is Failing

By Michael Gerson
Wednesday, August 26, 2009

At first it seemed plausible that President Obama had a communications problem on health care -- to which the solution was always more and more Obama. But exposure did not translate into persuasion.

Then it seemed useful to diagnose a partisan problem, blaming a small minority of congressional obstructionists and town hall crazies for frustrating the will of the majority -- until polls showed a majority opposing Democratic approaches to health reform. More Americans (according to a recent Post/ABC News poll) now think that health quality, costs and their own insurance coverage will get worse under Obamacare than believe these things will improve.

In fact, Obama has a reality problem on health care, and it has begun to threaten his standing as a leader. He staked the success of his early presidency -- perhaps of his entire presidency -- on a health reform plan both vague and divisive, which manages to anger deficit hawks as well as liberals who believe that compromise has already gone too far. Obamacare has been the political version of the neutron bomb, vaporizing supporters while leaving every structural obstacle in place.

The political damage is already considerable. Obama has seen one of the largest drops in approval for a new president in modern times. Confidence among political independents that Obama has the ability to make the right decisions has fallen by 20 percentage points since his inauguration.

Why is comprehensive health reform so difficult? Some structural challenges have complicated this issue since the days of Harry Truman. Because there are vastly more people inside the current health-care system than outside of it, the majority tends to be risk-averse and suspicious of efforts that might benefit the minority at their expense. And millions of Americans associated with the health industry -- not just a few insurance company fat cats -- have a financial interest in the outcome of the health reform debate. They naturally try to calculate what changes would mean to them, and uncertainty encourages conservatism.

Obama thought -- not without reason -- that his political moment might be different. His electoral mandate was broad. An atmosphere of economic crisis, he calculated, might leave Americans open to Rooseveltian social innovation.

It was a miscalculation. Americans were neither as desperate nor as malleable as they were during the New Deal. Obama's massive spending, intended to stabilize the economy, also drained the Treasury, making it more difficult to propose major new expenditures. Deficit estimates of $9 trillion over 10 years have raised the prospect, according to Warren Buffett, of an American "banana republic" -- endlessly printing money, weakened by inflation and abandoned by foreign bond investors.

At the same time, public trust in government remains "close to all-time lows," William Galston of the Brookings Institution said in an interview. "Even when President Obama's popularity was at an all-time high, in March and April, trust in government barely moved off the lows of the fall. Obama's personal popularity did not translate into a belief in the efficacy and integrity of government."

Add to this the fact that one of the main sources of revenue to fund Obamacare is reductions in Medicare. Many seniors are naturally concerned that proposed cost constraints in this program might eventually mean service constraints. And it doesn't help that cuts in Medicare would be used to fund someone else's entitlement, instead of strengthening Medicare itself.

Democratic partisans still insist that imposing reform by a "go-it-alone" strategy is possible and necessary. The political cost, the argument goes, has already been paid. Why not reap the political benefit by pleasing the base? Didn't we see, in 1993 and 1994, the cost of coming up empty on health reform? It can't happen again.

This might make sense if the main obstacle were Republican resistance to a popular bill. But it isn't. Democrats are fighting against a swift current of fiscal responsibility, widespread skepticism about government and resentment against using Medicare as the smashed piggy bank for reform.

A party-line, Democratic transformation of American health care in this environment -- in the midst of decisively losing a public argument -- would smack of power-hungry radicalism, more the liberalism of Robespierre than Jefferson.

Obama's choices on health care during the next few weeks will determine much about the nature and trajectory of his presidency. Eventually it comes down to a question: Will Obama make necessary strategic adjustments before his political humiliation -- or after it?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 03:43 PM

HAVANA (Reuters) - President Barack Obama is trying to make positive changes in the United States, but is being fought at every turn by right-wingers who hate him because he is black, former Cuban leader Fidel Castro said on Tuesday.

In an unusually conciliatory column in the state-run media, Castro said Obama had inherited many problems from his predecessor, George W. Bush, and was trying to resolve them. But the "powerful extreme right won't be happy with anything that diminishes their prerogatives in the slightest way."

Obama does not want to change the U.S. political and economic system, but "in spite of that, the extreme right hates him for being African-American and fights what the president does to improve the deteriorated image of that country," Castro wrote.

"I don't have the slightest doubt that the racist right will do everything possible to wear him down, blocking his program to get him out of the game one way or another, at the least political cost," he said.

Castro, who writes regular commentaries for Cuba's state-run media, has criticized Obama, complimented him occasionally and said that he is watching him closely to see if he means what he says about changing U.S. policy toward Cuba.

His latest column comes during a visit to Cuba by New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson that has stirred speculation that he may try to push U.S.-Cuba relations forward.

Richardson has been a diplomatic trouble-shooter in nations with which the United States has poor relations. In 1996 he negotiated with Castro for the release of three Cuban political prisoners.

Obama has said he wants to end 50 years of hostilities between the United States and Cuba and has eased the long-standing U.S. trade embargo against the communist-led island.

But he has said the embargo will be lifted only if Cuba shows progress on political prisoners and human rights. Cuban President Raul Castro has said he is happy to discuss these issues but will make no unilateral concessions....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 04:54 PM

UPDATE 5-White House, CBO debt forecasts challenge Obama
Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:06pm EDT

* White House sees 10-year deficit at $9 trillion

* Grim news for Obama's healthcare push

* Slow recovery to hurt tax revenues as spending soars (Adds detail, reaction)

By Alister Bull and Andy Sullivan

WASHINGTON, Aug 25 (Reuters) - The U.S. national debt will nearly double over the next 10 years, government forecasts showed on Tuesday, challenging President Barack Obama's economic and healthcare overhaul agenda.

The White House midsession budget forecast and the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office both forecast that government revenues will be crimped by a slow recovery from the worst recession since the 1930s Great Depression, while spending on retirement and medical benefits soars.

The White House projected a cumulative $9 trillion deficit between 2010 and 2019, while the CBO pegged the total at $7.1 trillion because it assumed higher revenues as tax cuts expire. [ID:nN25198577]

The spending blitz could push the national debt, now more than $11 trillion, to close to $20 trillion. The debt is the total sum the government owes, while the deficit is the yearly gap between revenues and spending.

"If anyone had any doubts that this burden on future generations is unsustainable, they're gone," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, adding that economic stimulus funds should be diverted to pay down U.S. debt.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 06:02 PM

Given the fact that Canada's present universal single payer health care system for ALL of our citizens costs 30% less per capita than present USA governmental health care spending on its citizens costs....AND achieves better results in national health standards than the USA system at LESS cost, I am puzzled as to why the American system does not try to reduce its own medicare costs by adopting a health care system exactly like Canada's! ;-)

Could it be because it would threaten the huge profits of large privately-owned health insurance and pharmaceutical companies? Could it be because the American politicians have been influenced (bought) by those companies?

Hmmm...ummm...gosh! Whaddya think?

Does a bear shit in the woods?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 10:56 PM

LH:

Mostly, yes. Depends on the bear.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 11:05 PM

The Obama campaign worked because money can buy anything in America. The administration is not working because it's hard to figure out what to buy.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Aug 09 - 12:12 AM

A traveler writing in the NEw York Times remarks:

"...and it also helps to be far away from America and the mounting drumbeat of Democratic defeatism on health care reform. Nobody is so ready to embrace martyrdom as my fellow liberals, and here they are, seven months after Mr. Obama took the oath, crying out, "Where did it go, the glory and the dream?" Get a grip. Solid majorities in the House and Senate and yet a few puffs of smoke from the other side and Democrats are full of consternation. If they back out on this young president, and if this Congress cannot pass the public option and meet the basic human needs of our people, what does this say about us?

Here in London, people are amused at the wild paranoid fantasies of the right. I don't care about that, I hold weak-kneed Democrats responsible, and if they get spooked by a few hecklers, then it's time to find replacements.
"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Aug 09 - 01:19 AM

"if this Congress cannot pass the public option and meet the basic human needs of our people, what does this say about us?"

It says that your government is controlled by corporate lobbyists, no matter who gets elected president, and your public is too apathetic or powerless or misinformed to do anything about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Aug 09 - 10:04 PM

>b>Associated Press Writers Eileen Sullivan And Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press Writers   – Wed Aug 26, 2:45 pm ET

WASHINGTON – A sleepy Montana checkpoint along the Canadian border that sees about three travelers a day will get $15 million under President Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan. A government priority list ranked the project as marginal, but two powerful Democratic senators persuaded the administration to make it happen.
- - - -Despite Obama's promises that the stimulus plan would be transparent and free of politics, the government is handing out $720 million for border upgrades under a process that is both secretive and susceptible to political influence. This allowed low-priority projects such as the checkpoint in Whitetail, Mont., to skip ahead of more pressing concerns, according to documents revealed to The Associated Press.
- - - -A House oversight committee has added the checkpoint projects to its investigation into how the stimulus money is being spent. The top Republican on that committee, California's Rep. Darrell Issa, sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Wednesday, questioning why some projects leapfrogged others.
- - - -It wasn't supposed to be that way. In 2004, Congress ordered Homeland Security to create a list, updated annually, of the most important repairs at checkpoints nationwide. But the Obama administration continued a Bush administration practice of considering other, more subjective factors when deciding which projects get money.
- - - -• A border station in Napolitano's home state of Arizona is getting $199 million, five times more than any other border station. The busy Nogales checkpoint has required repairs for years but was not rated among the neediest projects on the master list reviewed by the AP. Napolitano credited her lobbying as Arizona governor for getting the project near the front of the line for funding under the Bush administration. All it needed was money, which the stimulus provided.
- - - -• A checkpoint in Laredo, Texas, which serves more than 55,000 travelers and 4,200 trucks a day, is rated among the government's highest priorities but was passed over for stimulus money.
- - - - The Westhope, N.D., checkpoint, which serves about 73 people a day and is among the lowest-priority projects, is set to get nearly $15 million for renovations. The Whitetail project, which involves building a border station the size and cost of a Hollywood mansion, benefited from two key allies, Montana Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester. Both pressed Napolitano to finance projects in their state. Tester's office boasted of that effort in an April news release, crediting Baucus and his seat at the head of the "powerful Senate Finance Committee."
- - - -Customs officials would not discuss that claim. Asked to explain Whitetail's windfall, they provided a one-page fact sheet that contains no information about Whitetail's needs and is almost identical to the fact sheet for every other Montana project.
- - - -It's hardly a recent phenomenon for politicians to use their influence to steer money to their home states. Yet Obama said the stimulus would be different. He banned "earmarks," which lawmakers routinely slip into bills to pay for pet projects, and he told agencies to "develop transparent, merit-based selection criteria" for spending.
- - - -Customs and Border Protection, the Homeland Security agency overseeing border projects, allowed the AP to review the list but will not make it public or explain its justifications for deviating from it.
- - - -Releasing that information would allow the public to see whether less important projects are getting money. The Transportation Department, for instance, recently was criticized by its internal watchdog for not following its standards when handing out money for 50 airport construction projects. Now the full $1.1 billion airport construction program is under scrutiny.
- - - -Without the lists, the public and members of Congress don't know when the administration bumps a project ahead of others ranked more important.
- - - -Customs officials said they wouldn't release the master list because it was just a starting point and subject to misunderstanding. They acknowledged there's no way for the public to know whether they are cherry-picking projects.
- - - -"There's a certain level of trust here," said Robert Jacksta, a deputy customs commissioner. Some discrepancies between the stimulus plan and the priority list can be attributed to Congress, which set aside separate pools of money for large and small border stations. That guaranteed that a few small, probably lower-rated projects would be chosen ahead of bigger, higher-priority projects. But it doesn't explain all the discrepancies, because even within the two pools, Homeland Security sometimes reached way down on the list when selecting projects.
- - - -Many of the nation's 163 border checkpoints, known as land ports, are more than 40 years old and in need of upgrade and repairs. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, those needs became more pressing and complex as officials beefed up border security. There is far more work to be done than money to complete it.
- - - -To prioritize, officials score each project on traffic volume, security vulnerability, construction needs and other factors. The resulting list represents "an objective and fair method for prioritizing projects," officials wrote in a 2005 summary.
- - - -That's the process the Obama administration described in a news release announcing $720 million in stimulus money for borders. But it didn't say that officials can choose projects out of order for many reasons.
- - - -Trent Frazier, who oversees the border projects, said the list Congress required is more like a meal plan. The administration can decide when to eat each dish, as long as everything eventually gets eaten.
- - - -Explaining why one project might get pushed ahead, Frazier said, "You just really liked pizza and you wanted to accelerate it." In the case of the stimulus, officials said the Nogales, Ariz., project was construction-ready, a requirement of the recovery law. Officials also consider the economy, which means if the government expects local businesses to close and border traffic to decrease, it can delay paying for that project.
- - - -In one instance, officials said they reached deep into the list to provide $39 million for repairs in Van Buren, Maine, because flooding made the facility a safety hazard. In another, they are spending $30 million in Blaine, Wash., a lower-rated project that is unusual because it includes covering the costs of a state road project. With the 2010 Olympics coming to nearby Vancouver, Canada, officials worried the border would be strained without the project.
- - - -Officials said they could similarly justify every decision they've made. They would not provide those justifications to the AP. Frazier said the department would answer questions on a case-by-case basis, working through Congress to explain decisions to the public.
- - - -But even some in Congress say they aren't getting answers. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, said he has yet to hear a good explanation about why highly ranked projects such as Laredo were snubbed. More than $116 billion in freight passed through Laredo last year, according to the Transportation Department. It is one of the busiest border stations in the country. Unemployment in the metropolitan area is 9.4 percent.
- - - -"For the sake of fairness, if you have a list, there's some sort of expectation that you're going to follow that list," Cuellar said. Tester, who said he pressed the Obama administration to get money for Montana projects, said border crossings in his state had been unfairly ignored. "The northern border tends to be forgotten, and it shouldn't be," Tester told the Great Falls Tribune after announcing $77 million for Montana posts in the stimulus. Whitetail, Mont., an unincorporated town with a population of 71, saw only about $63,000 in freight cross its border last year. County unemployment is an enviable 4 percent. "I think, absolutely, it's going to create jobs and build the infrastructure," Tester said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 05:56 AM

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Monday, August 31, 2009

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 30% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -11 (see trends).

Twenty-nine percent (29%) are confident that Congress knows what it's doing when it comes to the economy. If Americans could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, 57% would throw out all the legislators and start over again. Just 25% would vote to keep the Congress.

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 also available on Twitter and Facebook.

Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That's the lowest level of total approval yet measured for Obama. Fifty-three percent (53%) now disapprove. Eighty-one percent (81%) of Democrats approve while 83% of Republicans disapprove. As for those not affiliated with either major party, 66% disapprove. See other recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Sep 09 - 02:05 AM

Uh-huh. So? A poll is a momentary snapshot of the changing (and very fickle) mood of the public. And it keeps changing all the time.

Let's say you are a president, and you're unpopular at the moment. So?   All presidents have faced such moments of unpopularity at some time during their term of office...if not several times.

What should a president do, faced by the absolutely horrifying fact that he is (at the moment) losing popularity?!!! (I'm being humorous.)

Shoud he get stinking drunk?

Or reverse all his decisions in a frantic attempt to be loved again? ;-)

Or start a war? (this usually boosts a president's popularity tremendously in the short run...maybe not in the long run, though, so it's risky.)

Get deeply depressed and jump in front of a bus?

Binge on chocolate and junk food until comatose?

Fight with his cabinet and wife about it?

Or....?

How about this: Just accept the fact that the world is not going to end because your popularity just took a dip this month, and get on with what is, let's face it, not exactly the world's most stress-free job...and remember that the people in the other party are going to hate you no matter what you do anyway. They base their own sense of identity on doing that, so don't expect them to give it up just for you!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Sep 09 - 10:04 PM

It has been nearly a week since Amos sung praises to his dear leader. Could it be the awakening has begun?

Here is an example of his genius:

WASHINGTON: Tens of thousands of unsafe or decaying bridges carrying 100 million drivers a day must wait for repairs because states are spending stimulus money on spans that already are in good shape or on easier projects like repaving roads, an Associated Press analysis shows.

President Barack Obama urged Congress last winter to pass his $787 billion stimulus package so some of the economic recovery money could be used to rebuild what he called America's ''crumbling bridges.'' Lawmakers said it was a historic chance to chip away at the $65 billion backlog of deficient structures, often neglected until a catastrophe like the Minneapolis bridge that collapsed two years ago this Saturday.

States, however, have other plans. Of the 2,476 bridges scheduled to receive stimulus money so far, nearly half have passed inspections with high marks, according to federal data. Those 1,123 sound bridges received such high inspection ratings that they normally would not qualify for federal bridge money, yet they will share in more than $1.2 billion in stimulus money.

http://www.ohio.com/news/nation/52149757.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Sep 09 - 10:26 PM

Hmmm. Not surprising, Sawzaw. How does a chief executive compel hundreds of thousands of different officials in thousands of different places to spend available funds on exactly the right stuff and not the wrong stuff? ;-) How would he do it? Go to each location and take charge personally? Hire a hand-picked staff of 100,000 totally trustworthy people to go all over the country and oversee how each packet of money is spent?

Naww...impossible.

Graft, corruption, favors to old friends, and sheer convenience is what happens to stimulus money in the real world, and a president is in fact pretty much helpless to do anything about that, because he can't personally control every link in the chain.

Emiliano Zapata, after becoming the new president of Mexico, discovered that his sincere efforts to reform the society were impossible to achieve, because the corruption of the entire governmental structure around him utterly confounded every order he gave and every law he passed.

He soon resigned in disgust and went back home to Morelos. He's the only man in the history of Mexico who freely and willingly resigned the presidency at the height of his power because he found that he couldn't achieve anything useful through it, due to almost universal corruption all around him.

If I were Obama, I would also resign in disgust and go home, knowing that there's nothing I can really do in that $ySStem. But he won't. He's much more a part of the established system than Zapata ever was.

They killed Zapata for having the nerve to walk away from ultimate power over issues of principle. Men that honest simply cannot be allowed to live in such a system once they attain a position of real influence.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Sep 09 - 10:29 PM

A lot of folks are vociferously supporting Obama's health reform movement.

As for the States having different plans, I am not clear what your point is, Sawz. Obama -- unlike some recent Presidents -- has no interest in being a dictator.

I'd say he's holding his ground rather well, once you discount all the hate-noise being voiced by small numbers of hate-filled loudmouths like Beck, Limbaugh, and a few similar idiots.

It would be nice if you had some clear statements to make of your own.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Sep 09 - 10:56 PM

LH: He said he cold do it. I am still waiting.

January 8th 2009         

Washington - US president-elect Barack Obama warned Thursday that the recession in the United States could grow "dramatically worse" and last for years unless "bold" policies are enacted to reverse the trend.

Unemployment could rise into double digits and the US economy could lose 1 trillion dollars of its capacity as the country copes with the poorest economic conditions since the Great Depression of the 1930s, Obama said.

"I don't believe it's too late to change course, but it will be if we don't take dramatic action as soon as possible," Obama said in a major speech on the economy at George Mason University, just outside Washington in Fairfax, Virginia.

Obama and his economic advisors are working on a stimulus plan that could reportedly reach up to 1 trillion dollars to pump money into the economy by investing in infrastructure projects, healthcare, education and alternative energy sources. Obama wants the plan ready for congressional action after he takes office January 20.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Sep 09 - 11:08 PM

Amos is the one that spouts the hatred and accuses others of what he does. If he sees a fact he does not like he calls it hate speech.

Here's some facts for you to whine about:

In 1913, thinking it was being overcharged by the steel companies for armor plate for warships, the federal government decided to build its own plant. It estimated that a plant with a 10,000-ton annual capacity could produce armor plate for only 70% of what the steel companies charged.

When the plant was finally finished, however -- three years after World War I had ended -- it was millions over budget and able to produce armor plate only at twice what the steel companies charged. It produced one batch and then shut down, never to reopen.

Or take Medicare. Other than the source of its premiums, Medicare is no different, economically, than a regular health-insurance company. But unlike, say, UnitedHealthcare, it is a bureaucracy-beclotted nightmare, riven with waste and fraud. Last year the Government Accountability Office estimated that no less than one-third of all Medicare disbursements for durable medical equipment, such as wheelchairs and hospital beds, were improper or fraudulent. Medicare was so lax in its oversight that it was approving orthopedic shoes for amputees.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277530070436823.html

So Amos, If Mr Obama can save money on medical insurance, why does he allow medicare to piss away 30%?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 10:51 AM

Sawzaw, they ALL say they can do it while they're campaigning, and some of them may even believe it. Maybe Obama believed it. Hard to say. But then they get to Washington and find themselves neck deep in the political cesspool of corporate graft, influence-peddling, and organized media disinformation, and they soon find out that they can't do it...so they just go through the motions and try to survive as best they can.

You are mistaken in assuming that Obama is the man in control right now or the man to blame for it all. He's the sacrificial lamb that gets to take the blame at the moment, that's all. He's merely representative of the real corporate powers that stand behind him and run the show. He's temporary. The real powers are not temporary, and no one gets to vote either for or against them. They are untouchable, given the present $ySStem and how it works.

It's like you're blaming Hulk Hogan or Jake "The Snake" Roberts or The Undertaker for the corrupt and silly world of professional wrestling. They are not in charge of it! They're just performers, out there so that the public has something to watch and get excited about.,,someone to love and someone to hate.

Obama is not in charge of the $ySStem. He's just the guy who gets to stand on the stage at the moment, get either worshipped or hated by the excited audience, get stuff thrown at him, maybe win the match, maybe lose it....but after the match is over and Obama walks off the stage (or is carried off...), the big WWF will STILL be in charge of the show, and somebody else will come out to replace Obama, and the show will go on.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 01:24 PM

Crosby Stills Nash
"Teach your children well..."

Now its ;Keep your children Home
Don't let them hear
what Obamaaa will say...


about half the kids who are home schooled are schooled with an evangelical POV.

HEY YOU PATRIOTIC PEOPLE who don't want your kids to listen to the President...Let them talk to a Priest behind closed doors or a coach or Mark Foley or Ted Haggard.


Wing nuts have now put Barak Obama in the same catagory as David Letterman.    Don't leave your child alone with them!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 01:25 PM

PS

Amos never spouts

he fact checks.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 01:26 PM

Letterman is in that category??? I didn't know. ;-)

Some people have said scurrilous stuff like that about Chongo too. Don't believe any of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 03:43 PM

Sawz:

I have occasionaly gotten vitriolic about what I think have been outrageous violations of human decency, mostly on thepart of the BUsh administration. Failing to cut back a notional 30% waste factor in Medicare is scarcely in that category, given that Mr. Obama was handed the worst financial crisis in our recent history as his starting portion, again thanks to the malfeasance of his Reaganite predecessors.

But I do not generally hate facts. When I find them credible, I respect them. I do insist, though, that you and others like you do not blow up opinions and disguise them as assertions of fact. Most of what you post, even from the WSJ, is not fact but heated points of view.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 03:53 PM

That was 1100, by the way!!

Here's an example of what I am taLKING ABOUT:

"

Districts throughout the suburbs have been hit with complaints from parents who are worried about their children hearing a message from Obama that they won't have a chance to preview.

Farmington Public Schools is encouraging parents to pull them from class if they are uncomfortable with the speech.

Districts that have addressed the speech on their Web sites include Oxford Community Schools, Rochester Public Schools and Van Dyke Public Schools in Warren.

• DISCUSS: Do you think schools should show this speech?

The districts acknowledge that the message is intended to stress the importance of education and taking responsibility for learning. Some parents say the uproar is much ado about nothing.

"I think it's great that somebody as high up and respected in our country is addressing our kids," said Tom Bejma, father of two South River Elementary School students in Harrison Township.

U.S. Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, a Livonia Republican, and U.S. Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., are asking Obama to release the text of the speech in advance."

ALL WE KNOW ABOUT THIS PROPOSED SPEECH IS THAT IT WILL BE BY OBAMA, and that it will stress the importance of education and taking responsibility for learning. THere is NOP evidence there is anything in the speech, or anything about Obama, which would be counter-productive, demoralizing, confusing, or harmful in any way for kids to hear. So where's the beef?

The answer is, a flurry of artificially induced emotional abreaction is all the substance there is to this stupid flap. It's a granfalloon made of nothing, built of toxic shadows by toxic shadow-mongers,a big whiff of horsepucky. These brainless anthropoids are jumping in to stand in the way of learning and inspiration based on their own mindless inability to think clearly.

Sometimes, Sawz, I get the feeling you are similarly inclined.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 12:13 PM

The NY Times editorializes: "...Mr. Obama fell short when he failed to say how generous the subsidies should be and who should be eligible to receive them. His $900 billion may not be enough to cover nearly all of the uninsured. Congress should increase it.

Equally important, Mr. Obama pledged that his plan would not add to the nation's enormous deficit now or in the future. He said any legislation must include a provision that requires additional spending cuts if reforms don't provide the expected savings.

Mr. Obama was absolutely right when he said that the relentless rise in the cost of Medicare and Medicaid will cripple the nation's economy. But Americans need to hear a lot more from him and from Congress about how they will address that problem. Anyone opposed to reform has to answer that same question.

Mr. Obama made a strong case for creating a new public plan to compete with private plans on the exchanges.

He is right that all Americans will benefit if the insurance companies have more competition, but he stopped short of declaring a public plan a necessity. It may not be, but it is too soon to abandon the idea. He should trade it away only in return for significant political support — and should demand a trigger to resurrect it should private plans fail to provide affordable policies.

The president was right to stress that reform is essential not just for the uninsured but for all Americans — far too many of us are just a layoff or a job switch or a divorce or an illness away from losing coverage. He said his plan would make it unlawful for insurance companies to deny coverage or refuse to renew it based on health status, and would limit how much people can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses such as co-payments.

We believe that Mr. Obama has been far too passive — for the sake of an unrequited bipartisanship — as his opponents have twisted and distorted the health care debate. It was encouraging to hear him reject those distortions — specifically the absurd charge that he was opening the door to "death panels" — as lies.

And he finally laid down a warning: "I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than improve it." He should stick to that commitment.

Having let his opponents frame the debate for far too long, Mr. Obama will need to do more than orate. He needs to twist arms among timid Democrats in Congress to get a strong bill passed, most likely with little support from Republicans..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 04:37 PM

President Obama today accepted the apology of Rep. Joe Wilson who interrupted the president's speech to accuse him of lying about whether illegal immigrants would be covered under proposed changes in healthcare policies.

Wilson, a Republican from South Carolina, jumped into the limelight by shouting "You lie!" at Obama during the president's appearance before a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night. He immediately called the White House to apologize for the breakdown in decorum that angered leaders of his own party and made Obama supporters furious.

In televised comments this morning, Obama said after a Cabinet meeting that he accepted the apology.

"I'm a big believer that we all make mistakes," Obama said. Wilson "apologized quickly and without equivocation. I am appreciative of that.

"I do think that, as I said last night, we have to get to the point where we can have a conversation about big, important issues that matter to the American people without vitriol, without name-calling, without the assumption of the worst of other people's motives," Obama said.

Wilson on Wednesday night called the White House and said he was sorry in a conversation with Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. This morning, Wilson again apologized to Obama and tried to explain why he broke so sharply with protocol that calls for being polite to the president despite political differences.

Republican leaders "wanted me to contact the White House and state that my statements were inappropriate," Wilson told reporters this morning. "I did.

"I'm very grateful that the White House . . . indicated they appreciated the call and we needed to have a civil discussion about the healthcare issues. I certainly agree with that, so I'm happy to discuss the healthcare issues," he said a televised appearance with reporters.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 01:55 PM

"Obama was handed the worst financial crisis in our recent history"

That happened before he took office.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 02:05 PM

That's the point, Sawz; the meltdown he has been wrestling with was not his malfeasance, but that of his predecessors.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 02:27 PM

A million march to US Capitol to protest against 'Obama the socialist'
By David Gardner

Last updated at 6:59 AM on 14th September 2009

As many as one million people flooded into Washington for a massive rally organised by conservatives claiming that President Obama is driving America towards socialism.

The size of the crowd - by far the biggest protest since the president took office in January - shocked the White House.

Demonstrators massed outside Capitol Hill after marching down Pennsylvania Avenue waving placards and chanting 'Enough, enough'.

Tens of thousands of people converged on Capitol Hill on Saturday to protest against government spending
The focus of much of the anger was the president's so-called 'Obamacare' plan to overhaul the U.S. health system.
Demonstrators waved U.S. flags and held signs reading 'Go Green Recycle Congress' and 'I'm Not Your ATM'.'

The protest on Saturday came as Mr Obama took his campaign for health reforms on the road, making his argument to a rally of 15,000 supporters in Minneapolis.

Saying he was determined to push through a bill making health insurance more affordable, Mr Obama said: 'I intend to be president for a while and once this bill passes, I own it.

'I will not waste time with those who think that it's just good politics to kill healthcare.'
But in Washington, protester Richard Brigle, 57, a Vietnam veteran, said: 'It's going to cost too much money we don't have.' Another marcher shouted: 'You want socialism? Go to Russia!'
Terri Hall, 45, of Florida, said she felt compelled to become political for the first time this year because she was upset by government spending.

'Our government has lost sight of the powers they were granted,' she said. She added that the deficit spending was out of control, and said she thought it was putting the country at risk.
Anna Hayes, 58, a nurse from Fairfax County, stood on the Mall in 1981 for Reagan's inauguration. 'The same people were celebrating freedom,' she said. 'The president was fighting for the people then. I remember those years very well and fondly.'
Saying she was worried about 'Obamacare,'Hayes explained: 'This is the first rally I've been to that demonstrates against something, the first in my life. I just couldn't stay home anymore.'
Andrew Moylan, of the National Taxpayers Union, received a roar of approval after he told protesters: 'Hell hath no fury like a taxpayer ignored.'

Republican lawmakers also supported the rally.
'Republicans, Democrats and independents are stepping up and demanding we put our fiscal house in order,' Rep. Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said.

'I think the overriding message after years of borrowing, spending and bailouts is enough is enough.'
FreedomWorks Foundation, a conservative organization led by former House of Representatives Majority Leader Dick Armey, organized several groups from across the country for what they billed as a 'March on Washington.'
Organisers said they had built on momentum from the April 'tea party' demonstrations held nationwide to protest at Mr Obama's taxation policies, along with growing resentment over his economic stimulus packages and bank bailouts.

The heated demonstrations were organized by a Conservative group called the Tea Party Patriots
Other sponsors of the rally include the Heartland Institute, Americans for Tax Reform and the Ayn Rand Center for Individuals Rights.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 08:34 AM

Opinion: So far, Obama's failing miserably
By JEREMY LOTT | 9/15/09 6:49 AM EDT

When he ran for president, George W. Bush promised to be a modest reformer at home and a humble representative of the United States on the world stage. The Al Qaeda-organized-and-funded terrorist attacks of eight years ago changed all that. During his presidency, Bush created massive new government bureaucracies, sent troops into two wars and threatened more as part of America's war on terror.

Barack Obama's initial approach to the office of the presidency has been as grandiose as Bush's was restrained. It's not hard to recall that he ran as a transformative candidate, promising sweeping, though somewhat fuzzy, "change" during the campaign.

For the first several months of his presidency, Obama has labored to deliver on that pledge. He pushed a controversial stimulus bill through Congress to help rev up the economy, turned Bush's reluctant bailout of Chrysler and General Motors into a giant government auto buyout and appointed a record number of "czars" to help regulate bureaucracies in both public and formerly private sectors.

Then, Step 2. Obama is trying to fundamentally alter the American economy by backing sweeping environmental, labor and health care legislation. He wants to change the way Americans consume energy, unionize and see their doctors.

So far, he's failing miserably. Consider the following:

• Cap-and-trade legislation had to limp over the finish line in the House of Representatives with the help of a few moderate Republicans, who then caught holy unshirted hell from their constituents. Environmental legislation generally has taken a drubbing in public opinion polls when people consider how costly it is.

• The Employee Free Choice Act may be stripped of its "card check" provision in the Senate, which would effectively do away with secret ballots for unionization elections. Even in its watered-down form — which still includes highly objectionable, mandatory, binding so-called gunpoint arbitration and makes no concessions to employers who don't want to have to prop up teetering union pensions — it might not pass the Senate. And the leadership of the House has refused to touch it until the other chamber has made up its mind.

• On health care, forget the rage set off by private citizen Sarah Palin tweeting about "death panels." Forget the misleading talk about whether there will be a "public option." (The ever-evolving plan is one giant public option, folks.) Forget the angry voters who crowded into the town halls during the August recess. Forget that a number of Democratic senators and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) are still not willing to sign on to a bill. Right now, even after Obama's address to the joint session of Congress last week, it's possible Democrats don't even have the votes in the House — where they currently enjoy a 77-seat majority.

It's entirely possible — nay, likely — that Obama will lose on all three big issues. He'll probably take that personally. As he has pushed for the passage of his reforms, his public approval ratings have taken a beating, and voters have started to trust the Republicans more than his party on a host of issues.

The question that most political handicappers are considering right now is not "Will Republicans make gains at the midterm elections?" but "How large will those gains be?"

What all this means is, barring some unforeseeable world event, Obama's will probably not be a historic presidency. He will have some successes and a lot of failures. His opposition won't roll over, and his party will refuse to go along with his more costly, and thus risky, schemes. He won't coast to reelection.

So Obama now has the chance to be the sort of president Bush would have been if the World Trade Center towers had not come down. Here's hoping he makes the best of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 08:48 AM

From the WSJ.


Obama Is Pushing Israel Toward War

President Obama can't outsource matters of war and peace to another state.By BRET STEPHENS

Events are fast pushing Israel toward a pre-emptive military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, probably by next spring. That strike could well fail. Or it could succeed at the price of oil at $300 a barrel, a Middle East war, and American servicemen caught in between. So why is the Obama administration doing everything it can to speed the war process along?

At July's G-8 summit in Italy, Iran was given a September deadline to start negotiations over its nuclear programs. Last week, Iran gave its answer: No.

Instead, what Tehran offered was a five-page document that was the diplomatic equivalent of a giant kiss-off. It begins by lamenting the "ungodly ways of thinking prevailing in global relations" and proceeds to offer comprehensive talks on a variety of subjects: democracy, human rights, disarmament, terrorism, "respect for the rights of nations," and other areas where Iran is a paragon. Conspicuously absent from the document is any mention of Iran's nuclear program, now at the so-called breakout point, which both Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his boss Ali Khamenei insist is not up for discussion.

What's an American president to do in the face of this nonstarter of a document? What else, but pretend it isn't a nonstarter. Talks begin Oct. 1.

All this only helps persuade Israel's skittish leadership that when President Obama calls a nuclear-armed Iran "unacceptable," he means it approximately in the same way a parent does when fecklessly reprimanding his misbehaving teenager. That impression is strengthened by Mr. Obama's decision to drop Iran from the agenda when he chairs a meeting of the U.N. Security Council on Sept. 24; by Defense Secretary Robert Gates publicly opposing military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities; and by Russia's announcement that it will not support any further sanctions on Iran.

In sum, the conclusion among Israelis is that the Obama administration won't lift a finger to stop Iran, much less will the "international community." So Israel has pursued a different strategy, in effect seeking to goad the U.S. into stopping, or at least delaying, an Israeli attack by imposing stiff sanctions and perhaps even launching military strikes of its own.

Thus, unlike Israel's air strike against Iraq's reactor in 1981 or Syria's in 2007, both of which were planned in the utmost secrecy, the Israelis have gone out of their way to advertise their fears, purposes and capabilities. They have sent warships through the Suez Canal in broad daylight and conducted widely publicized air-combat exercises at long range. They have also been unusually forthcoming in their briefings with reporters, expressing confidence at every turn that Israel can get the job done.

The problem, however, is that the administration isn't taking the bait, and one has to wonder why. Perhaps it thinks its diplomacy will work, or that it has the luxury of time, or that it can talk the Israelis out of attacking. Alternatively, it might actually want Israel to attack without inviting the perception that it has colluded with it. Or maybe it isn't really paying attention.

But Israel is paying attention. And the longer the U.S. delays playing hardball with Iran, the sooner Israel is likely to strike. A report published today by the Bipartisan Policy Center, and signed by Democrat Chuck Robb, Republican Dan Coats, and retired Gen. Charles Ward, notes that by next year Iran will "be able to produce a weapon's worth of highly enriched uranium . . . in less than two months." No less critical in determining Israel's timetable is the anticipated delivery to Iran of Russian S-300 anti-aircraft batteries: Israel will almost certainly strike before those deliveries are made, no matter whether an Iranian bomb is two months or two years away.

Such a strike may well be in Israel's best interests, though that depends entirely on whether the strike succeeds. It is certainly in America's supreme interest that Iran not acquire a genuine nuclear capability, whether of the actual or break-out variety. That goes also for the Middle East generally, which doesn't need the nuclear arms race an Iranian capability would inevitably provoke.

Then again, it is not in the U.S. interest that Israel be the instrument of Iran's disarmament. For starters, its ability to do so is iffy: Israeli strategists are quietly putting it about that even a successful attack may have to be repeated a few years down the road as Iran reconstitutes its capacity. For another thing, Iran could respond to such a strike not only against Israel itself, but also U.S targets in Iraq and the Persian Gulf.

But most importantly, it is an abdication of a superpower's responsibility to outsource matters of war and peace to another state, however closely allied. President Obama has now ceded the driver's seat on Iran policy to Prime Minister Netanyahu. He would do better to take the wheel again, keeping in mind that Iran is beyond the reach of his eloquence, and keeping in mind, too, that very useful Roman adage, Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 09:07 AM

More from the WSJ...


Health-Care Reform and the Constitution

Why hasn't the Commerce Clause been read to allow interstate insurance sales?

By ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO
Last week, I asked South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, where in the Constitution it authorizes the federal government to regulate the delivery of health care. He replied: "There's nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do." Then he shot back: "How about [you] show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?"

Rep. Clyburn, like many of his colleagues, seems to have conveniently forgotten that the federal government has only specific enumerated powers. He also seems to have overlooked the Ninth and 10th Amendments, which limit Congress's powers only to those granted in the Constitution.

One of those powers—the power "to regulate" interstate commerce—is the favorite hook on which Congress hangs its hat in order to justify the regulation of anything it wants to control.

Unfortunately, a notoriously tendentious New Deal-era Supreme Court decision has given Congress a green light to use the Commerce Clause to regulate noncommercial, and even purely local, private behavior. In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Supreme Court held that a farmer who grew wheat just for the consumption of his own family violated federal agricultural guidelines enacted pursuant to the Commerce Clause. Though the wheat did not move across state lines—indeed, it never left his farm—the Court held that if other similarly situated farmers were permitted to do the same it, might have an aggregate effect on interstate commerce.

James Madison, who argued that to regulate meant to keep regular, would have shuddered at such circular reasoning. Madison's understanding was the commonly held one in 1789, since the principle reason for the Constitutional Convention was to establish a central government that would prevent ruinous state-imposed tariffs that favored in-state businesses. It would do so by assuring that commerce between the states was kept "regular."

The Supreme Court finally came to its senses when it invalidated a congressional ban on illegal guns within 1,000 feet of public schools. In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court ruled that the Commerce Clause may only be used by Congress to regulate human activity that is truly commercial at its core and that has not traditionally been regulated by the states. The movement of illegal guns from one state to another, the Court ruled, was criminal and not commercial at its core, and school safety has historically been a state function.

Applying these principles to President Barack Obama's health-care proposal, it's clear that his plan is unconstitutional at its core. The practice of medicine consists of the delivery of intimate services to the human body. In almost all instances, the delivery of medical services occurs in one place and does not move across interstate lines. One goes to a physician not to engage in commercial activity, as the Framers of the Constitution understood, but to improve one's health. And the practice of medicine, much like public school safety, has been regulated by states for the past century.

The same Congress that wants to tell family farmers what to grow in their backyards has declined "to keep regular" the commercial sale of insurance policies. It has permitted all 50 states to erect the type of barriers that the Commerce Clause was written precisely to tear down. Insurers are barred from selling policies to people in another state.

That's right: Congress refuses to keep commerce regular when the commercial activity is the sale of insurance, but claims it can regulate the removal of a person's appendix because that constitutes interstate commerce.

What we have here is raw abuse of power by the federal government for political purposes. The president and his colleagues want to reward their supporters with "free" health care that the rest of us will end up paying for. Their only restraint on their exercise of Commerce Clause power is whatever they can get away with. They aren't upholding the Constitution—they are evading it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 09:59 AM

from http://www.slate.com/id/2217679/?obref=obinsite


"The WP fronts word that Murtech, a company owned by the nephew of Democratic Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, has received millions of dollars in no-bid contracts for Pentagon work. Murtha is the chairman of the House appropriations defense subcommittee and thus has lots of influence over Pentagon spending, but everyone denies he had anything to do with the money that his nephew's company has received over the years. Still, Murtech received the bulk of its contracts for the Army Space and Missile Defense Command in Huntsville, Ala., "which has been generous to companies in John Murtha's district and enjoys a close relationship with the congressman," reports the paper. Murtha's nephew insists his company is uniquely qualified to take up some of the Pentagon work, but government watchdog groups say that, regardless of his personal connections, the fact that the company managed to receive so many no-bid contracts is troubling."




Let me see... KBR, who got the contracts under Clinton, is guilty, but THIS is ok???

I think I need to reread "Animal Farm", and see who is more equal than the rest of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 12:04 PM

Mindless rancour, BB, is highly uninteresting, not to say distasteful. The fact that the right wing is capable of stirring up mob-reactions in loud, large, red-faced numbers is not news. I am not referring to the individuals, but to their mass produced push-button recitations, a substitute for plain, clear thinking.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 01:20 PM

Sorry, Amos.

Note the sources- far more reputable than the NYT editorials YOU seem to think were evidence against Bush.

Your attacks on the people who present this is more evidence that you have no factual basis in denying their veracity. If you have any reason to think them less than accurate, I await your factual comments.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 02:27 PM

Bruce:

Your correspondent's concern with Constitutional iussues ignores the fact that insurance is intrastate commerce. Furthermore it obscures the precedents (and invalidates them) of Medicare, Social Security, a good deal of the Homeland Security machinery, and a lot of the NAtional Park service. In other words, it is disingenuous in the extreme.

In other news:

"Walking into a raucous ovation, President Obama actually appeared to be touched by the reception he was given at the AFL-CIO convention in Pittsburgh.

"You're making me blush," he said, uttering a series of "thank yous" for the prolonged applause that greeted Mr. Obama at this campaign rally-like event.

"You know, the White House is pretty nice, but there's nothing like being back in a house of labor," he added, to even more applause.

Introducing the president was outgoing AFL-CIO head John Sweeney, who declared that labor is the wind behind the president's back in his fight for health care. He also took a swipe at some of the opponents to health care, calling some their language "Outrageous disrespect for Barack Obama, the presidency itself and the millions of Americans who elected him."

Hmmmm. Seems like some folks know when they are being respected...

Oh--did you notice Bernanke announced he thinks the recession is probably over?


Affectionately,
A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 02:41 PM

Given the payback that the Unions got for their support of Obama, no wonder.

If he gave ME 20% of GM ( instead of trading my GM shares for just the debts of GM) ++ I ++ would greet him with applause!




See you at the Getaway!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 03:14 PM

""I do think that, as I said last night, we have to get to the point where we can have a conversation about big, important issues that matter to the American people without vitriol, without name-calling, without the assumption of the worst of other people's motives," Obama said."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 03:15 PM

A couple of bits jumped out at me from Barack Obama's prepared speech today. First is his explanation of why the Consumer Financial Protection Agency is so necessary:

       Consumers shouldn't have to worry about loan contracts designed to be unintelligible, hidden fees attached to their mortgages, and financial penalties – whether through a credit card or debit card – that appear without warning on their statements. And responsible lenders, including community banks, doing the right thing shouldn't have to worry about ruinous competition from unregulated competitors.

       Now there are those who are suggesting that somehow this will restrict the choices available to consumers. Nothing could be further from the truth. The lack of clear rules in the past meant we had innovation of the wrong kind: the firm that could make its products look best by doing the best job of hiding the real costs won. For example, we had "teaser" rates on credit cards and mortgages that lured people in and then surprised them with big rate increases. By setting ground rules, we'll increase the kind of competition that actually provides people better and greater choices, as companies compete to offer the best product, not the one that's most complex or confusing.

This is very well put. All too often, what the financial-services industry likes to think of as "innovation" is in fact just deliberate predatory obfuscation. (For example: Ben Stein's "free" credit score which ends up costing $30 a month.) If banks put half as much effort into competing on actual product quality as they put into trying constructing thousands of pages of agate type for a single credit card, consumers will undoubtedly benefit.

And then there's Obama's promise that any future bailouts will have to be repaid — if not by the company being bailed out, then by its competitors:

       If taxpayers ever have to step in again to prevent a second Great Depression, the financial industry will have to pay the taxpayer back – every cent.

The financial industry. This is big, and important. Because what it does is it turns the whole industry — every bank, every banker, every hedge fund manager — into a mini-regulator, the eyes and ears of the systemic-risk regulator. All too often, those with eyes to see try to monetize their insights, rather than sounding a more general alarm. But if they ultimately end up paying for the cost of any bailout, they might stop just quietly putting on short positions, and start taking their analysis to the Fed instead. Which, under Obama's plan, will have the ability and authority to put an end to activities which pose major systemic risk.

I'm still pessimistic that any of this is going to actually happen, and I stand by my original criticisms of the plan. But at the margin, at least, Barack Obama is (mostly) fighting on the side of the angels, even if he does feel the need to pay occasional lip service to the benefits of financial innovation." (Seeking Alpha)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 04:01 PM

The rancor of the right only seems over the top since none of it makes sense until you consider that most of it is a thinly veiled racist outcry by those who do the bidding of Limbaugh, Levine and Beck, who in turn do the bidding for corporate America.


Instead of automaticly saying that you are paying for someone else's health care, realize that you are paying for the insurance compamy's 33% cut.
You are paying for the fire dept to put out someone else's fire.
You are paying for corporate welfare and bail outs.
You are paying for bonus's for people who destroyed sahre holder's buisness'

I understand why Europeans feel America's shame for us. From their perspective it is disgracefull to be a powerful nation and not even tend to the health care of its citizens.



Just because a battered woman is used to the abuse does not make abuse right.

ditto for the American health care consumer.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 04:49 PM

That's an Obama sentiment I can agree with whoilly. See you at West River! Glad you're going to make it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 11:20 PM

Flashback:
From: michaelr
Date: 27 Jan 09

We just got lucky with Obama (we hope). But there are powerful forces arrayed against him. The same forces that thwarted Carter's presidency.

These forces will support scumsuckers like Bush and Cheney, because they're theirs, wholly bought and owned. And they will destroy good and decent men because good and decent is the opposite of what they stand for.

America was lucky to have Carter when he was President. Never in recent history has there been a more decent and humane one.

Of course, Washington would not have it. The scumbags prevailed. It could happen again. We must be vigilant.

Mainstream center-left voters always tend to let down their guard after a victory. This is foolish, because the enemy never relaxes. You can be sure they're plotting right now how to bring Obama down just like they did Carter, King, and the Kennedys.

People right now are all sunshine, singing "Obama will save us". Wake up. There is no honeymoon.

The reality:

Thursday, September 17, 2009

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 32% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -8 (see trends). Thirty-five percent (35%) believe the U.S. is generally heading in the right direction and investor confidence today reached the highest level of 2009.

Forty-four percent (44%) now favor the President's health care plan. That's unchanged from before the speech…and from July. Public opinion on the issue appears to be hardening. A Rasmussen video report notes that 53% of those with insurance believe they would be forced to change coverage if the proposed health care reform is approved.

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 also available on Twitter and Facebook.

Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-two percent (52%) now disapprove. Over the past week, the President's ratings bounced to their highest level in two months but have now retreated to earlier levels.

Rasmussen Reports has recently released polling on the upcoming Senate races in North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada, Colorado, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. The Republican advantage on the Generic Congressional Ballot is down to a single point. We are also polling regularly on the 2009 Governor's races in New Jersey and Virginia.

Just 12% of voters nationwide believe most opponents of the President's plan are racists. Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly reject that notion but Democrats are more evenly divided.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 11:19 AM

"Obama also weighed in with a brief, but sharp, point about race, another subject he typically avoids.

Is all the vitriol about his domestic agenda really about race? Letterman asked the first black president.

"It's important to realize that I was actually black before the election," Obama pointed out. "That tells you a lot, I think, about where the country is at.""

It is so refreshing to have a President who has a sense of humour.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 02:31 PM

General Motors Co. will add a third shift to three of its plants, restoring 2,400 jobs in its second move since August to put employees in the U.S. back to work.

GM, along with rivals Chrysler Group LLC and Ford Motor Co. (F), have been attempting to respond to new demand without relapsing into its traditional habit of producing too much product and then relying on incentives to reduce the inventory.

The nation's largest auto maker by sales said last month it would increase North American production by 20% in the fourth quarter and put 1,350 employees back to work. It was GM's first production increase since global auto sales began their sharp decline last year.

On Tuesday, the company said it will add the shifts to its Fairfax, Kan.; Ft. Wayne, Ind.; and Lansing Delta Township, Mich. plants.

The Fairfax plant will become the only builder of the Chevrolet Malibu when the Orion, Mich. plant ends production in November. In 2010, the Orion plant will being retooling to produce small cars to be sold in the U.S. market in 2011. The new shift is expected to begin in January.

In Ft. Wayne, GM said it will add production of heavy-duty pickups from the Pontiac, Mich., plant that closes this month. The Lansing Delta Township facility will add the Chevy Traverse to its production. The new shifts in Ft. Wayne and Lansing are set to begin in April.

The industry's recent optimism has been attributed to the success of the government's "Cash for Clunkers" program. Auto makers posted the best sales month of the year in August, with Ford, Toyota Motor Corp. (TM) and Honda Motor Corp. (HMC) all posting sales growth. GM reported the largest decline of 20%.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 02:58 PM

"What's your take on President Obama thus far?

Weak. Waffling, wavering, ambiguous and overwhelmingly concessionary. "

Ralph Nader

from this interview

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 06:52 PM

The Cost of a Presidential Cave-In

By George F. Will
Wednesday, September 23, 2009

While in Pittsburgh, a sense of seemliness should prevent President Obama from again exhorting the Group of 20, as he did April 2 in London, to be strong in resisting domestic pressures for protectionism. This month, invertebrate as he invariably is when organized labor barks, he imposed a 35 percent tariff on imports of tires that China makes for the low-price end of the market. This antic nonsense matters not only because of trade disruptions it may cause but also because it is evidence of his willowy weakness under pressure from his political patrons.

In 2000, as a price of China's admission to the World Trade Organization, Congress enacted a provision for "relief from market disruption" to American industries from surges of Chinese imports. Actually, American consumers cause "disruption" in American markets when their preferences change in response to progress -- better products and bargains. Never mind. Congress said disruption exists whenever imports of a product "like or directly competitive with" a U.S. product increase "rapidly" and threaten "significant" injury to a U.S. industry. Examples of disruption include the volume of imports of a particular product, the effect of imports on the prices of competing U.S. goods and the effect on the U.S. industry.

Notice that China need not be guilty of wrongdoing: It can be punished even if it is not "dumping" -- not selling goods below the cost of manufacturing and distributing them. (That we consider it wrongdoing for a nation to sell us things we want at very low prices is a superstition to be marveled at another day.) And China need not be punished: Presidential action is entirely discretionary. So Barack Obama was using the sort of slippery language that increasingly defines his loquacity when he said he was simply "enforcing" a trade agreement.

None of the 10 manufacturers that comprise the domestic tire industry sought this protectionism. Seven of the 10 also make tires in other countries. Most U.S. manufacturers have stopped making low-end tires, preferring the higher profit from more expensive models. (Four U.S. companies make low-end tires in China.)

The president smote China because a single union, the United Steelworkers, asked him to. It represents rubber workers, but only those responsible for 47 percent of U.S. tiremaking. The president's action will not create more than a negligible number of jobs, if any. It will not restore a significant number, if any, of the almost 5,200 jobs that were lost in the tire industry from 2004 to 2008. Rather, the president will create jobs in other nations (e.g., Mexico, Indonesia) that make low-end tires. They make them partly because some U.S. firms have outsourced the manufacturing of such tires to low-wage countries so the U.S. firms can make a small profit, while making high-end and higher-profit tires here in high-wage America.

The 215 percent increase in tire imports from China is largely the fault, so to speak, of lower-income Americans, many of whom will respond to the presidential increase in the cost of low-end tires by driving longer on their worn tires. How many injuries and deaths will this cause? How many jobs will it cost in tire replacement businesses or among longshoremen who handle imports? We will find out. The costs of the president's sacrifice of the national interest to the economic illiteracy of a single labor union may also include injuries China might inflict by imposing retaliatory protectionism or reducing its purchases of U.S. government debt, purchases that enable Americans to consume more government services than they are willing to pay for.

Obama was silent when Congress, pleasing the Teamsters union, violated the North American Free Trade Agreement by stopping Mexican trucks from delivering goods north of the border. And although he is almost never silent about anything, he did not significantly resist "Buy American" provisions in the stimulus legislation. And he has not denounced the idea many Democratic climate tinkerers have of imposing "border adjustment mechanisms" -- tariffs -- on imports from countries that choose not to burden their manufacturers, as the Obama administration proposes burdening American manufacturers, with restrictions on carbon emissions. And he allows unratified trade agreements with Colombia, South Korea and Panama to languish. Nevertheless, he says he favors free trade.

He must -- or so he thinks -- say so much about so many things; perhaps he cannot keep track of the multiplying contradictions in his endless utterances. But they -- and the tire tariffs -- are related to the sagging support for his health-care program.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 07:12 PM

""What's your take on President Obama thus far?"

I'm not sure. It could be one or another of the following:

1. Willing and compliant servant of the real corporate powers behind the throne, faithfully obeying the agenda they have set out for him while pretending to be a progressive force in American politics.

2. Genuinely progressive idealist who has found himself trapped in a totally corrupt power structure utterly beyond his ability to control...and if so, he's in great personal danger unless he decides to do what they tell him to.

3. Cool pragmatist and brilliant speechmaker who will steer his way conservatively through the shoals of the ruling power elite, do what they require of him because he really has no choice, and make progressive-sounding noises to keep people hoping something different is going to happen.

4. Closet admirer of authoritarianism who is planning to sell out the nation to fascist zombies and install William Shatner as Emperor for Life after imprisoning all those who refuse to watch old Star Trek reruns and archival footage of Hitler's Nuremberg rallies....

Now guess which one of the above is a joke, and take it from there...

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Sep 09 - 02:05 PM

Talking Transparency Isn't the Same as Seeing It Through

By Dana Milbank
Thursday, September 24, 2009

Somewhere, in a secure, undisclosed location, John Ashcroft is chuckling.

President Obama campaigned on a promise to restore transparency to government. But now the time has come to renew the USA Patriot Act, the bete noire of civil libertarians. When the Obama administration's point man on the legislation came to Capitol Hill on Wednesday, he sounded very much like his predecessors in the Bush administration.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, asked Assistant Attorney General David Kris whether the administration would support congressional oversight as part of the Patriot Act. "We don't have a position on anything particularly yet," Kris answered.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairman of the Intelligence Committee, asked whether the Democrats' proposed changes to the Patriot Act would impede current investigations. "We're not going to discuss classified matters here, and also there is this Justice Department policy about commenting on ongoing investigations," the official commented.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) pointed out that of the several hundred "sneak and peek" search warrants issued under the Patriot Act, only three were for terrorism cases and most were for drugs. "I guess it's not surprising to me that it applies in drug cases," Kris replied.

Feingold was surprised by the witness's lack of surprise. "As I recall, it was in something called the USA Patriot Act," he said scornfully, "which was passed in a rush after an attack on 9/11 that had to do with terrorism."

The performance must have been disheartening for Democrats, because Kris was supposed to be one of the good guys. Once a Clinton and Bush Justice Department official, he scolded his former Bush colleagues in 2006 for their "weak justification" of the warrantless wiretapping program.

But if disappointing, Kris's guardedness was to be expected. Obama may

have promised new openness, but "so far, the continuities between the Obama and Bush administration overwhelm the differences," says Steven Aftergood, who runs the Project on Government Secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists.

Obama gets credit for making public a 2004 report on CIA interrogations and Justice Department torture memos, and for releasing more records of White House visitors. He restored news coverage of returning caskets of fallen soldiers. On Wednesday, he earned mixed reviews from civil libertarians when he signaled an intention to keep fewer things hidden under the "state secrets" policy.


But transparency advocates such as Aftergood and Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center point to many more shortfalls: refusing to release information about detainees held at the Bagram detention facility in Afghanistan, reneging on a decision to release photos of detainee abuse, using signing statements to undermine legislation, defending the granting of immunity to telecom companies that participated in the wiretap program, and opposing a request that all intelligence committee members be briefed on covert operations.

Of course, these moves could be evidence that Obama is being cautious and responsible as campaigning yields to governing. But whatever the reason, civil libertarians have reason to feel that Obama sold them a bill of goods -- and Wednesday's hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee was unlikely to change this feeling.

Kris began by requesting renewal of the three expiring provisions of the Patriot Act. Leahy has introduced a bill that would extend the provisions while also adding a few new protections, but Kris wasn't at liberty to discuss these.

Leahy asked whether Kris would agree to an effort to stop the abuse of "national security letters," which have been used to obtain bank and medical records without warrants. "We don't have an official administration position on that element of your bill or the others," the witness informed the chairman.

Feinstein fared no better when she asked whether the Justice Department would have a problem with requiring that there be "reasonable grounds to believe that the information sought is at least relevant to an authorized investigation."

"That's a position we'd like to work through in an orderly fashion," Kris demurred. Feinstein asked another question, and Kris repeated his wish not to "get into anything classified or operational."

The other committee members got similar answers: "I would be reluctant to discuss that in an open hearing. . . . I think I should defer getting into the possibly classified details of anything here. . . . I wouldn't put it the way you've just put it, Senator." When Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) pointed out a problem with one of the Patriot Act procedures, Kris labeled the senator "a very precise and careful technical lawyer to pick up on this."

"It's not something I just invented," Whitehouse shot back.

Feingold, who has proposed legislation that would sharply curtail the Patriot Act, lectured Kris that "its quite extraordinary" to allow the government "to secretly break into Americans' homes in criminal cases, and I think some Americans might be concerned that it's been used hundreds of times in just a single year on non-terrorism cases."

"Well," the witness replied, "I don't mean to quibble with you." But he did anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Sep 09 - 02:38 PM

I think Little Hawk is right on all counts, but I what's his attraction to Star Trek?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Sep 09 - 03:59 PM

TARP inspector to say transparency 'attitude' on bailout frustrating

By Silla Brush - 09/24/09 12:00 AM ET

The government is failing to disclose the full details of how the $700 billion bailout of the financial sector has been implemented, the program's top government watchdog will say on Thursday.

Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General over the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), will testify to Congress that the government's "basic attitude" on the transparency and accountability of the program "remains a significant frustration."

"TARP largely remains a program in which taxpayers are not being told what most of the TARP recipients are doing with their money and will not be told the full details of how their money is being invested," Barofsky will say.

The Obama administration has worked to increase the transparency of the TARP program, which began in October 2008 at the height of the financial crisis, and Barofsky will say the TARP program has become less opaque since his office got under way in December.

"Treasury remains committed to working closely with all of our overseers to ensure taxpayer funds are used prudently and effectively," a Treasury Department spokesman said. "Treasury has already implemented the vast majority of their recommendations and has worked actively to incorporate SIGTARP early in the development of processes regarding TARP programs."

Despite his concerns about transparency and accountability, Barofsky will testify the TARP program has been essential to shoring up the economy and restoring a measure of stability to the economy.

However, the government will likely never be repaid all the money it invested, according to Barofsky. Forty-one banks have already repaid more than a combined $70 billion, but hundreds of banks, General Motors, Chrysler, AIG and the broader housing market continue to rely on the program.

"It is extremely unlikely that the taxpayer will see a full return on its TARP investment," Barofsky will say.

Democrats increasingly praise the TARP program as a necessary step that helped the economy avert a meltdown, and they have lauded the repaid money as evidence that the rescue package is working. Meanwhile, Republicans are critical of the program for extending taxpayer money to failing private companies and creating a culture where troubled businesses look to the federal government for a bailout.

Barofsky also will warn that it is unclear that the government rescue package has done much to increase the amount of bank lending or yet to remove toxic assets from bank balance sheets. Those were two of the program's initial aims. Moreover, the commercial real estate market "might be the next proverbial shoe to drop," Barofsky will caution.

The Treasury Department soon will start to report more details about how TARP recipients are using the money, including their total investments and their repayments of debt obligations. The department will not report on how specific firms allocate funds. "We remain puzzled as to why Treasury refuses to adopt our recommendation to report on each TARP recipient's use of TARP funds," Barofsky will say.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Sep 09 - 10:10 PM

NEA communications director resigns

The National Endowment for the Arts said Thursday that its communications director, Yosi Sergant, has resigned.

"This afternoon Yosi Sergant submitted his resignation from the National Endowment for the Arts. His resignation has been accepted and is effective immediately," said a spokeswoman, Sally Gifford, in a statement.

Sergant, who helped make artist Shepard Fairey's "Hope" image ubiquitous as an organizer of Obama campaign support from artists, had seemed to mix the NEA's work -- essentially non-partisan politics -- with the administration's legislative agenda on a conference call reported on by Andrew Breitbart's new conservative site, Big Government.

"I would encourage you to pick something, whether it's health care, education, the environment, you know, there's four key areas that the corporation has identified as the areas of service," Sergant told artists on the call, which he reportedly invited some of them to attend. "My ask would be to apply artistic, you know, your artistic creative communities utilities and bring them to the table," he said.

Texas Senator John Cornyn, among critics, complained that the call politicized subjected the agency to "political manipulation, though the NEA initially defended the call. NEA Chairman Rocco Landesman later said the call "inappropriate" and that Sergant had acted "unilaterally" in helping to organize it.

"This call was completely unrelated to NEA's grantmaking, which is highly regarded for its independence and integrity," Landesman said.

The White House has sought to downplay the story, which has gotten little mainstream media attention, despite heavy coverage on the right. But it did issue new guidelines aimed at preventing politics from mixing with agency business.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Sep 09 - 12:32 AM

God, the tedium...!

I like Star Trek, Rig, mainly because of its progressive social philosophy. That show was way ahead of its time. Then too, there's that sly twinkle that Kirk gets in his eye now and then...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Sep 09 - 07:42 AM

Yeah, but they always feature Democrats as Troglodytes.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Sep 09 - 09:36 AM

And Republicans as Ferengi...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Sep 09 - 12:22 PM

Better than Klingons, I suppose...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Sep 09 - 01:37 PM

Yeah, I guess. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Sep 09 - 02:33 PM

Reagan's Missile Defense Triumph

By Andrew Nagorski
Friday, September 25, 2009

If Ronald Reagan was watching the news from afar last week, he had to be smiling. Not because of President Obama's decision to abandon the planned deployment of a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. Reagan certainly wouldn't like the political symbolism of that gesture -- walking away from an agreement with two allies in Central Europe and appearing to bend to pressure from the Kremlin. As a partisan fighter, he would be in line with the Republican chorus of disapproval.

But on a more fundamental level, Reagan would recognize that the announcement represents a watershed moment in American politics. It signals that, for the first time since Reagan made his "Star Wars" speech in 1983 spelling out his vision of a missile shield that would protect the United States against nuclear attack, both political parties have accepted his notion that the country needs an effective missile defense system. The debate is no longer focused on whether to build such a system but on what kind of system will do the job better against what sorts of threats.

In the Reagan era, almost all Democrats and even some Republicans felt the president was dangerously delusional in believing such a system could work, and even more dangerous for promoting it. After all, the Cold War premise was MAD: Mutually assured destruction relied on the knowledge of each superpower's vulnerability to nuclear attack to prevent the rockets from flying. Any attempt to suggest that mutual destruction wouldn't be inevitable once nuclear weapons were used, the thinking went, increased the chances of a huge miscalculation with devastating consequences.

Many Democrats conveniently forgot that Jimmy Carter, during the final year of his administration, modified MAD by accepting Defense Secretary Harold Brown's concept of a "countervailing strategy." In essence, this meant trying to bomb select targets in the Soviet Union first, seeking to force that country's surrender before its total destruction or a retaliatory strike. When Reagan took the notion of a winnable war further by proclaiming his Strategic Defense Initiative, he wasn't about to get significant support from the other side of the aisle.

Fast-forward to the presidency of George W. Bush. Once again, many Democrats instinctively opposed his plan to deploy a missile defense system in Central Europe. While Republicans like to say the Democrats' motivation was softness toward the Kremlin, there were still liberal stalwarts who hated the idea of any missile defense system, believing that it would undermine disarmament efforts. That's why Obama's cautious, noncommittal pronouncements on missile defense during the 2008 campaign worried some of his most fervent supporters as well as his opponents.

But now the president has argued that his plan will produce "stronger, smarter, swifter" missile defense than the Bush alternative. In other words, the Obama administration's line, as spelled out by the president, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and others, is unambiguous when it comes to embracing missile defense as a necessary component of the U.S. arsenal. By focusing on the more immediate threat of Iranian short- and medium-range missiles, it will also be concentrated on projecting American power to defend Europe and the Middle East in the first instance -- while effectively putting off the question of how best to defend the homeland against intercontinental ballistic missiles (from Iran or any other country) further down the line.

All of this has generated headlines that Obama has turned the Reagan concept of missile defense on its head, since he has reversed the order of priorities. There's some truth in those statements, but they all relate to tactics, not principle. The larger point is that, in political terms, Obama has done for missile defense what Bill Clinton did for welfare reform. Once Clinton embraced welfare reform, an initiative launched by Republicans and instinctively hated by many Democrats, the debate turned to the questions of what kind of reform and on what terms, rather than treating the old welfare system as untouchable.

So, too, with missile defense and the overall national security strategy. Republicans argue that Obama has allowed too many cuts in missile defense programs, even before last week's decision, to argue credibly that he will strengthen our deterrent capability. But now his administration's priority is to prove those critics wrong by building a system that will be effective not just against short- and medium-range missiles but, when needed in the future, also against intercontinental ballistic missiles.

You can bet that Obama does not want to run in 2012 on a platform proclaiming that the country has no need for a strong missile defense system. Quite the contrary. Which means Ronald Reagan's vision is now a bipartisan one -- and fully vindicated.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Sep 09 - 05:11 PM

So, Little Hawk, did you see this headline:   "Biden swears in Kirk as successor to Sen. Kennedy"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Sep 09 - 07:17 PM

It was only a matter of time. The Hour of Destiny looms near.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 06:50 AM

Obama's Dick Cheney Moment

By Benjamin Wittes
Tuesday, September 29, 2009

President Obama's decision not to go to Congress for help in establishing reasonable standards for the continued detention of Guantanamo detainees is a failure of leadership in the project of putting American law on a sound basis for a long-term confrontation with terrorism. It is bad for the country, for national security and for civil liberties. It represents a virtually wholesale adoption of the failed policies of his predecessor -- who, with equal obtuseness, refused to root American detention practices in clear law approved by the legislature and similarly failed to learn from repeated Supreme Court rebukes to this unilateral approach. It violates Obama's much-noted statement this spring that he would "work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution." And it delegates a profound and difficult policymaking exercise to the judiciary and, ultimately, to a single man on the Supreme Court.

The only point in Obama's defense is that few political actors have given him reason to think he would have responsible partners if he did the right thing. Human rights and civil liberties activists are so keen to avoid legitimizing detention in legislation that they have treated as a victory the president's decision to adopt the very policy they have spent the past eight years denouncing.

Congress is not looking statesmanlike either. Republicans have been too busy making political hay out of Obama's sputtering closure of Guantanamo to act as constructive participants in this important legislative project. Democrats, always afraid of their shadows on national security issues, have hidden behind civil liberties platitudes that most do not really believe. Members across the spectrum have acted boldly only when it comes to making sure that no Guantanamo detainees end up in their districts.

But it is Obama who is president, and presidents go to war with the Congress and civil society they have, not the Congress and civil society they wish they had.

Obama's decision will have several major consequences, all of them bad.

First, while it will not stop detentions, it will ensure that the ground rules for those detentions remain murky, ever-shifting and unclear to agencies that have to conduct operations in the field. This uncertainty will encumber operations and create perverse incentives for both targeted killings and for detentions by allied proxy forces that don't have to go through eight years of litigation to neutralize a suspected enemy fighter.

Second, it leaves in place a system of judicial review of Guantanamo detentions that ill-serves detainees and government alike. The current system of making policy and reviewing detentions through habeas corpus litigation serves the government badly because the standards are unstable and evidence collected one day for intelligence purposes proves useless in justifying detentions years later when the rules shift, judges grow less comfortable and that material suddenly has to serve as evidence in court. It serves detainees badly because review has been painfully slow and detainees in habeas get only one bite at the apple. If a detainee loses his habeas case, that's it. By contrast, most proposals for long-term detention laws involve regular review and ongoing oversight, giving many more opportunities for error correction and for detainees to convince authorities that they no longer pose a danger that requires their incarceration.

Third, the failure to go to Congress to write the rules means that the rules for detention will be written by judges. So far, the judges who have heard habeas cases have disagreed about a great many central issues -- many of which the Supreme Court will ultimately have to resolve. The high court, which has not a single national security expert, may end up making good policy or bad. But because the Supreme Court is ideologically split on these issues, it seems likely that its swing justice, Anthony Kennedy, will play a disproportionate role in writing the rules of the road. Is it really better to hand this complex policy problem over to the whim of a single unelected detention czar in robes than to ask the legislature to decide when America is going to detain alleged terrorists, under what rules and with what rights?

There exists perhaps no area of national policy in which President Obama entered office with greater opportunity to create a new politics than the law of counterterrorism. Many conservatives understood that President Bush's executive-power approach had not succeeded in sustaining robust presidential power to confront the enemy. Many liberals, conversely, understood that the left's dream of a pure law enforcement model for defeating al-Qaeda was a fantasy. Obama ran on a platform of "change," and this was an area where constructive change required, first and foremost, presidential leadership.

We may never know what would have happened had Obama been willing to divert some portion of his prestige from health care to the creation of a political coalition for strong counterterrorism measures rooted in statutory powers debated and passed by the people's representatives.

How very curious, though, that so much of American political culture finds it more comfortable for him to get in touch with his inner Dick Cheney than to try.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 06:52 AM

Time to Act Like a President

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Sooner or later it is going to occur to Barack Obama that he is the president of the United States. As of yet, though, he does not act that way, appearing promiscuously on television and granting interviews like the presidential candidate he no longer is. The election has been held, but the campaign goes on and on. The candidate has yet to become commander in chief.

Take last week's Group of 20 meeting in Pittsburgh. There, the candidate-in-full commandeered the television networks and the leaders of Britain and France to give the Iranians a dramatic warning. Yet another of their secret nuclear facilities had been revealed and Obama, as anyone could see, was determined to do something about it -- just don't ask what.

The entire episode had a faux Cuban missile crisis quality to it. Something menacing had been discovered -- not Soviet missiles a mere 100 miles or so off Florida but an Iranian nuclear installation about 100 miles from Tehran. As befitting the occasion, various publications supplied us with nearly minute-by-minute descriptions of the crisis atmosphere earlier in the week at the U.N. session -- the rushing from room to room, presidential aides conferring, undoubtedly aware that they were in the middle of a book they had yet to write. I scanned the accounts looking for familiar names. Where was McNamara? Where was Bundy? Where, in fact, was the crisis?

In fact, there was none. The supposedly secret installation had been known to Western intelligence agencies -- Britain, France, the United States and undoubtedly Israel -- for several years. Its existence had been deduced by intelligence analysts from Iranian purchases abroad, and it was pinpointed sometime afterward. What had changed was that news of it had gone public. This happened not because Obama announced it but because the Iranians beat him to it after discovering that their cover was blown. They then turned themselves in to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna and, as usual, said the site was intended for the peaceful use of nuclear energy. These Persians lie like a rug.

No one should believe Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iran seems intent on developing a nuclear weapons program and the missiles capable of delivering them. This -- not the public revelations of a known installation -- is the real crisis, possibly one that can only end in war. It is entirely possible that Israel, faced with that chilling cliche -- an existential threat -- will bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. What would happen next is anyone's guess -- retaliation by Hamas and Hezbollah, an unprecedented spike in oil prices and then, after a few years or less, a resumption of Iran's nuclear program. Only the United States has the capability to obliterate Tehran's underground facilities. Washington may have to act.

For a crisis such as this, the immense prestige of the American presidency ought to be held in reserve. Let the secretary of state issue grave warnings. When Obama said in Pittsburgh that Iran is "going to have to come clean and they are going to have to make a choice," it had the sound of an ultimatum. But what if the Iranians don't? What then? A president has to be careful with such language. He better mean what he says.

The trouble with Obama is that he gets into the moment and means what he says for that moment only. He meant what he said when he called Afghanistan a "war of necessity" -- and now is not necessarily so sure. He meant what he said about the public option in his health-care plan -- and then again maybe not. He would not prosecute CIA agents for getting rough with detainees -- and then again maybe he would.

Most tellingly, he gave Congress an August deadline for passage of health-care legislation -- "Now, if there are no deadlines, nothing gets done in this town . . . " -- and then let it pass. It seemed not to occur to Obama that a deadline comes with a consequence -- meet it or else.

Obama lost credibility with his deadline-that-never-was, and now he threatens to lose some more with his posturing toward Iran. He has gotten into a demeaning dialogue with Ahmadinejad, an accomplished liar. (The next day, the Iranian used a news conference to counter Obama and, days later, Iran tested some intermediate-range missiles.) Obama is our version of a Supreme Leader, not given to making idle threats, setting idle deadlines, reversing course on momentous issues, creating a TV crisis where none existed or, unbelievably, pitching Chicago for the 2016 Olympics. Obama's the president. Time he understood that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 12:43 PM

Without Bush, media lose interest in war caskets

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
September 29, 2009   

Remember the controversy over the Pentagon policy of not allowing the press to take pictures of the flag-draped caskets of American war dead as they arrived in the United States? Critics accused President Bush of trying to hide the terrible human cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"These young men and women are heroes," Vice President Biden said in 2004, when he was senator from Delaware. "The idea that they are essentially snuck back into the country under the cover of night so no one can see that their casket has arrived, I just think is wrong."

In April of this year, the Obama administration lifted the press ban, which had been in place since the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Media outlets rushed to cover the first arrival of a fallen U.S. serviceman, and many photographers came back for the second arrival, and then the third.

But after that, the impassioned advocates of showing the true human cost of war grew tired of the story. Fewer and fewer photographers showed up. "It's really fallen off," says Lt. Joe Winter, spokesman for the Air Force Mortuary Affairs Operations Center at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, where all war dead are received. "The flurry of interest has subsided."

That's an understatement. When the casket bearing Air Force Tech. Sgt. Phillip Myers, of Hopewell, Va., arrived at Dover the night of April 5 -- the first arrival in which press coverage was allowed -- there were representatives of 35 media outlets on hand to cover the story. Two days later, when the body of Army Spc. Israel Candelaria Mejias, of San Lorenzo, Puerto Rico, arrived, 17 media outlets were there. (All the figures here were provided by the Mortuary Affairs Operations Center.) On subsequent days in April, there were nearly a dozen press organizations on hand to cover arrivals.

Fast forward to today. On Sept. 2, when the casket bearing the body of Marine Lance Cpl. David Hall, of Elyria, Ohio, arrived at Dover, there was just one news outlet -- the Associated Press -- there to record it. The situation was pretty much the same when caskets arrived on Sept. 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 22, 23 and 26. There has been no television coverage at all in September.

The media can cover arrivals only when the family gives its permission. In all the examples above, the families approved, which is more often than not the case; since the policy was changed, according to the Mortuary Affairs Office, 60 percent of families have said yes to full media coverage.

But these days, the press hordes that once descended on Dover are gone, and there's usually just one organization on hand. The Associated Press, which supplies photos to 1,500 U.S. newspapers and 4,000 Web sites, has had a photographer at every arrival for which permission was granted. "It's our belief that this is important, that surely somewhere there is a paper, an audience, a readership, a family and a community for whom this homecoming is indeed news," says Paul Colford, director of media relations for AP. "It's been agreed internally that this is a responsibility for the AP to be there each and every time it is welcome."

Colford says the AP has a photographer who lives within driving distance of Dover and is able to make it to the arrivals, no matter what time of day or night. As for the network news, it's not so simple; a night arrival means overtime pay for a union camera crew. And then there's the question of convenience. "It seems that if the weather is nice, and it's during the day, we get a higher level of media to come down," says Lt. Winter. "But a majority of our transfers occur in the early evening and overnight."

So far this month, 38 American troops have been killed in Afghanistan. For all of 2009, the number is 220 -- more than any other single year and more than died in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 combined.

With casualties mounting, the debate over U.S. policy in Afghanistan is sharp and heated. The number of arrivals at Dover is increasing. But the journalists who once clamored to show the true human cost of war are nowhere to be found.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 12:47 PM

PRUDEN: Reality bites Obama's 'West Wing'

By Wesley Pruden

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The White House is a risky place for on-the-job training, as Barack Obama and the rest of us are learning. But the president doesn't deserve all the blame for the installation of a handsome but unprepared matinee idol in the toughest job in the world. The adoring cult, the 53 percent of the giddily oblivious electorate that took a flyer on Election Day, deserves most of it.

Matinee idols only do what matinee idols do, look pretty and inveigle softly with practiced seductiveness. Trouble arrives when the matinee idol and his public confuse role with reality. Reality arrives with the surprise and impact of a lemon-cream pie in the face.

Nasty surprises abound across the real world. Iran completes a third round of testing of Shahab-3 and Sajjil medium-range missiles capable of hitting not only Israel, Eastern Europe and several Middle Eastern countries but, if all that were not sobering enough, several U.S military bases as well. Venezuela boasts that it's working with Russia and Iran in finding sources of uranium, the key ingredient of nuclear weapons technology. China says it will display new "upgraded missiles" in celebration of the 60th anniversary of the founding of Red China. India announces that it can now make nuclear weapons up to a strength of 200 kilotons, four times over the line that the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty pledges signing nations not to cross.

This is the fine mess Barack Obama told us would never happen if Americans would elect him to soothe the fears of the frightened and bank the ambitions of evildoers of the world. Suddenly, the president has to deal with headaches, a thousand town halls, with hundreds of thousands of angry bigots, racists and Nazis of hysterical liberal imagination jeering his scheme to take over the health care of the nation, never prepared him for. He's got headaches no speechwriter can cure.

Headache No. 1 is Iran, where Mahmoud Ahmadinejad taunts Mr. Obama and the dazed leaders of the West. Mr. Obama may be the most puzzled of all. He went many thousands of miles out of his way to apologize for the sins of the evil country he's the president of, promising with servile humility to hector us to do better. For his efforts, he learns that the Iranians have not only not disbanded their nuclear-bomb factory, but have added another to enrich uranium, and dared Mr. Obama and the West to do anything about it. "We are going to respond to any military action in a crushing manner," boasts the chief of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Air Force, "and it doesn't make any difference which country or regime has launched the aggression." A teleprompter won't be much protection against an incoming nuclear missile.

Who can blame the Iranians for thinking they have Mr. Obama's number? The more that soft diplomacy doesn't work, the softer diplomacy becomes. Robert M. Gates, the president's defense secretary, says he's sure Mr. Ahmadinejad intends to build nuclear weapons, but he doesn't know what anyone can do about it except talk some more. "The reality is, there is no military option that does anything more than buy time." (But when that time runs out, couldn't the military just buy some more?)

There are signs that the Europeans, so eager only a year ago to march to the music of the piper from Hyde Park, are sobering up like the millions of independent voters who have stepped out of the parade in America. The buzz about Barack Obama at international conferences is no longer about how strong and artful he is in the presidential role, but how naive and artless reality has revealed him to be. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France is said to have told confidants that he thinks the American president is "weak."

Clark Judge, a recent delegate to the annual Global Security Review conference in Geneva, sponsored by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, was surprised by the emerging "wide skepticism" of the president. "The impression emerged for me," he says, "that Mr. Obama's riveting rhetoric is in danger of turning from a plus to a minus." One former foreign minister scorns the president's "pointless rhetoric, no matter how elegantly expressed."

Reality is an unforgiving teacher, and inevitably grades on a steep curve. Mr. Obama imagined last year that he was auditioning to replace Martin Sheen on the television serial "West Wing." He's learning better now.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 10:13 PM

"Where, in fact, was the crisis?

In fact, there was none. The supposedly secret installation had been known to Western intelligence agencies -- Britain, France, the United States and undoubtedly Israel -- for several years. Its existence had been deduced by intelligence analysts from Iranian purchases abroad, and it was pinpointed sometime afterward. What had changed was that news of it had gone public. This happened not because Obama announced it but because the Iranians beat him to it after discovering that their cover was blown. They then turned themselves in to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna and, as usual, said the site was intended for the peaceful use of nuclear energy."

Bingo! There is, in fact, no crisis at all, but there is another excercise in media-created hype and propaganda underway which can always be potentially used to stoke war fever against Iran.

The Iranians have the best reasons in the world to want to develop nuclear weapons....those reasons being to deter a long-threatened attack on Iran by either the USA or Israel or both. Once the Iranians have their own nuclear weapons in place, they will finally have a genuine deterrent to such an attack, so whey would they not be trying to build a nuclear weapon?

On the other hand, they also have a legal right to enrich nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes (generating electricity) if they wish to, so their fuel enrichment program is not an illegal program in itself...but the West can always use the old WMD scare tactic as an excuse to justify a pre-emptive attack on Iran.

This is the old "My neighbour was planning to shoot me, you see. So that's why I went over to his place last night, broke in, and shot him instead. I was only defending myself."

That is the rationale that Israel and the USA repeatedly use for pre-emptively attacking other nations. No one else IN THE WORLD seems to have the gall to even trot out such a rationale, but the USA and Israel think they have a special dispensation from God or something, so they do it without shame.

Try using this same bizarre rationale in the real world as a private individual. See how the cops deal with it, and see where it gets you. It gets you arrested as a murderer.

Unfortunately, there is no international cop large enough to arrest either Israel or the USA for naked aggression, so the farce goes on and on.

The only possible thing Iran CAN do to secure their own borders against such an attack is to HAVE nuclear weapons in place, with effective delivery systems, and to let everyone know just as soon as those weapons are operational.

Or they could just surrender....open their borders to a permanent American-Israeli occupation force...dismantle their own government...disarm their military...give the West control over all their oil...and give up their existence as an independent nation.

Which would you do if you were an Iranian? I know it would not be the second.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 06:38 AM

Advice From NATO
The alliance's chief doesn't believe in an Afghan 'exit strategy.'

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S very public wavering over whether to stick with the strategy for Afghanistan that he adopted six months ago is producing some unusual spectacles. One is the awkward gap that has opened between the president and the military commander he appointed in June, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who drew up a plan to implement the strategy -- only to learn he had been left out on a limb that might be sawn off. Another is the lobbying of the president by NATO allies who find themselves trying to keep the United States from abandoning the mission they joined. Their spokesman in Washington this week has been the NATO secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who in a diplomatic but direct way has been telling Mr. Obama that "we don't need a new strategy."

Mr. Rasmussen, a former prime minister of Denmark who took over the NATO post in August, made that remark in a meeting with us Tuesday. The day before he delivered a speech at the Atlantic Council in which he said that the 41-member international alliance in Afghanistan must "do more now, if we want to be able to do less later." While not specifically addressing Gen. McChrystal's request for the deployment of tens of thousands more U.S. troops, Mr. Rasmussen called for a greatly stepped-up effort to train the Afghan army and jump-start development programs through the Afghan government. "None of this will be easy," he said. "We will need to have patience. We will need more resources. And we will lose more young soldiers."

In our conversation, Mr. Rasmussen made clear that he sees no alternative to the principles that Mr. Obama endorsed in March and that Gen. McChrystal made the basis of his plan: protection of the Afghan population and support for the creation of an effective and accountable Afghan government. "Basically I share [Gen. McChrystal's] view," Mr. Rasmussen said. "The essence of his view is to pursue a more population-centered approach." The right policy, Mr. Rasmussen said, "is definitely not an exit strategy. It's of crucial importance to stress that we will stay as long as it takes to stabilize the country."

Mr. Obama recently questioned whether support for the Afghan government was an essential U.S. interest. But Mr. Rasmussen stressed that "we need a stable government in Afghanistan, a government that we can deal with. Otherwise we would be faced with constant instability in Afghanistan and in the region." Some in and outside the administration are advocating a more limited strategy centered on strikes against terrorist targets with drones and Special Forces troops. But Mr. Rasmussen said, "we need more than just hitting individual targets in the mountains. We need to stabilize the Afghan society. We need to create . . . a society with a government that reflects the will of the people."

"I think it would be appropriate if I indicated that a [strategy] aimed at hitting some targets in the mountains and in Pakistan would not find broad support among the allies," said the NATO chief.

Mr. Rasmussen pointed out that NATO is still deeply invested in the Afghan mission: There are 38,000 troops there from countries other than the United States, and soldiers from 13 armies are fighting alongside the Americans on the main southern battlefronts. If Mr. Obama decides to abandon or scale back the fight against the Taliban, not only U.S. and Afghan interests will be affected; the Atlantic alliance will suffer its own strategic setback.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 06:41 AM

The World Is a Fire Hydrant


By Kathleen Parker
Wednesday, September 30, 2009

In keeping with his campaign promise to talk to America's enemies without precondition, Barack Obama plans to turn his charms on Burma's military junta. Slowly, we're beginning to understand what hope and change were all about. Translation: Sure hope this change works.

It may be too soon to pass judgment on Obama's new foreign policy strategy, but early returns on his gamble that talking is the best cure are less than reassuring. Each time Obama extends a hand to one of the world's anti-American despots, he is rewarded with an insult (Venezuela's Hugo Chavez) or, perhaps, a missile display (North Korea and Iran).

One may view these episodes as diminishing America's status or as a tolerable annoyance -- sort of the way Dobermans view toy poodles. At some point, the big dog reminds the little yapper of his place. Unfortunately, the American commander in chief is a cat in a dog-eat-dog world.

Obama inarguably was elected in part as a reaction to George W. Bush's big-dawgness. A new American archetype, Obama is the anti-macho man, a new-age intellectual who defeated the old-guard warrior. Whether he can win with his wits in the larger theater remains to be seen, but watching could be painful.

The shift in policy toward Burma, for instance, was announced Monday following the annual theater of the absurd, a.k.a. the U.N. General Assembly. Obama spoke eloquently there about the need for cooperation as the world tackles global problems, hitting his familiar theme of responsibility. All countries -- not just the U.S. -- have a role to play in combating crises around the world, he told the happy gathering of superpowers, banana republics, dictatorships and terrorist states.

Perfectly timed for comedians with writer's block, Obama was followed by Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi, with whom Obama shook hands at a dinner in July. It isn't helpful that Gaddafi looks like a renegade from Ringling Bros. Or that just weeks ago, he hosted a welcome-home celebration for the 1988 Lockerbie bomber-terrorist, who killed 270 people. But Gaddafi's 96-minute diatribe -- which included questioning the assassination of John F. Kennedy and expressing sympathy for the Taliban -- was a prolonged assault on sane people everywhere.

In the midst of such charades, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's emerging Dirty Harry persona is oddly reassuring. Often speaking through nearly clenched teeth, she has become Obama's bad cop. On Burma, she has promised to remain tough and continue sanctions pending credible democratic reforms. But, she has added dutifully, sanctions alone haven't gotten us very far.

Surely, talking is worth a shot. Or is it?

In the previous administration, the conventional wisdom was that talking to bad actors lent legitimacy where none was deserved. Bush, for instance, ignored Chavez, believing that acknowledgment was empowerment.

Chavez responded by referring to Bush as the devil no fewer than eight times during his 2006 U.N. address. This year, Chavez complimented but also chided Obama for saying one thing and doing another. There may be two Obamas, he said. And more than a few Americans thought he might have a point.

One Obama is loquacious and inspiring. The other seems somewhat removed from threatening realities and people who don't share our appreciation for visionary rhetoric. Some folks simply aren't talk-able. Some nations -- no matter how well-intentioned, sincere and earnest we are -- just aren't that into us.

Chavez and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, brothers in their own declared "axis of unity," are cases in point. United in their animus toward the U.S., they've become so close they're practically exchanging jewelry. Better than that, they're building financial partnerships that may make sanctions irrelevant and, in a "Memorandum of Understanding," have promised each other military support and cooperation.

While in New York last week, Chavez did a little PR work, appearing on "Larry King Live." The former altar boy said he loves Jesus, Walt Whitman and Charles Bronson, and that he loves to sing. He isn't power hungry, as some claim, nor is he mining uranium for Ahmadinejad, as suggested in a report last December by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

He, alas, has been misunderstood.

And Iran? Just days before Obama and five other leaders are scheduled to meet in Geneva Oct. 1 to discuss Iran's nuclear ambitions, the Islamic Republic test-fired long-range missiles.

In the new era of talk diplomacy, we might call that a pre-emptive strike -- a nonverbal gesture worth a million moot words. Then again, there's always hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 06:43 AM

Economists for an Imaginary World

By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, September 30, 2009

"The worldly philosophers" was economist Robert Heilbroner's term for such great economic thinkers as Adam Smith, Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes and Joseph Schumpeter. Today's free-market economists, by contrast, aren't merely not philosophers. They're not even worldly.

Has any group of professionals ever been so spectacularly wrong? Pre-Copernican astronomers and cosmologists, I suppose, and for the same reason, really: They had an entire, internally consistent, theoretically rich system that described the universe. They were wrong -- the sun and other celestial bodies save the moon didn't actually revolve around the Earth, as they insisted -- but no matter. It was a thing of beauty, their cosmic order. A vast faith was sustained in part by their pseudo-science, a faith from which such free thinkers as Galileo deviated at their own risk.

As it was with the pre- (or anti-) Copernicans, so it is with today's mainstream economists. Theirs is an elegant system, a thing of beauty in itself, as the New York Times' Paul Krugman has argued. It just fails to jell with reality. And unlike the pre-Copernicans, whose dogma posed a threat to those who challenged it but not, at least directly, to anyone else, their latter-day equivalents in the economic profession pose a clear and present danger to the well-being of damned near everyone.

The problem with contemporary economics, at least with the purer strain of free-market economics associated with the University of Chicago, is not simply that it failed to predict the near-collapse of the world financial system last year. The problem is that it believed such a collapse could not happen, that all risk could be quantified by mathematical models and that these quantifications could help us correctly price just about everything. Out of this belief arose the banks' practice of securitization, which put a value on all manner of mortgages and enabled buyers to purchase and swap them with the certainty that such transactions reflected an accurate judgment of the value of the properties and the risks associated with them.


Except, they didn't. So long as economists insisted that they did, however, there really was no need to study such things as bubbles, which only a handful of skeptics and hopelessly retro Keynesians even considered possible. Under mainstream economic theory, which held that everything was correctly priced, bubbles simply couldn't exist.

The one economist who has emerged from the current troubles with his reputation not only intact but enhanced is, of course, Keynes. Every major nation, no matter its economic or political system, has followed Keynes's prescription for combating a major downturn: increasing public spending to fill the gap created by the decline of private spending. That is why the world economy seems to be inching back from collapse and why the nations that have spent the most, China in particular, seem to be recovering fastest.

But Keynes's vision has yet to reestablish itself among economists, who, like the Catholic Church in Galileo's time, aren't about to change their cosmology just because the facts demonstrate that they happen to be wrong. The quants at the banking houses say that they simply failed to sufficiently factor some risks into their mathematical models. Once they do, their system will be corrected, and banks can resume their campaign to securitize everything (as some banks are already doing by establishing a secondary market in life insurance policies).

The problem with that, Robert Skidelsky argues in a new book on economics after the fall, "Keynes: The Return of the Master," is that it neglects one of Keynes's central insights -- that an uncertainty attends human affairs that transcends quantifiable risk. (Skidelsky is also the author of a magisterial three-volume biography of Keynes.) Psychology affects value as much as rational calculation does. Thus the state must ensure against periodic madness in the markets with regulations and social insurance, because madness is a potential threat in markets just as it is in other human endeavors -- because the market is a human endeavor, not reducible to a mathematical construct.

Will contemporary economists ever accept this last precept? In the 1970s, a wry economist named Robert Lekachman observed that economics students had to master so much mathematics that they became emotionally invested in the idea that the math they had learned explained -- had to explain -- the universe. Skidelsky calls for combining the postgraduate course in macroeconomics with another discipline -- history or psychology, say -- to expose young quants to the complexities of human institutions.

If mainstream economics doesn't change, however, it may eventually face the worst of all possible fates: market failure. How many students want to spend their lives quantifying a world that doesn't exist?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 06:44 AM

A Human Rights Lever for Iran

TOOLBOX
By Andrew Albertson and Ali G. Scotten
Wednesday, September 30, 2009

The situation has changed significantly since the Obama administration's initial offer to talk with Tehran. The post-election protests this summer and the regime's subsequent crackdown have undermined whatever merit the administration may have once seen in a realpolitik negotiations strategy. With the talks looming, the United States cannot pretend that the violence in the streets never happened, but neither can Washington be seen to fold. In fact, it should raise the stakes by broadening the agenda to include human rights.

The critics of diplomacy have a point: Tehran has nothing to lose, and much to gain, by drawing out talks and committing to little. However, beyond diplomacy, the administration's policy options are limited and in all likelihood counterproductive. Broad sanctions of the kind Congress is considering won't work; going after Iran's ability to import gas is likely to simply frustrate ordinary Iranians. Nor would the U.S. negotiating position be bolstered by encouraging Israel to bomb Iran, as John Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has suggested. Far from weakening the regime, these steps would strengthen it politically as Iranians rallied to support the hard-liners around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against the perceived bullying of the United States.

So a better approach would be to broaden the agenda to include a focus on human rights. First, President Obama should reiterate in an address (offered on YouTube, so Iranians can view it unfiltered) the benefits for average Iranians if Tehran lives up to its obligations with regard to its nuclear program: the opportunity to emerge from isolation, to have full diplomatic relations with the United States (which would include student and other civic exchange programs), and to benefit from international trade and investment. Second, the administration should make clear its desire for the agenda to include "full compliance with international human rights regimes" -- by Iran, the United States and any other parties to the talks. To further engage the Iranian people, the administration should call for Iranian and international civil society organizations to take part in the dialogue.


This approach would strengthen reformers in Iran and increase pressure on the Ahmadinejad government. Pro-democracy dissidents such as Akbar Ganji have asked the international community to play a more active role by holding the Iranian government to a higher standard on human rights, one that would be more commensurate with the regional role and modern image to which Iran aspires.

Years of sanctions and threats have not weakened the regime. Attacking Iran only unifies its citizens behind its hard-liners. But what did strengthen our position was Obama's clear message to the Iranian people this spring that the United States is not a threat to Iran and that it wishes to see the country emerge from diplomatic isolation. That message shifted Iranians' focus to domestic issues, which include corruption, inflation and economic mismanagement. Rather than rallying people against the United States, this tactic got America out of the way and allowed the Iranian people to confront their unresponsive government on their own terms. Taking a public stance that is respectful of Iranian nationalism while strongly supportive of human rights would further empower and embolden the Iranian people.

Americans, too, will be more approving of any deal that advances rather than dismisses human rights. And diplomatic strategies based on human rights have worked before: The Helsinki Process began as a dialogue that offered respect and recognition to the Soviet government while calling it into open dialogue about human rights that it purported to support.

There is reason to believe Tehran could be goaded into accepting this broader agenda. In his own impish way, Ahmadinejad has all but invited this conversation: In August, his government proposed a $20 million fund to examine the U.S. human rights record and expose its shortcomings. In addition, a letter from the Iranian government sent just before the opening of the U.N. General Assembly last week made countless references to Iran's commitments to principles such as "human values and compassion." Whatever Iran's actual intent, the Obama administration should seize on these openings.

Obama has shown an admirable willingness to speak frankly about U.S. failings in the pursuit and interrogation of terrorist suspects as well as a determination to improve that conduct. That openness is a powerful weapon to wield against an Orwellian leader such as Ahmadinejad. The United States has a strong record on human rights. We should welcome an opportunity to discuss that record and, in doing so, to involve Iranians in a conversation about the rights all individuals deserve.

Washington has been unable to force concessions from the Iranian regime on its own. By broadening our support for the aspirations of ordinary Iranians, the Obama administration can continue to tilt the balance of power in its favor. Such an approach would add pressure on the Iranian regime, enhance domestic political support for talks and maximize the opportunity for successful negotiations.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 09:55 AM

What country does not periodically test its various new weaponry, such as its long range missiles?

You only hear about it on the news, though, if an official "bad guy" country like Iran or North Korea does it. In other words, you only hear about it if it is useful for a western propaganda purpose.

The USA must, I'm sure, frequently test its own advanced weaponry. So must the Israelis. Why do we not regard it as an international crisis when they do? ;-D

As I have said before, the only possible insurance Iran can have against being bombed or invaded by American/Israel forces is to have nuclear weapons in its arsenal and to have an effectivde delivery system for those weapons. If the Iranians are indeed building nuclear weapons, they have every reason to do so. If they are not, then the whole brouhaha in our media is nothing more than an American/Israeli attempt to justify a future war against Iran...a war that will be fought to secure control over Iranian oil reserves, NOT to protect Israel or anyone else from Iranian attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 10:56 AM

"a war that will be fought to secure control over Iranian oil reserves"

I have to disagree with this. A major concern ( that I have ) is that China will become involved in any Iranian war ( since Iran is a major source of the oil they use.).

IF there is a nuclear war, there WILL BE NO IRANIAN OIL.

It would take about 75 to 150 years to put out the fires ( much less resume production) if a single 50 KT weapon is set off in an oil field.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 11:10 AM

September 30, 2009

Gore Vidal: 'We'll have a dictatorship soon in the US'
The grand old man of letters Gore Vidal claims America is 'rotting away' — and don't expect Barack Obama to save it

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article6854221.ece

"Last year he famously switched allegiance from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama during the Democratic nomination process for president. Now, he reveals, he regrets his change of heart. How's Obama doing? "Dreadfully. I was hopeful. He was the most intelligent person we've had in that position for a long time. But he's inexperienced. He has a total inability to understand military matters. He's acting as if Afghanistan is the magic talisman: solve that and you solve terrorism." America should leave Afghanistan, he says. "We've failed in every other aspect of our effort of conquering the Middle East or whatever you want to call it." The "War on Terror" was "made up", Vidal says. "The whole thing was PR, just like 'weapons of mass destruction'. It has wrecked the airline business, which my father founded in the 1930s. He'd be cutting his wrists. Now when you fly you're both scared to death and bored to death, a most disagreeable combination.""

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 11:12 AM

Yes, your concern about China is quite correct, I think. The Chinese have very strong reasons for opposing a USA-led incursion into Iran. So it does risk expansion into a global war.

I don't know how long it would take to put out the fires in Iranian oilfields following such a war...I think 75 to 100 years is an overestimate...but it's a moot point. None of us can afford the aftereffects of a nuclear war fought over Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 01:05 PM

The Gore Vidal article is excellent, and I think he's quite right in what he says. Here is another quote from it:


"His (Vidal's) voice strengthens. "One thing I have hated all my life are LIARS [he says that with bristling anger] and I live in a nation of them. It was not always the case. I don't demand honour, that can be lies too. I don't say there was a golden age, but there was an age of general intelligence. We had a watchdog, the media." The media is too supine? "Would that it was. They're busy preparing us for an Iranian war." He retains some optimism about Obama "because he doesn't lie. We know the fool from Arizona [as he calls John McCain] is a liar. We never got the real story of how McCain crashed his plane [in 1967 near Hanoi, North Vietnam] and was held captive."

Vidal originally became pro-Obama because he grew up in "a black city" (meaning Washington), as well as being impressed by Obama's intelligence. "But he believes the generals. Even Bush knew the way to win a general was to give him another star. Obama believes the Republican Party is a party when in fact it's a mindset, like Hitler Youth, based on hatred — religious hatred, racial hatred. When you foreigners hear the word 'conservative' you think of kindly old men hunting foxes. They're not, they're fascists."

Another notable Obama mis-step has been on healthcare reform. "He f***ed it up. I don't know how because the country wanted it. We'll never see it happen."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 06:53 AM

43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforcements

Wednesday, September 30, 2009
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor


(CNSNews.com) – Another American died in Afghanistan on Wednesday, the final day of September--and exactly one month after the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan sent a confidential war assessment to the Obama administration, warning that more forces are needed--soon.

The as-yet-unnamed American serviceman who died on Wednesday was caught in a suicide attack in Khost Province, in eastern Afghanistan, press reports said.

On August 30, Gen. Stanley McChrystal sent Defense Secretary Robert Gates a war assessment in which he said more U.S. troops--and a new U.S. strategy--are needed if the U.S. is to defeat the insurgents in Afghanistan.

Since that Aug. 30 date, a total of 43 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have died in a war that is now the subject of much discussion--and apparently some confusion--in Washington. Forty-two of those casualties have been identified by name in U.S. Defense Department press releases (see below), while the 43rd casualty, which occurred today, has been confirmed in press reports, but not by name.

In his confidential report, which was leaked to the Washington Post on Sept. 21, Gen. McChrystal warned that defeating the insurgents will not be possible if the United States fails to "gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum" over the next 12 months.

McChrystal reportedly has prepared a separate request for tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops to be sent to the 68,000 already in Afghanistan.

Since Sept. 21, when the Washington Post leaked information from McChrystal's confidential report, the White House has been on the defensive over its Afghanistan strategy.

As CNSNews.com reported on Tuesday, Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to reinforce U.S. troops in Afghanistan, which he described as war we "have to win."

As president – in March 2009 – Obama announced a "comprehensive new strategy" for Afghanistan: "I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan and to prevent their return to either country in the future," he said. (See story)

But last week, Obama said he was not willing to send troops "beyond what we already have" until he was sure the United States is employing the right strategy in the region.

Then on Sunday, Gen. McChrystal told "60 Minutes" that he has talked to Obama only once in the past 70 days. At a briefing on Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs noted that President Obama "receives a memo every week from General McChrystal."

And on Wednesday, President Obama was "meeting" with McChrystal and other military officials in a video conference to discuss future plans for Afghanistan. The White House said President Obama's national security team will also attend the video conference.

"But first, Obama welcomes golfing great Arnold Palmer to the Oval Office," the Associated Press reported on Wednesday. Palmer is in town to receive the Congressional Gold Medal.

On Thursday, Obama plans to fly to Copenhagen to pitch Chicago as the venue for the 2016 Olympics. (See related story)

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, says it would be a mistake for President Obama to reject McChrystal's call for an additional 40,000-or-so troops for Afghanistan.

"Time is not on our side, so we need a decision pretty quickly," McCain told ABC's "Good Morning America" on Wednesday.

McCain said failure to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan would "put the United States in much greater danger," because insurgents would turn Afghanistan into a base for attack on the U.S. and its allies.

On the other side of the coin, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) is urging President Obama to take weeks or even months to review the U.S. mission in Afghanistan, the Boston Globe reported on Wednesday.
"I am arguing that the president has the time and we have the time,'' Kerry told the newspaper. Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, indicated that he is not sure more troops are needed in Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 11:19 AM

It is utter unreality to imagine that the USA needs to win a war in Afghanistan or that they can win a war in Afghanistan, in my opinion...or that any useful purpose can be served by trying to.

The Russians tried that. The British tried it. Alexander the Great tried it. It always ends the same way. The Afghans fight the foreigners until they leave, then the Afghans return to fighting amongst themselves until the strongest local warlord establishes temporary control of the place and things get back to normal...Afghan style.

Obama has badly lost his way with that war.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 08:34 PM

Does Obama Have the Backbone?

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Barack Obama's trip to Copenhagen to pitch Chicago for the Olympics would have been a dumb move whatever the outcome. But as it turned out (an airy dismissal would not be an unfair description), it poses some questions about his presidency that are way more important than the proper venue for synchronized swimming. The first, and to my mind most important, is whether Obama knows who he is.

This business of self-knowledge is no minor issue. It bears greatly on the single most crucial issue facing this young and untested president: Afghanistan. Already, we have his choice for Afghanistan commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, taking the measure of his commander in chief and publicly telling him what to do. This MacArthuresque star turn called for a Trumanesque response, but Obama offered nothing of the kind. Instead, he used McChrystal as a prop, adding a bit of four-star gravitas to that silly trip to Copenhagen by having the general meet with him there.

This is the president we now have: He inspires lots of affection but not a lot of awe. It is the latter, though, that matters most in international affairs, where the greatest and most gut-wrenching tests await Obama. If he remains consistent to his rhetoric of just seven weeks ago, he will send more troops to Afghanistan and more of them will die. "This is not a war of choice," he said. "This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans."

Obama could have gone further. Not only would the Taliban be restored, but the insurgency might consume Pakistan. If that happens, then a nuclear power could become a failed state -- Pakistan's pretty close to that now -- and atomic weapons could fall into the hands of terrorist organizations. India, just next door and with mighty antipathy for Muslim terrorism, could well act on its own. The bloodbath the British tried to limit in 1947 when they partitioned the subcontinent might well resume -- this time with nuclear weapons.

The stakes in Afghanistan are great. But they are not ours alone. Russia is nearby. So are China and Iran. So why Americans have to shed most of the blood for a Taliban-free Afghanistan is just one of the questions Obama will have to answer. Another is why Americans have to die for a set of possibilities that seem remote to most people.


America, after all, has little tolerance for loss of life. The killing of eight American soldiers in Afghanistan over the weekend was front-page news. Contrast that with the numbers from Vietnam -- 61 dead from a single battalion in a single 1967 battle. As for the Taliban fighters, they not only don't cherish life, they expend it freely in suicide bombings. It's difficult to envisage an American suicide bomber.

The war in Afghanistan is eminently more winnable than was Vietnam. The Taliban is far from universally liked or admired. Still, the war will require more than a significant commitment of troops and, of course, money. It will take presidential leadership, a consistent staying of the course -- an implacable confidence that the right choice has been made despite what can be steep costs. I am thinking now of Lyndon Johnson spending nights in the Situation Room, a personal anguish that belied the happy belief of antiwar demonstrators that the president was a war-mongering ogre.

Foreign policy realists question whether any effort in Afghanistan can succeed. Possibly they are right. The interventionists, if I may call them that, suggest the realists are being unrealistic -- that Afghanistan matters and it matters much more than Iraq or, before that, Vietnam ever did and that we can prevail. Possibly they are right.

But the ultimate in realism is for the president to gauge himself and who he is: Does he have the stomach and commitment for what is likely to continue to be an unpopular war? Will he send additional troops, but hedge by not sending enough -- so that the dying will be in vain? What does he believe, and will he ask Americans to die for it? Only he knows the answers to these questions. But based on his zigzagging so far and the suggestion from the Copenhagen trip that the somber seriousness of the presidency has yet to sink in, we have reason to wonder.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Oct 09 - 08:36 PM

Substitute 'Obama' for 'Bush' and 'Afghanistan' for 'Iraq' . . .

By Dana Milbank
Tuesday, October 6, 2009

It was a scene repeated countless times during the Bush years:

A few hundred people massed on Pennsylvania Avenue outside the White House, wearing orange jumpsuits and hoods, holding photos of wounded children or carrying coffins. They chanted antiwar slogans, acted out waterboarding and pretended to die on the sidewalk. Those who refused orders to leave the area -- including ubiquitous activist Cindy Sheehan -- were arrested.

But the remarkable thing about this familiar antiwar demonstration is that it occurred Monday, and the target was not George W. Bush but the White House's current occupant. Protesters' signs carried Obama-specific barbs: "Change? What Change?" "The Audacity of War Crimes." "Yes We Can: U.S. Out of Afghanistan."

Several of the demonstrators had T-shirts showing a missile labeled "Obomba" and the question "Is it really OK if Obama does it?"

Besides those wording changes, the only other difference was the spiffy new natural-gas-powered Metrobus that arrived to take those arrested for processing. It said "Special" on the front and, on the side, had a McDonald's ad with the slogan "Commander-in-Beef."

If the commander in beef had been watching from a window, he would have had reason for concern. Not the demonstrators themselves: They were Green Party types with some self-proclaimed socialists thrown in, and they had never been enthusiastic Obama supporters to start with. What the president should worry about is whether these activists are indicators of bigger things to come if he sides with his generals and decides to bulk up the U.S. force in Afghanistan.

In that case he could find many more people sounding like Liz McAlister, who addressed the crowd from a stage in McPherson Square before the two-block march to the White House. She spoke of a nation "where leader follows leader from bad to worse -- as though by a malign law of nature, one ruler, evil or stupid or violent, breeds another, more evil or stupid or violent."

The policies that earned Obama such a salute were printed on the back of the "Obomba" T-shirts, sold by the group World Can't Wait: "Indefinite Detention." "CIA Rendition." "Escalation of War in Afghanistan." "Increase in Government Spying." "Unmanned Drones Bombing Pakistan."

And those shirts didn't mention Obama's latest bomb dropped on civil libertarians: reversing his support for a law to protect anonymous sources who expose wrongdoing.

"I'm disappointed, approaching betrayal," said an organizer of the march, Jeremy Varon of Witness Against Torture. Once an avid Obama supporter, he now charges that the president is "giving a level of legitimacy to the Bush policies."


Observing the scene with some satisfaction was counter-demonstrator Phil Wilk of the conservative group Free Republic, who found himself in the odd position of defending Obama against his left-wing critics. "We're a little queasy about this," he admitted. Just to make clear that he was no Obama fan, he had a sign asserting that "Liberal Protest of Obama Doesn't Make Him a Hawk -- Just a Flip-Flopper."

The demonstrators were an odd assortment of left-wing interests. One speaker proclaimed herself a member of the African People's Socialist Party; a group distributed literature suggesting that 9/11 was a U.S. government conspiracy. But they were unified for the moment by Obama's policies on war and terrorism. Obama voter Marge van Cleef of Philadelphia, handing out "Torture Team" trading cards featuring various Bush officials, considered whether an Obama card should be added to the collection. "I guess we will," she said.

They marched to the White House and, once there, listened to the bullhorn-amplified voice of Medea Benjamin, whose Code Pink group often heckled Bush officials. She spoke of an Afghan farmer who lost his family to an American bomb. "Do you think that man is going to think that Obama is a peace president?"

"No!" the crowd shouted.

"Do you think that man will think that Obama is sincere?"

"No!"

"This is a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president. Does it look very different from the Bush regime?"

"No!"

Nearby, the leader of the orange-jumpsuit brigade shouted that Obama had "invested in torture." Steps away, the mock waterboarding was underway. "The Obama administration knows they did this and refuses to prosecute!" shouts the waterboarder.

After a while, Park Police had had enough. Mounted officers pushed back demonstrators, who responded with shouts of "Fascist," "Nazi" and "Sieg heil." Officers cut the chains that some had used to attach themselves to the White House fence. About 60 people stayed behind to be arrested. "Obama!" somebody called out. "Where are you?"

The officers began to lead the demonstrators, in plastic handcuffs, to the bus. One removed Cindy Sheehan's scarf and jewelry and gave her a good frisking.

"Stop the war! Stop the torture! Shame!" the demonstrators chanted, just as they had in recent years. Then someone added a new line: "Shame on you, Obama!"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 03:53 PM

500,000 helped by Obama mortgage rescue
The administration reaches its goal a few weeks early. But it remains to be seen how many of these trial modifications will work.

By Tami Luhby, CNNMoney.com senior writer
October 8, 2009: 2:26 PM ET


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Loan servicing companies have put 500,000 troubled borrowers into trial mortgage modifications, the Obama administration said Thursday.

The administration set that target in late July after it came under fire for not helping homeowners fast enough.

Officials increased the pressure on servicers to speed up their implementation of the president's foreclosure prevention plan, which calls for reducing eligible borrowers' monthly payments to no more than 31% of their pre-tax income. Servicers had until Nov. 1 to hit the half-a-million mark.

The administration also released a related report Thursday showing that 16% of eligible troubled borrowers at least 60 days delinquent were placed into trial modifications as of the end of September. This is up from 12% a month earlier.

President Obama announced the $75 billion initiative in February and the first institutions to join began accepting applications in April. ..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 05:31 PM

"America, after all, has little tolerance for loss of life."

That's not quite right. America has considerable tolerance for loss of life....as long as it isn't American life. Iraqis or Afghans or other such Third Worlders who get in the way of imperial strategy can die like flies as far as America is concerned...as long as American business interests get what they want.

Why be surprised that Obama is continuing to serve the great imperial agenda, BB? I'm not surprised. Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul were the only candidates who took a clear stand on ending those imperial wars in the Middle East...and actually meant it.

And that's one reason why they were not on your ballot on election day! Only loyal $ySStem servants get on the presidential ballot on election day.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 05:36 PM

LH,

Who said I was astonished? Didn't I call him O'bomber back in the primaries?

But I seem to recall being told how he would end all wars, and reduce the deficit, and walk on water...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 05:55 PM

Heh! Yes, well, BB, people easily get duped by the same old marketing ploy that the ruling $ySStem springs on them every 4 to 8 years. It sells them one popular brand of politician (either a Democrat or a Republican, whichever is more in style at the time). They get to try out that brand for 4 to 8 years. By the end of that 4 to 8 years they usually have come to their senses somewhat and realized that they were sold a "lemon"! They realize they wuz robbed, lied to, and HAD! They are desperate for a CHANGE!

So the $ySStem trots out the other brand (either a Republican or a Democrat) and it looks GOOD! It's all done up in shiny new packaging, and it promises to make up for all the deficiencies of the previous brand and bring CHANGE! OOOOO-WWEEEEE!   This gets people really excited and full of hope.

They vote in the other brand, are ecstatic when it "sweeps the rascals out", and they expect wonderful things to happen.

The $ySStem laughs up its sleeve, because it owns, manufactures, and markets BOTH of those brands, and both brands serve it equally loyally the moment they are in office.

And the shit goes on...and on...and on...

And the corruption goes on...and on...and on...

And the militarism goes on and on...

And those 2 brands are the only brands in town who can get enough advertising and funding to ever get elected.

Closed shop. Guaranteed result. Guaranteed ripoff.

I see no likely solution to it except the utter collapse of the ruling $ySStem itself. If that were to happen, it would result in a social and financial catastrophe of unheard of severity for the whole North American population...and possibly a really major world war.

And that would be worse than what we have now.

Kind of discouraging...! But what the hell? I never expected much from politics anyway. To me, politics isn't what life's really about. It's just a bunch of cacophonous noise on the surface of life.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Oct 09 - 09:32 AM

AP IMPACT: Obama's travels carry a touch of blue

Oct 13, 6:46 AM (ET)

By PHILIP ELLIOTT

PITTSBURGH (AP) - For President Barack Obama, it's almost as if the election campaign never ended. Just look at his travel schedule.

The same states that Obama targeted to win the White House are seeing an awful lot of the president, Vice President Joe Biden and top Cabinet officials. Only this year, the taxpayers are footing the multimillion-dollar tab for the trips, and Obama officials are delivering wheelbarrows of economic stimulus money - also compliments of taxpayers.

An Associated Press review of administration travel records shows that three of every four official trips Obama and his key lieutenants made in his first seven months in office were to the 28 states Obama won. Add trips to Missouri and Montana - both of which Obama narrowly lost - and almost 80 percent of the administration's official domestic travel has been concentrated in states likely to be key to Obama's re-election effort in 2012.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Oct 09 - 10:52 AM

Palestinians say hopes in Obama 'evaporated'
         
Amy Teibel, Associated Press Writer – 45 mins ago

JERUSALEM – The Palestinian president's political party says all hopes in the Obama administration have "evaporated," accusing the White House of caving in to pressure from the pro-Israel lobby and backing off a demand to freeze Jewish settlement.

Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah Party also accused the U.S. of failing to set a clear agenda for a new round of Mideast peace talks, according to an internal memo obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday.

"All hopes placed in the new U.S. administration and President Obama have evaporated," the document said. Obama "couldn't withstand the pressure of the Zionist lobby, which led to a retreat from his previous positions on halting settlement construction and defining an agenda for the negotiations and peace."

The Palestinians initially greeted Obama's election with enthusiasm, welcoming his outreach to the Muslim world and hoping he would depart from what they viewed as the pro-Israel bias of his predecessor, George W. Bush. Obama raised Palestinian hopes further with his repeated calls for Israel to halt all construction in Jewish settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem — areas the Palestinians claim for a future state.

But in recent weeks, the U.S. appears to have softened its stance on settlements. Washington says it has not abandoned the objective of halting settlement construction, but U.S. officials have indicated they do not see this as a condition for resuming talks.

The memo comes at a time of turmoil within Fatah after Abbas quickly reversed a decision to suspend efforts to bring Israel before a U.N. war crimes tribunal in connection with the Gaza war.

The document, dated Oct. 12, was issued by Fatah's Office of Mobilization and Organization. The office is headed by the party's No. 2, Mohammed Ghneim.

It was not immediately clear whether the document reflects Abbas' views or whether it was leaked to pressure Obama to bear down harder on Israel. Abbas' aides had no comment and Ghneim could not immediately be reached for comment.

The U.S. Embassy in Israel did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

The document reiterated Fatah's demand for Israel to freeze settlement construction and agree to a clear agenda for peace talks before negotiations can resume.

The Palestinians want talks to resume from the point they broke down last year under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's predecessor, Ehud Olmert. Netanyahu says he is not bound by any concessions Olmert may have made.

Obama personally intervened last month, when he summoned Abbas and Netanyahu to a three-way meeting in New York. But he failed to break the impasse.

The document echoes sentiments expressed by other Fatah officials. On Sunday, former Fatah strongman Mohammed Dahlan said the party "feels very disappointed and worried by the U.S. administration retreat."

The last round of Israel-Palestinian negotiations broke down late last year with no breakthroughs on the main issues dividing the two sides: final borders, the status of disputed Jerusalem and a solution for Palestinians who lost homes and other property in Israel after it achieved statehood in 1948.

The dispute over ongoing settlement construction in the West Bank and east Jerusalem has blocked all efforts to get the sides to talk, let alone solve the intractable conflict.

Netanyahu says some settlement construction must continue to accommodate growth of existing settler populations. He also says all of Jerusalem will remain in Israeli hands, although Israel's annexation of the eastern part of the city and its sensitive holy sites has never been internationally recognized.

The Fatah memo comes at a time when Abbas is under relentless criticism from the rival Hamas group, which rules Gaza. They accused him of betraying the Palestinian cause by suspending efforts to bring Israel before a U.N. war crimes tribunal over the winter offensive on Gaza. Abbas has since reversed himself, and the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva, which commissioned the report, is expected to debate the findings on Thursday.

Firing back at his critics Tuesday, Abbas said the Hamas-run Gaza Strip has become an "emirate of darkness." He also accused Hamas fighters of fleeing during the fighting while they "left their people to be killed in Gaza."

Tuesday's speech was Abbas' harshest so far on his Hamas rivals.

Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum called Abbas' speech "base and misguided."

Relations between Abbas's Fatah government in the West Bank and Hamas collapsed when Hamas seized control of Gaza in 2007. The latest spat has dealt a new blow to reconciliation efforts between the factions.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Oct 09 - 12:10 PM

Like I said, "just a bunch of cacophonous noise on the surface of life." ;-)

What really matters for YOU is how you handle yourself today and on each succeeding day that remains in this life.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 12:28 AM

Barack Obama Campaign Promise No. 234:
Promise Broken

Allow five days of public comment before signing bills

To reduce bills rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them, Obama "will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days."

"As president, I will make it impossible for congressmen or lobbyists to slip pork-barrel projects or corporate welfare into laws when no one is looking because when I am president, meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public. No more secrecy."

"It is time to turn the page. It is time to write a new chapter in our response to 9/11. . . . When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland."
[

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 12:33 AM

I never agreed with Obama's ideas about fighting his wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I think it's a stupid idea, and guaranteed to end in failure.

I liked McCaine's ideas even less, however.

Bit of a rotten choice to be given to vote for, isn't it? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 06:49 AM

A Wave Takes Shape in Delaware

By George F. Will
Thursday, October 15, 2009

Demure Delaware was the first state to ratify the Constitution, but since then has not made many waves. It might, however, be part of a political wave a year from now, thanks to a direct descendant of Benjamin Franklin.

The great man's great-great-great-great-great grandson, Mike Castle, 70, a nine-term Delaware congressman, will be next year's Republican nominee for the Senate seat Joe Biden held for 36 years. This and other candidate-recruitment successes make it reasonable for Republicans to hope that in January 2011 the Senate will contain fewer than 60 Democrats.

Biden's seat is currently occupied by a former Biden staffer who, in service to the ancient notion that public offices should be family patrimonies, will disappear when Biden's son Beau, 40, runs. He is the state's attorney general and has just returned from serving in Iraq with his Army National Guard unit. Delaware has not elected a Republican senator since 1994, but Castle, who has never lost a race, has run statewide 12 times: once for lieutenant governor, twice for governor and nine times for the state's only congressional seat. In the past four elections he averaged 65 percent of the vote.

In 2010, each party will be defending 19 Senate seats. The high number of 38 reflects the fact that six of today's 100 serving senators were appointed, not elected -- one each from Massachusetts (Ted Kennedy's replacement), New York (Hillary Clinton's replacement), Illinois (Barack Obama's replacement), Colorado (the replacement for Ken Salazar, who became interior secretary), Florida (the replacement for Mel Martinez, who quit) and Delaware.

In Colorado, where Democrats have won the last two Senate races, the appointed Democrat, Michael Bennet, faces a primary challenger, Andrew Romanoff, a former speaker of the state House. Annoyed because the governor did not appoint him to replace Salazar, Romanoff spurned the plea of a future Nobel Peace Prize winner that he not challenge Bennet. The Republican nominee may be a former statewide winner -- Jane Norton, who served as lieutenant governor.

In Illinois, which has not elected a Republican senator since 1998, the front-runner for the GOP nomination is Mark Kirk, a five-term representative from the Chicago suburbs, where statewide elections often are decided. He annoyed his party by voting for the cap-and-trade legislation, but he has sort of semi-apologized.

Connecticut's Sen. Chris Dodd, seeking a sixth term, has an approval rating of 43 percent and has drawn several serious Republican challengers. Any incumbent with a job approval below 50 percent should worry; In Nevada, Harry Reid's is below 40.

Three seats held by Republicans are in jeopardy: Missouri's (Kit Bond is retiring), Ohio's (George Voinovich is retiring) and New Hampshire's (Judd Gregg is retiring). But Republicans have strong candidates in each state: in Missouri, Rep. Roy Blunt, former House Republican whip; in Ohio, Rob Portman, former representative, head of the Office of Management and Budget, and trade representative; in New Hampshire, a possible nominee, former state attorney general Kelly Ayotte, who is ahead of her likely Democratic opponent.

In the House elections, substantial Republican gains are possible. As analyst Charles Cook notes, 84 House Democrats represent districts that were carried either by George W. Bush in 2004 or by John McCain in 2008, and 48 of those districts were carried by both Bush and McCain. These and other uneasy incumbents know that Congress's job approval rating is 22 percent.

Much can change, nationally and locally, before Nov. 2, 2010. But perhaps the most politically salient thing is unlikely to change: high unemployment. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the economy, which has lost 7.2 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007, must create 100,000 a month just to match population growth. Joseph Seneca, a Rutgers economist, estimates that even if job creation were immediately to reach the pace of the 1990s -- an average of 2.15 million private-sector jobs were added each year, double the pace of that between 2001 and 2007-- the unemployment rate would not fall to 5 percent until 2017.

September's 9.8 percent unemployment rate was the worst since June 1983. But robust growth began then, and just 17 months later Ronald Reagan came within 3,800 Minnesota votes of carrying all 50 states. Reagan, however, was reducing government's burdens -- taxes, regulations -- on the economy. Obama is increasing them.

The possibility of Republican gains, especially in the Senate, helps explain why Obama is in such a rush to remake the nation and save the planet. His window of opportunity could be closing.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 07:42 AM

How to Engage Iran
A fellow Nobel Peace laureate offers some friendly advice, and a rebuke, to President Obama.


Thursday, October 15, 2009

SHIRIN EBADI, a 62-year-old Iranian lawyer who won the Nobel Peace Prize six years ago, is generally cautious and measured in her speech. She is a human rights lawyer who says that she does not involve herself in politics. She says that it's not her job to favor one party over another, as long as the government respects people's right to express themselves.

So it was startling this week to hear Ms. Ebadi say bluntly that the Obama administration has gotten some things backward when it comes to Iran. It's not that engaging with the government is a mistake, she said during a visit to The Post. But paying so much more attention to Iran's nuclear ambitions than to its trampling of democracy and freedom is a mistake both tactical and moral.

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "is at the lowest level of popularity one can imagine," Ms. Ebadi said. "If the West focuses exclusively on the nuclear issue, Ahmadinejad can tell his people that the West is against Iran's national interest and rally people to his cause. But if the West presses also on its human rights record, he will find himself in a position where his popular base is getting weaker and weaker by the day."

Administration officials point out that they have not focused exclusively on the nuclear issue. President Obama has spoken out in support of democracy forces, and Undersecretary of State William J. Burns put human rights on the agenda during his meeting with an Iranian official in Geneva this month. Ms. Ebadi acknowledged that Mr. Obama has said "that the voice of the people needs to be heard. But he needs to repeat the statement again and again, so that people in Iran hear him."

Ms. Ebadi suggested that the nature of Iran's regime is more crucial to U.S. security than any specific deals on nuclear energy. Iran's people are not as wedded to the nuclear program as the regime wants outsiders to believe. A democratic government would be unlikely to build a nuclear bomb, she said, and even if it did, the weapon would not be a threat in the hands of a government that would not view America or Israel as enemies. By contrast, she argued, even a seemingly ironclad nuclear agreement with Mr. Ahmadinejad might be of little value: "Imagine if the government actually promised to stop its nuclear program tomorrow. Would you trust this government not to start another secret nuclear program somewhere else?"

The courage it takes to say such things may be difficult for Americans to comprehend. Ms. Ebadi's husband, 67, and her brother and sister are called in for questioning every week, she said, and pressured to pressure her. Many of her clients are in prison, some now facing the death penalty. She herself intends to return to her homeland. But the events of the summer -- the prematurely announced election results, the shootings of peaceful protesters in the street and on university campuses, the rapes of imprisoned protesters, the ghoulish show trials of alleged traitors to the regime -- seem to have convinced her that she must speak out.

"Mr. Obama has extended the hand of friendship to a man who has blood on his hands," she said. "He can at least avoid shaking the hand of friendship with him."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 08:57 AM

U.S. troop funds diverted to pet projects

By Shaun Waterman THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Senators diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill to pet projects largely at the expense of accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an analysis.

Among the 778 such projects, known as earmarks, packed into the bill: $25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.

While earmarks are hardly new in Washington, "in 30 years on Capitol Hill, I never saw Congress mangle the defense budget as badly as this year," said Winslow Wheeler, a former Senate staffer who worked on defense funding and oversight for both Republicans and Democrats. He is now a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information, an independent research organization.

Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, called the transfer of funds from Pentagon operations and maintenance "a disgrace."

"The Senate is putting favorable headlines back home above our men and women fighting on the front lines," he said in a statement.

Mr. Wheeler, who conducted the study, compared the Obama administration's requests for funds with the $636 billion spending bill that the Senate passed. He discovered that senators added $2.6 billion in pet projects while spending $4 billion less than the administration requested for fiscal 2010, which began Oct. 1.

Mr. Wheeler said that senators took most of the cash for the projects from the "operations and maintenance" or O&M accounts.

"These are the accounts that pay for troop training, repairs, spares and supplies for vehicles, weapons, ships and planes, food and fuel," Mr. Wheeler said.

Raiding those accounts to fund big-ticket projects the military does not want, but that benefit senators' home states or campaign contributors, amounts to "rancid gluttony," he said.

The administration's budget requested $156 billion for the regular O&M account and $81 billion for O&M for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill passed by the Senate cut $2.4 billion from the regular account and $655 million from the war O&M fund.

more

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 09:34 AM

EDITORIAL: Fox hunting

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Let's face it. Fox News runs stories that the Obama administration would rather ignore - from the sleaziness and corruption in the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) to the bizarre views and actions of senior presidential appointees such as Van Jones and Kevin Jennings.

Last weekend, the Obama administration declared war. "We're going to treat [Fox News] the way we would treat an opponent," said Anita Dunn, White House communications director. She claimed, "We don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave." The administration has begun using a government blog to regularly attack what it calls "Fox lies."

The administration already was boycotting the network. In late September, President Obama had time to answer questions from CBS' "Face the Nation," NBC's "Meet the Press," ABC's "This Week," CNN's "State of the Union" and Univision's "Al Punto," but not "Fox News Sunday." There is irony in Miss Dunn complaining to the New York Times about Fox News being "an opponent" and that "people who watch Fox News believe it's the home team."

Although the Obama team doesn't trust Fox News, a surprisingly large number of Democrats do. A new Pew Research Center for the People & the Press poll released on Sept. 13 shows that Fox News is more trusted - even by Democrats - than the New York Times. While 43 percent of Democrats have a positive view of Fox News, 39 percent feel the same way about the Times. Among Republicans and independents, Fox News does have huge 56 and 26 percentage point leads.

As the survey indicates, Fox's audience is not just composed of conservatives but includes plenty of liberals and moderates, too. This probably is because viewers appreciate hard-hitting news that is different from the administration line regurgitated everywhere else on TV. Its independence helps explain why Fox News regularly has more viewers than CNN, MSNBC and CNN Headline News combined.

Data illustrates that Fox is more evenhanded than its competitors. A Pew analysis showed that 40 percent of Fox News stories on Mr. Obama as well as 40 percent of those on Sen. John McCain were negative during the last six weeks of the 2008 presidential campaign. By contrast, CNN had a 22 percentage point gap and MSNBC a 59 percentage point spread in favor of Mr. Obama. The White House is so protected by soft-focus coverage that anything not tilted its way is considered an act of war.

With Democrats controlling both Congress and the presidency, the Obama administration is trying to squash dissent. The administration is not content with attacking critical press. It is boldly proceeding with plans for the Federal Communications Commission to meddle in conservative talk radio. It threatens insurance companies with not being able to participate in federal programs if those companies attempt mildly to warn customers about how new health care legislation will affect them.

Mr. Obama walks a dangerous trail famously taken by President Nixon when he attempted to freeze out The Washington Post. That strategy didn't work so well.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 10:30 AM

Careful to a Fault on Afghanistan

By David Ignatius
Thursday, October 15, 2009

Afghanistan could be the most important decision of Barack Obama's presidency. Maybe that's why he is, in effect, making it twice.

What's odd about the administration's review of Afghanistan policy is that it is revisiting issues that were analyzed in great detail -- and seemingly resolved -- in the president's March 27 announcement of a new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. The recent recommendations from Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal were intended to implement that "Af-Pak" strategy -- not send the debate back to first principles.

The March document stated that the basic goal was "to prevent Afghanistan from becoming the al-Qaeda safe haven that it was before
9/11." But to accomplish this limited mission, the president endorsed a much broader effort to "reverse the Taliban's gains, and promote a more capable and accountable Afghan government." That gap between end and means has bedeviled the policy ever since.

So now the president is doing it again, slowly and carefully -- as in last Friday's three-hour White House meeting, where, I'm told, he went around the table and quizzed his national security aides one by one.

Obama's deliberative pace is either heartening or maddening, depending on your perspective. Personally, I think he's wise to take his time on an issue in which it's so hard to know the right answer. But I worry that the White House approach will soften the edges so much that the policy itself will be fuzzy and doomed to failure.

As Obama's advisers describe the decision-making process, it sounds a bit like a seminar. National security adviser Jim Jones gathers all the key people so that everyone gets a voice. A top official explains: "We don't get marching orders from the president. He wants a debate. . . . We take the competing views and collapse them toward the middle." This approach produced a consensus on Iran and missile defense, and as National Security Councils go, Obama's seems to work pretty smoothly. Jones is now master of his own house after a rocky start in which he clashed with an inner "Politburo" of aides who had been with Obama during the campaign. Those younger aides are now out or in different jobs, putting Jones more firmly in charge. Obama will be happy to have a retired Marine four-star general at the NSC when it comes time to sell his Afghanistan policy to the military.

Obama's top advisers all stress how different his style is from that of his predecessor, George W. Bush. And it's true, occasionally to a fault. One top aide draws the contrast this way: "Pragmatism versus ideology; thoroughness of review versus instant decisions; consensus versus go-it-alone." On Afghanistan, this aide stresses, Obama wants to avoid any semblance of a "rush to war." Nine months on, that doesn't seem like a danger.

Where Bush was chief executive -- with an approach that could be described as "decide or delegate" -- Obama is more a chairman of the board. Bush's tendency to make snap judgments led to some disasters, but as James B. Stewart described it in a recent New Yorker article, Bush correctly left key decisions in the September 2008 financial crisis to his Fed chairman and Treasury secretary, telling them: "If you think this has to be done, you have my blessing." For better or worse, it's hard to imagine Obama making a similar delegation of authority.

Obama's challenge on Afghanistan is to identify a mission there that is achievable, and then to provide the necessary resources. He has ruled out simply walking away from the Afghanistan war -- which he rightly sees as a reckless course at a time when neighboring Pakistan is facing its own brutal onslaught from the Taliban.

But what is an achievable goal for U.S. forces? Stabilizing the whole country is Mission Impossible, I'm afraid. McChrystal thinks that with some additional troops, the United States could provide security for major population centers in the south and east. This would buy some time to train the Afghan army and encourage President Hamid Karzai's efforts to reach a political reconciliation with the Taliban. Is this strategy really doable, and if so, at what cost? I'm still looking for answers to those questions and so, evidently, is Obama.

Obama had the basic point on Afghanistan right in March: "We have a shared responsibility to act -- not because we seek to project power for its own sake but because our own peace and security depends on it." It's Afghanistan's war. Obama needs to decide -- soon -- how the United States can best help Kabul in a way that's politically sustainable in Washington.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 10:45 AM

Chongo is pissed because no one has started a thread like this about him.

Of course, he hasn't been elected president.

Yet.

Just wait!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 11:21 AM

President Obama's Trip to New Orleans Draws Criticism -- Before He Even Arrives
Four Years Later, Local Residents Complain the Short Presidential Visit Is a 'Glorified Flyover'
By KAREN TRAVERS and MATTHEW JAFFE
Oct. 15, 2009

Obama will visit the Martin Luther King Charter School in the city's Lower 9th Ward, a neighborhood devastated by the floodwaters of Katrina after the city's levees were breached. The charter school was the first to be rebuilt following Katrina. On the second anniversary of the hurricane, former President George W. Bush visited the school and met with Louisiana education officials.

Obama will also hold a town hall meeting with members of the New Orleans community.

But before the president even steps foot on the ground in Louisiana, critics in the region have taken aim at the administration on several fronts: They fault him for waiting nine months before going to New Orleans, staying for only four hours and not going to any of the other states affected by the devastating 2005 storm, such as Mississippi and Alabama.

Tommy Longo, the mayor of Waveland, Miss., a town that was leveled by Katrina, said that Obama was "missing the Ground Zero of Katrina."

"We haven't whined. My citizens get up every day and they go to work, rebuilding their city from under the ground up, and it would mean a lot to them if they knew that they were on his mind," Longo said of the president. "It would mean a lot to everyone if he actually put his feet on the ground here in Waveland."

Even Louisiana officials have voiced displeasure with the trip and want more from the president.

"I think the trip could have been longer," said Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., in a television interview Wednesday. "But I want to say that people are not angry. If they're anything, they're just a little disappointed and frustrated, but understanding that the president has a lot on his plate.

The White House said that the trip demonstrates the president's "strong commitment to Gulf Coast rebuilding and recovery."

Administration officials noted that since taking office in January, their measures to speed up federal aid have already freed up more than $1 billion toward public infrastructure for Louisiana.

Others say that the White House deserves credit for the steps it has taken but may be making a public relations mistake with the short visit.

"I fear Obama is mismanaging the political theater of Katrina," Lawrence Powell of Tulane University told ABC News. "Granted, he and his administration deserve plaudits for unblocking recovery funds and cutting needless red tape, but the people down here can't be reassured often enough that the president 'gets' the problem -- the sluggish recovery, the vanishing coastline, the social 'Katrinas' that are making our mean streets even meaner and more dangerous."

more

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 11:27 AM

Foreclosures: 'Worst three months of all time'

Despite signs of broader economic recovery, number of foreclosure filings hit a record high in the third quarter - a sign the plague is still spreading.

By Les Christie, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: October 15, 2009: 7:34 AM ET

Foreclosure crisis

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Despite concerted government-led and lender-supported efforts to prevent foreclosures, the number of filings hit a record high in the third quarter, according to a report issued Thursday.

"They were the worst three months of all time," said Rick Sharga, spokesman for RealtyTrac, an online marketer of foreclosed homes.

During that time, 937,840 homes received a foreclosure letter -- whether a default notice, auction notice or bank repossession, the RealtyTrac report said. That means one in every 136 U.S. homes were in foreclosure, which is a 5% increase from the second quarter and a 23% jump over the third quarter of 2008.

Nevada continued to be the worst-hit state with one filing for every 23 households. But even tranquil Vermont, where the foreclosure crisis has barely brushed the housing market, saw foreclosure filings jump nearly 170% compared with the third quarter of 2008. Still, that resulted in just one filing for every 5,023 households in the state -- the best record in the country.

The RealtyTrac report also unveiled the results for September, and it found that there was slight relief from foreclosure filings. Last month, notices totaled 343,638, down 4% compared with August. Unfortunately, that total accounts for 87,821 homes that were repossessed by lenders.

That deluge contributed significantly to the quarter's record 237,052 repossessions, a 21% jump from the previous three months. So far this year lenders have taken back 623,852 homes.

"REO activity increased from the previous quarter in all but two states and the District of Columbia, indicating that lenders may be starting to work through some of the pent-up foreclosure inventory caused by legislative delays, loan-modification efforts and high volumes of distressed properties," James Saccacio, RealtyTrac's CEO, said in a statement.

Most disturbing is that all foreclosures -- not just repossessions -- are rampant despite efforts to corral them. Not only has the Obama administration's Making Home Affordable foreclosure prevention program taken a bite out of REOs but lenders themselves have scaled back repossessions over the past few months to give the program time to work.

And in some low-price markets, lenders simply aren't following through on foreclosures, according to Jim Rokakis, treasurer for Cuyahoga County, Ohio, which includes Cleveland.

"They'll even set the date for the sheriff's sale, but they don't file the final papers," he said. "They hold it in abeyance and let the residents stay in the house."

In ever more frequent cases, delinquent borrowers want out of the mortgage worse than the lenders. There are no firm statistics for it, but many industry watchers claim the percentage of REOs caused by borrowers voluntarily walking away from their homes is skyrocketing.

A study of the trend by the Chicago Booth School of Business and the Kellogg School of Management determined that when home price declines drop home values 10% below the mortgage balances, people start to give up their homes. When "negative equity" approaches 50%, 17% of households default, even when they can still afford their mortgage payments.

No end in sight
The foreclosure crisis may not diminish anytime soon. "The fastest growing area is in the 180 days late-plus category, the most seriously delinquent borrowers," Sharga said. "It's going to be a lingering problem."

Plus, the RealtyTrac statistics may understate the depth of the foreclosure mess because lender and government actions have delayed many filings. As a result, some delinquencies have not been counted on the foreclosure tallies. That means the crisis may not end quickly.

And because there are so many delinquent borrowers, Sharga predicts the banks will be slow to take back their properties and put the repossessed homes back on the market.

"It's hard to envision [the banks] putting millions on properties up for sale and cratering prices," he said. "Recovery will be slow and gradual. I don't see home prices getting much better until 2013."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 04:14 PM

What a LOT of clatter and claptrap, Bruce!

FOX is not antagonizing the Administration by "running stories", but by consistently presenting bias and distortion. It is disingenuous of you to blandly re-post long twisted tales from them as aren't willing or able to clarify the facts of the matter. Who cares about yammer? There are real things to concern oneself with, and on that fron the Obama Administration is marching ahead deliberately making things better, despite all the sturm und drang. Your columnists seem to subscribe to the "sound and fury" school of journalism, signifying nothing.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 04:49 PM

Aha! He gothcha, Amos. I thought you'd given up rising to the bait.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 06:41 PM

Yeah, I had the same hought just after I hit the Submit button, LH. It's just bait; there's no real "there" there.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 08:43 PM

If the USA pulls out of Afghanistan, will it mean the fall of the Pakistani government and Al Quaeda will eventually obtain nukes?

Will the US have to invade again on a much larger and costlier scale to beat back Al Quaeda again?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 11:53 PM

The best thing that could have been done for Pakistan was for the Russians and Americans to stay out of that region. If they had, then the Mujahedeen, the forerunners of the Taliban, would never have been dredged up out of the Islamic fundamentalist abyss by the CIA, funded by the USA to kill Russians...Afghanistan would never have been invaded by either Russia or America...neither the Taliban nor Al Queda would ever have gotten a base there...and Pakistan would not have been destabilized as it has been in the past 25 years by a massive influx of Aghan refugees and guerrilla fighters.

It is the Russians and the Americans, by their imperial actions, who gave birth to the Taliban and Al Queda.

Pakistan has suffered the fallout from that.

The Pakistani military warned the USA back when it was funding and gathering Islamic fundametalists to kill Russians that those actions were giving birth to a "Frankenstein monster" which would come back to haunt both Pakistan and the USA.

The USA paid no attention to those warnings. They were intent on damaging the Russians and that was all they thought about.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 01:10 PM

Excuuuse me But the US aided the Afghans in their efforts in expelling the Russians and then left Afghanistan on it's own when it should have stayed.

The mujahideen received support from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other nations besides the US.

All this dark a cynical crap about the CIA dredging up fundamentalist is garbage.

You need to study a little history. The place has been fucked over by different groups and countries including the Median Empire, Persians, Alexander the Great, Seleucians, Indo-Greeks, Turks, Mongols and invaded by the British.

D you know what the Durand Line is?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 01:11 PM

You're mistaken. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 01:29 PM

What I mean is, you're mistaken about the CIA and the USA not acting in such a way as to gather together Islamic fundamentalist fighters in the 80's, thereby sowing the seeds that sprouted into the Taliban. Yes, the Saudis were involved too. Of course. The Saudis are American allies. Yes, there were elements in Pakistan which assisted as well...but the Pakistan military and governmental people warned the USA against encouraging extremist Islamic fundamentalist factions in the 80's. The USA didn't listen to those warnings.

The client government that the Russians left in Afghanistan as they pulled out in the late 80's was a far less extreme outfit than the Taliban wich later took over. It was headed by a man named Najibullah. That government fairly much controlled the cities at the time, while the people who became the Taliban controlled much of the countryside. It was the USA which continued to fund and arm those Islamic fundamentalists...with an intention of destroying Najibullah's government. Regime change. Well, they eventually succeeded in bringing about that regime change, and the Taliban took over Aghanistan...and that was the worst thing that could possibly have happened.

I'm saying, Sawzaw, that Afghanistan has suffered from outside interference by TWO imperial powers.

First - The Soviets.

Second - The USA.

Both the Soviets and the USA, between them, have utterly ruined Afghanistan and have fairly much ruined Pakistan as well (as collateral side effect from Afghanistan.

It is not the fault of Afghans or Pakistanis that this has happened. It's the fault of imperial policy by TWO imperialist nations: Russia and the USA.

And I sympathize with neither one of them one bit. If I was an Aghan or a Pakistani, I'd say "to hell with both Russia and the USA".

Your error, Sawzaw, is that you imagine the USA is a "good guy" in the whole dammed scenario. It isn't, and it never was.

I am well aware that the Medes, Persians, Alexander the Great, Seleuceids, Indo-Greeks, Turks, Mongols and British have previously invaded Afghanistan too. But so what? What does it have to do with what I'm saying about Russia and the USA in the modern era? The reason Afghanistan has been invaded many times over the centuries is because it lies in a place where crucial trade routes from several major regions pass through a very restricted set of narrow mountain passes. That makes it a place that is bound to be fought over as competing empires seek to expand their turf and come into collision with their neighbors.

Yes, I do study history. I love it and always have loved it. ;-)

Never assume, just because you disagree with someone on some political matter, that he is ignorant, stupid, or anything else like that. I don't make those kind of assumptions about you.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 12:33 AM

Your history evidently begins with the Russian invasion. The US made a counter invasion. Maybe you should back up a bit.

The sun never sets on the British Empire.

I don't remember the USA making that claim.

Although there is no evidence that the CIA directly supported the Taliban or Al-Qaeda, some basis for military support of the Taliban was provided when, in the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency) provided arms to Afghans resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the ISI assisted the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets.

Anyway, while you are occupied by wiping your tears, looking in the rear view mirror, rehashing who did what and trying to blame somebody, Al-Quaeda will obtain nukes.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 01:43 AM

The USA doesn't have to make such a claim as "the sun never sets on the American Empire", because it's self-evident and obvious to everyone that that is the case. The USA became the world's new greatest empire after the two world wars bankrupted the UK. Their main competitor for the title was the Soviets, and that put in place the Cold War, and Afghanistan has been a victim of that Cold War. For that I blame both the USA and Russia.

My point was that Afghanistan had a reasonably okay government and society before the Russians invaded them...and they've had a very bad situation ever since. Both Russia and the USA have made their situation very bad...and so did the Taliban, needless to say.

Correct, "the ISI assisted the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets". Yes. And they did so at the behest of the USA. And they warned the USA that it was a dangerous policy which could lead to future problems for both Pakistan and the USA.

And it has done so.

You anticipate Al Qaeda obtaining some nukes? Perhaps. If a nuke is used on some American target in a terror attack...and then is attributed to Al Qaeda by your propaganda ministry (meaning your controlled and phony national "news" media)...whether or not it really came from Al Qaeda, which it probably won't...I know what it will be used to justify. It will be used to justify a major nuclear attack on Iran. In that attack many innocent people will die. I predict that virtually none of them will be members of Al Qaeda nor will Al Qaeda be hurt one bit by the American attack. They will be greatly helped by it. They will gain many new recruits in response to it.

And another false flag operation will have succeeded in causing another unjustified foreign war. But it will be a far more dangerous war than the ones we've seen in the last 20 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 11:20 PM

"self-evident and obvious to everyone that that is the case"

Now you are the judge and jury speaking for everyone. The UK did make that claim with out some pipsqueak representative claiming it was obvious.

Two world wars bailed out the UK. It was too big to fail or would rather have the US stay out?

You obviously harbor some sort of hatred or jealousy toward the USA.

Where would socialist Canada be with out a rich capitaist neighbor to feed off of?

The United States exported $160.9 billion in goods to Canada last year. But imports from Canada totaled $211.8 billion. The bottom line: a Canadian trade surplus (or American trade deficit) of $50.9 billion in 2002. It marked the third straight year in which Canada's advantage over the U.S. was more than $50 billion.

Canada can put every under producing citizen on the dole in the form of free medical care because it sells its natural resources to the USA.

Meanwhile you blame the USA for all of the evils in the world. but when a rich Canuck gets sick and their wonderful health care system fails them, they sneak into in the evil USA to get saved.

You can keep your beer, oosiks and those damned noisy geese that shit everywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 12:34 AM

You can ignore anything that any other country did if it makes you feels better, heres a tissue.

During its time in power, the Taliban regime, or "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan," gained diplomatic recognition from only three states: the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia all of whom also provided aid. Most states in the world, including Russia, Iran, India, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, and later the USA, opposed the Taliban and aided their enemy the Northern Alliance.
Relations with Pakistan

For a period of seven years since their origin, Pakistan's government had been the Taliban's main sponsor. It provided military equipment, recruiting assistance, training and tactical advice that enabled the band of village mullahs and their adherents to take control of Afghanistan.

Officially Pakistan denied it was supporting the Taliban, but its support was substantial—one year's aid (1997/1998) was an estimated $30 million in wheat, diesel, petroleum and kerosene fuel, and other supplies The Taliban's influence in its neighbour Pakistan was deep. Its "unprecedented access" among Pakistan's lobbies and interest groups enabled it "to play off one lobby against another and extend their influence in Pakistan even further. At times they would defy" even the powerful

Foreign powers, including the United States, were at first supportive of the Taliban in hopes it would serve as a force to restore order in Afghanistan after years of division into corrupt, lawless warlord fiefdoms. The U.S. government, for example, made no comment when the Taliban captured Herat in 1995 and expelled thousands of girls from schools. These hopes faded as it began to be engaged in warlord practices of rocketing unarmed civilians, targeting ethnic groups (primarily Hazaras) and restricting the rights of women. In late 1997, American Secretary of State Madeleine Albright began to distance the U.S. from the Taliban and the next year the American-based Unocal, previously having implicitly supported the Taliban in order to build a pipeline south from Central Asia, the oil company withdrew from a major deal with the Taliban regime concerning an oil pipeline.

In early August 1998 the Taliban's difficulties in relations with foreign groups became much more serious. After attacking the city of Mazar, Taliban forces killed several thousand civilians and 10 Iranian diplomats and intelligence officers in the Iranian consulate. Alleged radio intercepts indicate Mullah Omar personally approved the killings. The Iranian government was incensed and a "full-blown regional crisis" ensued with Iran mobilizing 200,000 regular troops, though war was averted.

A day before the capture of Mazar, affiliates of Taliban guest Osama bin Laden bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa killing 224 and wounding 4500 mostly African victims. The United States responded by launching cruise missiles attacks on suspected terrorists camps in Afghanistan killing over 20 though failing to kill bin Laden or even many Al-Qaeda. Mullah Omar condemned the missile attack and American President Bill Clinton. Saudi Arabia expelled the Taliban envoy in Saudi Arabia in protest over the Taliban's refusal to turn over bin Laden and after Mullah Omar allegedly insulted the Saudi royal family.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 11:54 AM

It's not only the promise of money that is motivating change. There seems to be some sort of status contest as states compete to prove they, too, can meet the criteria. Governors who have been bragging about how great their schools are don't want to be left off the list.

These changes mean that states are raising their caps on the number of charter schools. When charters got going, there was a "let a thousand flowers bloom" mentality that sometimes led to bad schools. Now reformers know more about how to build charters and the research is showing solid results. Caroline Hoxby of Stanford University recently concluded a rigorous study of New York's charter schools and found that they substantially narrowed the achievement gap between suburban and inner-city students.

The changes also will mean student performance will increasingly be a factor in how much teachers get paid and whether they keep their jobs. There is no consensus on exactly how to do this, but there is clear evidence that good teachers produce consistently better student test scores, and that teachers who do not need to be identified and counseled. Cracking the barrier that has been erected between student outcomes and teacher pay would be a huge gain.

Duncan even seems to have made some progress in persuading the unions that they can't just stonewall, they have to get involved in the reform process. The American Federation of Teachers recently announced innovation grants for performance pay ideas. The New Haven school district has just completed a new teacher contract, with union support, that includes many of the best reform ideas.

There are still many places, like Washington, where the unions are dogmatically trying to keep bad teachers in the classrooms. But if implemented well, the New Haven contract could be a sign of perestroika even within the education establishment.

"I've been deeply disturbed by a lot that's going on in Washington," Jeb Bush said on Thursday, "but this is not one of them. President Obama has been supporting a reform secretary, and this is deserving of Republican support." Bush's sentiment is echoed across the spectrum, from Newt Gingrich to Al Sharpton.

Over the next months, there will be more efforts to water down reform. Some groups are offering to get behind health care reform in exchange for gutting education reform. Politicians from both parties are going to lobby fiercely to ensure that their state gets money, regardless of the merits. So will governors who figure they're going to lose out in the award process.

But President Obama understood from the start that this would only work if the awards remain fiercely competitive. He has not wavered. We're not close to reaching the educational Promised Land, but we may be at the start of what Rahm Emanuel calls The Quiet Revolution.

(NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 02:42 PM

Obama & Google (a love story)

Fortune magazine: ...Yet neither Obama's anticorporate leanings nor Google's anti-"politics as usual" culture has stopped the two camps from collaborating closely. Schmidt sits on Obama's Council of Science and Technology Advisers. Google employees acted as advisers to the Obama transition team -- in one case Google executive Sonal Shah actually led a meeting, to the surprise of at least one attendee -- and a handful of ex-Googlers have joined the administration in various roles.

The most visible appointee is Google's former head of global public policy, Andrew McLaughlin, who was named deputy chief technology officer in June. McLaughlin's appointment raised eyebrows -- in his previous role McLaughlin championed Google's policy goals. Now he'll be in a position to shape policy that affects Google's rivals. White House spokesman Nick Shapiro says McLaughlin's appointment complies with the letter and spirit of the ethics standards Obama imposes on his administration...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 03:42 PM

Gallup poll October 23, 2009

"The majority of Americans do not believe President Barack Obama deserved to win the Nobel Peace Prize (61%), but the public is split in its personal reaction to the announcement. Asked if they are "glad" Obama received the prize, 46% of Americans say yes and 47% say no."

Yassir Arafat earned his.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 10:33 PM

New York Times:

Norman Hsu, a former prominent Democratic fund-raiser, was sentenced Tuesday to more than 24 years in prison for bilking hundreds of investors of millions of dollars in a nationwide Ponzi scheme and committing campaign finance fraud.Judge Victor Marrero of United States District Court in Manhattan rejected Mr. Hsu's plea for leniency and cited what he called a "stunningly elaborate system of fraud and deceit."

From 2005 to 2007, the authorities said, Mr. Hsu had "straw donors" contribute more than $25,000 a year to federal candidates, and then reimbursed them in violation of federal law.

When news that there was an outstanding warrant for Mr. Hsu's arrest became public, it turned into an embarrassment for Democratic politicians, particularly for Mrs. Clinton. The same politicians who once courted Mr. Hsu could not get rid of his money fast enough. Mrs. Clinton donated the money she received from Mr. Hsu to charity. Eliot Spitzer, Andrew M. Cuomo, Barack Obama and Al Franken did the same.

Mr. Hsu pleaded guilty in May to 10 counts of mail and wire fraud in connection with the Ponzi scheme, which prosecutors said lasted about a decade and defrauded over 250 investors of more than $50 million.Then, on May 19, after a trial, he was convicted of four counts of campaign finance fraud. Prosecutors presented evidence that from 2005 through 2007 he directed "straw donors" to contribute to the campaigns of various federal candidates whose favor he was trying curry, and that in some cases he reimbursed donors from the proceeds of his fraudulent scheme.

One candidate who received contributions was Hillary Rodham Clinton, then a senator, whose presidential campaign later returned about $850,000 to more than 200 donors who had been recruited by Mr. Hsu."Our system of government," Judge Marrero said before imposing the sentence of 292 months, "relies not only on scrupulous preservation of the rule of law but also on faith in the democratic processes by which our leaders are elected and govern."

He added, "Mr. Hsu's disgraceful use of political campaigns to perpetrate his Ponzi scheme, as well as his acts of campaign finance fraud, strike at the very core of our democracy." The United States attorney's office had asked the judge for a sentence of at least 30 years. Mr. Hsu, who the authorities say is 58, said he wanted to apologize to the court and to "everyone else." "I made a huge mistake, a terrible mistake," he said. Mr. Hsu's lawyer, Alan Seidler, said his client would appeal.

Judge Marrero said Mr. Hsu had "leveraged his relationships with prominent politicians, relationships largely garnered through the years of contributing vast sums of stolen money to political campaigns, in order to perpetuate his scheme." At trial, victims testified that Mr. Hsu displayed photographs of himself with political candidates, and at political events introduced them to candidates like Mrs. Clinton and Barack Obama. Prosecutors played a recording for the jury of a voice mail message left by Mrs. Clinton for Mr. Hsu, lavishing him with praise for his support.

"I've never seen anybody who has been more loyal and more effective and really just having greater success supporting someone than you," she is heard saying. One prosecutor, Rua M. Kelly, objected to Mr. Hsu's request for leniency on grounds that he was offering to try to help victims recover their losses. She said much of the money was gone, spent by Mr. Hsu to support a luxurious lifestyle. Another prosecutor, Alexander J. Willscher, said Mr. Hsu had refused to meet with the government on the matter.

Ms. Kelly said the notion that Mr. Hsu is helping the government reclaim money for victims is "ludicrous." At one point, Judge Marrero said that Mr. Hsu's conduct, as in other white-collar crime cases, "summons the image of the wolf in sheep's clothing." The judge said, "It is the widespread recognition in the community that the defendant enjoys for strong character, integrity, sound social values and good public deeds that facilitates his hidden life of crime."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 08:04 PM

The $827 Billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

President-elect Obama said his administration will make the single, largest, new investment in the nation's infrastructure since the creation of the interstate highway system in the 1950s under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, The New York Times reported. Governors told Obama they have $136 billion in road, bridge, water, and related projects ready to go; local regional transmit systems have $8 billion in projects that could begin immediately.

Reality:

SAN FRANCISCO Oct 28 2009– The San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge has been closed indefinitely after a rod installed during last month's emergency repairs snapped, causing a traffic nightmare for the 26,000 motorists who cross the landmark span every day.

Engineers on Wednesday will evaluate the damage caused when the rod and metal brace fell into the 73-year-old bridge's westbound lanes during Tuesday evening's rush hour.

At least two vehicles — a car and a small truck — either were struck by or ran into the fallen rod, said California Highway Patrol Officer Peter Van Eckhardt, but no injuries were reported.

The California Department of Transportation said Tuesday that it will remain closed indefinitely.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 08:11 PM

Sawzaw...the very notion that I would be "jealous of the USA" is really laughable. I lived down there for 10 years, and there is nothing for a Canadian to be jealous of whatsoever about the USA, I assure you...except for the fact that you have some warmer regions in terms of the weather. I AM envious of that, but your stupid government and your wretchedly backward social system did not achieve that, Mother Nature did.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 08:34 PM

Where would socialist Canada be with out a rich capitalist neighbor to feed off of?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 08:35 PM

Sawz:

In what way do you think Canada "feeds off" its capitalist neighbor? Do you have any facts to support that rather venomous characterization?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 09:08 PM

Canada's trade surplus with the United States, its biggest trading partner, was up by 500 million Canadian dollars [for the month of February] to 8.7 billion Canadian dollars ($7.06 billion), while imports from the United States declined 0.7 percent.

You can characterize that as venomous if you like.

Canada can pay for a lot of socialist programs with an extra $7 Billion per month eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 09:16 PM

At least 12,000 jobs "created" by President Obama's stimulus package are summer jobs for young people, according to a White House report issued on May 27, 100 days after passage of the $787-billion American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.

The White House report, "100 Days, 100 Projects," summarizes various projects on infrastructure, renewable energy and "jobs and job training."

"In that time, we've obligated over $100 billion dollars, created more than 150,000 jobs and started important projects in every state and territory of America," reads the report, written by Ed DeSeve, coordinator of recovery implementation at the White House.

Reality:

Ed DeSeve, serving as Obama's stimulus overseer, said the administration has been working for weeks to correct mistakes in early counts that identified more than 30,000 jobs paid for with stimulus money. He said a new stimulus report Friday should correct many mistakes an Associated Press review found that showed the earlier report overstated thousands of stimulus jobs.

"I think you'll see a pretty good degree of accuracy," DeSeve said in an interview.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs downplayed errors in job counts identified by the AP's review, telling reporters, "We're talking about 4,000, or a 5,000 error."

The AP reviewed a sample of federal contracts, not all 9,000 reported to date, and discovered errors in one in six jobs credited to the $787 billion stimulus program — or 5,000 of the 30,000 jobs claimed so far.

Even in its limited review, the AP found job counts that were more than 10 times as high as the actual number of paid positions; jobs credited to the stimulus program that were counted two and sometimes more than four times; and other jobs that were credited to stimulus spending when none was produced.

For example:

• Some recipients of stimulus money used the cash to give existing employees pay raises, but each reported saving dozens of jobs with the money, including one Florida day care that claimed 129 jobs saved.

• A Texas contractor whose business kept 22 employees to handle stimulus contracts saw its job count inflated to 88 because the same workers were counted four times.

• The water department in Palm Beach County, Fla., hired 57 meter readers, customer service representatives and other positions to handle two water projects. But their total job count was incorrectly doubled to 114.

Those errors were included in an early progress report on the stimulus released two weeks ago that featured numerous mistakes, including a Colorado business' claim that its stimulus contract created more than 4,200 jobs. TeleTech Government Solutions actually hired 4,231 temporary workers for its stimulus project, but most of them worked for five weeks or less and the others no more than five months, company president Mariano Tan said.

The short-term positions should have been reported as 635 full-time, 40-hour-a-week jobs under the government's method of calculating stimulus work, Tan said.

The AP's review sampled some of the contract data reported on the government's Web site, recovery.gov, that serves as the official accounting of stimulus data. The review focused on the most obvious cases of jobs wrongly tied to the stimulus because of record duplications or misinterpretations of how the jobs should be counted. In some cases, businesses reported short-term projects with large job counts, which appeared inaccurate in the records. The AP contacted businesses to discuss their jobs reports and confirmed the errors.

Some businesses actually undercounted jobs funded with stimulus money, the AP's review shows, because they reported only new jobs created, not existing jobs saved. But by far the most reporting errors were found in the number of jobs credited to the stimulus.

Gibbs said that early data couldn't be reviewed as carefully as new data will be. "Three days after the data was received, it was required to be put on the Web site," he said.

The Colorado business' job count, along with many others, has been corrected, Gibbs said, and will be updated in Friday's report.

"We disputed, as the AP disputed, the report that came in that calculated a number of jobs but didn't accurately account, the way we account for, a full-time, yearlong employee as being a job," Gibbs said.

His comments during his daily meeting with reporters came hours after the White House issued a midnight press release complaining about the AP's review of jobs the government credits to stimulus spending.

DeSeve, who criticized the AP's review as misleading, said the administration is aware of problems with the early data. Agencies have been working with businesses that received the money to correct mistakes. Other errors discovered by the public also will be corrected, he said.

"As a result, whatever problems the early and partial data had, the full data to be posted on Friday will provide the American people with an accurate, detailed look at the early success of the Recovery Act," DeSeve said in a statement the White House issued just after midnight Thursday.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 12:23 AM

"Socialist" Canada?

What the hell are you talking about? Canada is full of capitalism, Sawzaw. Didn't you know that? Come up here sometime and find out. Most of the human activity I see happening around here is capitalist activity. Capitalist businesses and services and corporations are everywhere, and that's perfectly normal.

I don't think you have any understanding of what socialism really is. Or of the fact that some socialist institutions simply HAVE to exist in any modern society, such as: the government, the army, the police, the fire department, and a bunch of other things like that which are utterly essential to the running of any modern society...and which can't earn a profit anyway, so no wonder the government does them.

You can't NOT have them. That doesn't make a society a "socialist" society.

We are a primarily capitalist society with a few essential public services which can be characterized as socialist. In that respect we are very much like every other modern society in the world, including yours.

We just happen to have a much better health plan than you do, that's all, and it costs me less than $1,000 a year in my taxes which is way less than you pay in taxes for the health system you have in the USA. And I get free health care after paying my taxes. And you don't.

That does not make Canada "socialist". I laugh at the notion. Anyone who comes here can plainly see that capitalism is the ruling order of the day in Canada.

If Canada is "socialist" by your definition, my friend, then so is the USA. Think about that for a minute. If having ANY socialism AT ALL makes a society "socialist", Sawzaw, then you have been living in a "socialist society" all your life!

Try to think not in terms of all-or-nothing, but in terms of both-and, and you will begin to appreciate the reality of the situation, and you won't bother anymore to say "socialist Canada", because it's a non-sequitor.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 10:26 AM

A year has passed since the history-making election that proclaimed Barack Obama the 44th president of the United States, and national polls suggest that for many Americans the "honeymoon" is over. In Washington, however, each political bump this new administration suffers seems only to strengthen the city's love affair with the first family.

When I spent a few days there recently, Washington still felt fully in thrall to Obamania. Indeed, those few people I encountered who could recall ancient history - meaning, the previous administration - were quick to describe what a pall George W. Bush cast over the nation's capital. Besides frequently bragging about how his tax policies were "starving the beast," (that beast, of course, being Washington), President Bush was famously uninterested in the city's cultural and culinary attractions. His most memorable dining experience in the capital, one wag told me, was the pretzel that nearly caused him to choke to death.

"President Bush was always dissing Washington, but Barack Obama doesn't," said Peggy Clifton, a researcher at the Library of Congress. "So, most people who live and work here are much happier now. We feel like there's finally someone in the White House who respects what this town actually does - which is govern."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 10:29 AM

In his midnight mission to honor the returning war dead, President Obama did more than personally extend the nation's condolences to grieving families gathered at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. Without uttering a public word, Mr. Obama erased President George W. Bush's shameful attempts to hide the pain of war from Americans and to shield himself from paying public tribute to the thousands who died in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The long-overdue display of national gratitude and regret by the commander in chief rekindled a note of most solemn ritual that the country owes sons and daughters in uniform sacrificed in war. The president was restoring a post-Vietnam tradition that included the graphic embraces and wrenching words personally extended by President Ronald Reagan to the families of the 241 soldiers, sailors and Marines who perished 26 years ago in the bombing of the Marines' camp in Lebanon.

The Bush policy was to prohibit any news media coverage of the returning war dead and to never show the president within a camera-lens' length of the dolorous homecomings. Under Mr. Obama, the Pentagon reversed the no-coverage policy in February. On Thursday, the president himself took the necessary next step.

He silently saluted in the morning darkness as the remains of 18 Americans killed this week in Afghanistan were transferred from a military transport. He spent close to two hours talking in private with stricken families. One of them gave approval for the news media to show the nation its loved one's arrival before the president and assembled officers. ...

The true cost of war must never be denied by the nation or its leader. Mr. Obama's visit was entirely appropriate as he faces the decision of what comes next in Afghanistan. The pity is President Bush never dared as much.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 05:18 PM

Amos? Sawzaw? BB? If you guys ever get a chance to come up for air from the partisan depths you are wallowing in on this thread... ;-) ...cos let's face it, Sawzaw and BB come here for one purpose only: to dump on Obama and the Democrats....and Amos comes here for one purpose only...to praise Obama and dump on the Republicans...

Well, anyway, if you DO ever come up for air and get a whiff of true freedom without either one of those wretched frikking parties....

I've got some great photos of Dachshunds to show you.

Yes! I do. And we can sit around, drink the libations of your choice, and admire the wonders of wiener dogs and forget all about partisan carping for awhile. What say?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 05:55 PM

LH,

Just join us at the Getaway.



Amos,

Care to tell wher you grabbed your post of 30 Oct 09 - 10:29 AM from? I know you did not write it- as it has obvious falsehoods in it. Bush met with a number of families of the fallen, and did not make a press event of it. Please check the facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 06:39 PM

Bruce:

A NYT editorial, sorry I left the tag out. And let me add that Mr Bush certainly created the impression he wanted to hide (and hide from) the consequences of his militaristic adventuring.

Little Hawk, go soak your head.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 06:42 PM

I intend to soak my entire body, not just my head. A nice hot bath does wonders for the nerves. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 07:29 PM

Amos

"And let me add that Mr Bush certainly created the impression he wanted to hide (and hide from) the consequences of his militaristic adventuring."

Not to those of us who had not already decided that he was hiding. If one read the news, one often saw that he was meeting with those families.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 08:00 PM

It's always like that...a matter of perception, depending on one's preset prejudices for and against people. Most people most of the time will damn one politician (the one they don't like) and praise another politician (the one they do like) for committing exactly the same actions.

By the way, I think I snagged the 1200th post a couple posts back, and I wasn't even trying to.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 09:44 PM

"Most people most of the time will damn one politician (the one they don't like) and praise another politician (the one they do like) for committing exactly the same actions."


This bears repeating- a lot. Yet I will refrain from demanding Obama be impeached for his lies, at least for now...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 09 - 10:08 AM

On the tarmac in the darkness, he stood at attention, saluting, as 18 flag-draped cases were taken off an Air Force C-17 and carried to Port Mortuary by military teams in camouflage fatigues and black berets.

The Halloween-eve parade of death included casualties from America's most horrific day in Afghanistan in four years, and its bloodiest month of the war.

It may have been a photo op, another way Obama could show he was not W., the president who started the Iraq war in a haze of fakery and then declined to ever confront the reality of its dead.

Certainly, as Obama tries to figure out how to avoid being a war president when he's saddled with two wars, he wants as much military cred in the bank as he can get.

But it was also a genuinely poignant moment. It is how we want our presidents to behave, doing the humane thing especially when it's hard. And Obama, who called it "a sobering reminder" of sacrifices made, signaled to Americans that he will resist blinders as he grapples with the byzantine, seemingly bottomless conflicts he inherited.

Leave it to Liz Cheney, in her continuing bid to out-Cheney her scary dad, to suggest that Obama is a crass publicity-seeker.

"I think that what President Bush used to do is do it without the cameras," she told a Fox News radio host.

She's right: There were no press cameras at Dover in the previous administration. There was also no W.

While Bush occasionally visited the wounded and the families of those killed, he never went to Dover to salute the fallen. And he barred any media coverage of it, trying to airbrush the evidence that the wars he started were not the cakewalks he had promised. He did not attend a single funeral. It reflected an emotional and spiritual smallness typical of his administration, like Donald Rumsfeld signing letters to families of dead troops with an autopen and Paul Wolfowitz understating the number of war dead.

Dona Griffin of Terre Haute, Ind., the mother of Army Sgt. Dale Griffin, who was among those Obama saluted, appreciated the president's presence.

"Unless we can see the images and look into the eyes and the faces of those that are sacrificing, we forget," she said on "Good Morning America."

As Obama conducts his White House seminar on war, Dick Cheney accuses him of dithering. He and W. not only didn't dither before Iraq, they never bothered to ask "Whither?" Debate and due diligence were for sissies. Far more fun playing Jove, heedlessly throwing thunderbolts..." (Dowd, NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 09 - 11:20 AM

Sawz:

How do you find the sheer hutzpah, or the abysmal stupidity, to try to make the decay of the Bay Bridge a reflection on Obama's infrastructure program? That is really, really, a dumb conflation, implying there is a connection where there is none. Take a darn break.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 09 - 01:49 PM

..."The more rightists who win G.O.P. primaries, the greater the Democrats' prospects next year. But the electoral math is less interesting than the pathology of this movement. Its antecedent can be found in the early 1960s, when radical-right hysteria carried some of the same traits we're seeing now: seething rage, fear of minorities, maniacal contempt for government, and a Freudian tendency to mimic the excesses of political foes. Writing in 1964 of that era's equivalent to today's tea party cells, the historian Richard Hofstadter observed that the John Birch Society's "ruthless prosecution" of its own ideological war often mimicked the tactics of its Communist enemies.

The same could be said of Beck, Palin and their acolytes. Though they constantly liken the president to various totalitarian dictators, it is they who are re-enacting Stalinism in full purge mode. They drove out Arlen Specter, and now want to "melt Snowe" (as the blog Red State put it). The same Republicans who once deplored Democrats for refusing to let an anti-abortion dissident, Gov. Robert Casey of Pennsylvania, speak at the 1992 Clinton convention now routinely banish any dissenters in their own camp.

These conservatives' whiny cries of victimization also parrot a tic they once condemned in liberals. After Rush Limbaugh was booted from an ownership group bidding on the St. Louis Rams, he moaned about being done in by the "race card." What actually did him in, of course, was the free-market American capitalism he claims to champion. Limbaugh didn't understand that in an increasingly diverse nation, profit-seeking N.F.L. franchises actually want to court black ticket buyers, not drive them away.

This same note of self-martyrdom was sounded in a much-noticed recent column by the former Nixon hand Pat Buchanan. Ol' Pat sounded like the dispossessed antebellum grandees in "Gone With the Wind" when lamenting the plight of white working-class voters. "America was once their country," he wrote. "They sense they are losing it. And they are right."

They are right. That America was lost years ago, and no national political party can thrive if it lives in denial of that truth. The right still may want to believe, as Palin said during the campaign, that Alaska, with its small black and Hispanic populations, is a "microcosm of America." (New York's 23rd also has few blacks or Hispanics.) But most Americans like their country's 21st-century profile.

That changing complexion is part of why the McCain-Palin ticket lost every demographic group by large margins in 2008 except white senior citizens and the dwindling fifth of America that's still rural. It's also why the G.O.P. has been in a nosedive since the inauguration, whatever Obama's ups and downs. In the latest Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll, only 17 percent of Americans identify themselves as Republicans (as opposed to 30 percent for the Democrats, and 44 for independents).

No wonder even the very conservative Republican contenders in the two big gubernatorial contests this week have frantically tried to disguise their own convictions. The candidate in Virginia, Bob McDonnell, is a graduate of Pat Robertson's university whose career has been devoted to curbing abortion rights, gay civil rights and even birth control. But in this campaign he ditched those issues, disinvited Palin for a campaign appearance, praised Obama's Nobel Prize, and ran a closing campaign ad trumpeting "Hope." Chris Christie, McDonnell's counterpart in New Jersey, posted a campaign video celebrating "Change" in which Obama's face and most stirring campaign sound bites so dominate you'd think the president had endorsed the Republican over his Democratic opponent, Jon Corzine.

Only in the alternative universe of the far right is Obama a pariah and Palin the great white hope. It's become a Beltway truism that the White House's (mild) spat with Fox News is counterproductive because it drives up the network's numbers. But if curious moderate and independent voters are now tempted to surf there and encounter Beck's histrionics for the first time, the president's numbers will benefit as well. To the uninitiated, the tea party crowd comes across like the barflies in "Star Wars."

There is only one political opponent whom Obama really has to worry about at this moment: Hamid Karzai. It's Afghanistan and joblessness, not the Stalinists of the right, that have the power to bring this president down. ...(Frank Rich of the NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 03:46 PM

One year ago, Barack Obama was elected president of the United States. Is his presidency delivering on the promise of his candidacy? Yes. I think he's off to a very good start. But I'm not doing handstands.

I keep Obama's book containing his campaign program, Change We Can Believe In, on my desk. Is Obama doing what he said he would do? Yes, mostly.

It's important to be clear about something. Obama is not a left-wing politician; he's a center/left politician. That's clear when you examine what he ran on last year. He ran on a center/left platform, not a left-wing platform.


Many on the left and the right, either through misunderstanding or pursuit of their own agendas, get this wrong. Each wing imagines (or pretends to imagine) that Obama is a lefty, and alternately prods and assails him on that false basis.

But let's not clear space on Mount Rushmore just yet. Just as I didn't think he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize -- which looks even more premature now than it did when it was announced last month -- yet, as I wrote here on the Huffington Post. I don't think that Obama's very good start equates to a great presidency.

Though Obama may well turn out to be a great president. Let's keep in mind that little of what he's trying to do is easy. He inherited an enormous, complex mess when he took office. And he's only been in office for nine and a half months.

Let's look at what he's done. Actually, for starters, let's look at what he's doing. It's a very expansive and complex agenda. I run his schedule on my site, NewWestNotes.com, with explanations, every day to frame the day. It's hard enough to keep up with all the things Obama is doing. Imagine how hard it would be to try to do all those things.

Here's a look at the biggest things Obama has been up to.


Obama has established an excellent, and elevated, new tone for America, here and abroad. That counts for a lot, even though his foes on the far right insist on trying to bring him down with the most toxic, demonizing sort of politics.

The economy has definitely improved greatly. When Obama took office, there were widespread fears that the system was on the verge of collapse, that we were headed into a New Great Depression. That hasn't happened, and it won't happen. And the economy has finally started growing again. Employment lags, but it is always a lagging indicator.

The economic stimulus program has helped, as has the massive reinflation of the financial system.

Could both those things have been done better? Sure. I wish the stimulus had more infrastructure spending in it and less pork. But that's what you get when Congress plays a heavy hand in writing the plan and you need 60 votes in the Senate.

The other good thing about the stimulus is that most of the money still hasn't been spent. This backloading, which looked bad early this year, looks better now, as this nascent recovery is going to have to be nursed into a full-fledged recovery with a lot more jobs.


In a speech entitled "A New Beginning," President Barack Obama addressed the Muslim world five months ago at Cairo University in Egypt.

The reinflation of a deflating financial system could go better, too. Frankly, it looks like Obama cut a deal with Wall Street -- which still labors under the misapprehension of its unique brilliance even after nearly tanking the global economy -- to exhibit a lighter hand in re-regulation along with all that money that has been poured into the system.

Of course, it's not at all clear that Obama could get really tough financial re-regulations through Congress.

On national health care, it looks like Obama will get a major bill through Congress. It hasn't been pretty and it hasn't been easy.

If it were easy, national health care reform would have already passed sometime in the more than 100 years since it was raised by Teddy Roosevelt. Obama's efforts have been hindered by the loss of his great ally, Ted Kennedy, who would have made an enormous difference in the Senate. Nancy Pelosi has things covered for Obama in the House.

On the environment and energy, Obama has taken major steps. Among other things, he's allowing California to move forward with its landmark climate change program, which had been blocked by the Bush/Cheney Administration, and which other states will follow. He's sharply increased fuel efficiency standards. He's promoting a big green tech industry with a focus on renewable energy and a smart transmission grid.

Because Congress is again a potential roadblock, and because national health care was deemed the priority this year, we won't play a big role in Copenhagen next month when the United Nations will try again to develop a global program on climate change. But Copenhagen is in trouble for other reasons, including the seeming inability of the European Union to come up with a subsidy plan for developing nations.


Obama says that he is surprised that he won the Nobel Peace Prize.

On human rights, Obama has ended the policy of torture that has given America such a black eye around the world. And he is moving to shut down the infamous prison at Guantanamo Bay. But torture is more popular than some would like to think, so closing Gitmo isn't as easy as imagined. The Senate has been unhelpful in that.

On LGBT issues, he's made some moves. But he hasn't been able to end the don't ask/don't tell policy in the military yet. And gay marriage is no closer to reality now than it was a year ago, when it was defeated in California. Even liberal Maine repealed its gay marriage law in yesterday's public vote.

On geopolitics, Obama has moved dramatically to fix relations with the rest of the world. He is really very popular around the world and that helps America. His Cairo address to the Islamic world five months ago was brilliant. He's balancing better relations with mainstream Islam with going after jihadists who threaten America.

Iraq is a troubled country, but we are on schedule to withdraw combat troops as promised. Obama is diplomatically engaging Iran and Syria, and we'll see how that turns out. Israel and Palestine remain, not surprisingly, seemingly intractable. Pakistan, with more aid from America, largely civilian, has rolled back big Taliban gains there. Which brings us to Afghanistan.

Obama has a fateful decision to make on Afghanistan. Actually, he has several, as the sequence of events plays out.

Obama inherited a president, installed by Bush and Cheney after the successful takedown of the Taliban and disruption of Al Qaeda following the 9/11 attacks, who has certainly not worked out. The recent elections there took place -- which they could not have last year -- but have been a disaster.


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/obamas-off-to-a-very-good_b_345297.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 06:22 PM

From the Dallas News:

It's been a year since a healthy majority of American voters elected Barack Obama to change the world. Which is precisely what he's doing.

Like many people who desperately want to see the country take a more progressive course, I quibble and quarrel with some of President Obama's actions. I wish he'd been tougher on Wall Street, quicker to close Guantánamo, more willing to investigate Bush-era excesses, bolder in seeking truly universal health care. I wish he could summon more of the rhetorical magic that spoke so compellingly to the better angels of our nature.


But he's a president, not a Hollywood action hero. Most of my frustration is really with the process of getting anything done in Washington, which is not something Obama can unilaterally change, nimbly circumvent or blithely ignore. One thing the new administration clearly did not anticipate was that Republicans in Congress would be so consistently and unanimously obstructionist – or that Democrats would have to be introduced to the alien concept of party discipline. It took the White House too long to realize that bipartisanship is a tango and that there's no point in dancing alone.

Step back for a moment, though, and look at Obama's record so far. His biggest accomplishment has been keeping the worst financial and economic crisis in decades from turning into another Great Depression.

Yes, the $787 billion stimulus package was messy, but most economists believe it was absolutely necessary – and some believe it should have been even bigger. Yes, Obama continued the Bush-era policy of showering irresponsible financial institutions with billions in public funds. Yes, the administration bailed out the auto industry – and we actually heard the president of the United States reassure Americans that General Motors warranties would be honored.

But these and other actions convinced the financial markets that the White House would do anything to avoid a complete meltdown. The economy grew at a rate of 3.5 percent in the third quarter and, while unemployment may not yet have peaked, the odds of a strong and fairly swift recovery have greatly improved.

Responding to the crisis required creating an enormous fiscal deficit that Obama will spend years trying to cut down to size. But not even the most conservative economists recommend attacking the deficit before the economy is stabilized on a path of growth.

On national security, Obama moved at once to categorically renounce torture. It looks as if Obama will miss his self-imposed one-year deadline for closing the Guantánamo prison, but a delay of a few weeks or months will be worth it if the administration succeeds in developing a comprehensive legal framework – consistent with our ideals and traditions – for bringing terrorism suspects to justice.

Additionally, the administration is on schedule in withdrawing combat troops from Iraq. I don't think Obama knows the right answer on Afghanistan; I'm not sure anybody does.

Obama's months in office have been so action-packed that it's easy to forget some of the historic steps he has taken: Nominating Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Going to Egypt and speaking directly to the Muslim world about cooperation rather than conflict. Accepting the scientific consensus on climate change.

And then there's health care reform. I've been impatient with Obama's strategy of letting Congress take the lead on writing legislation, but he's brought us to the brink of truly meaningful reform much faster than anyone could have imagined a year ago. We still have some fighting to do over two words – "public" and "option" – but it looks clear that the principle that everyone is entitled to health insurance, a Democratic Party goal for at least six decades, is about to become law.

Quite a record for 287 days: All that, and a Nobel Peace Prize, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 01:07 PM

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Political activist Noam Chomsky says that although President Obama views the Iraq invasion merely as "a mistake" or "strategic blunder," it is, in fact, a "major crime" designed to enable America to control the Middle East oil reserves.

"It's ("strategic blunder") probably what the German general staff was telling Hitler after Stalingrad," Chomsky quipped, referring to the big Nazi defeat by the Soviet army in 1943.

"There is basically no significant change in the fundamental traditional conception that if we can control Middle East energy resources, then we can control the world," he said.

In a lecture at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London Oct. 27th, Chomsky warned against expecting significant foreign policy changes from Obama, according to a report by Mamoon Alabbasi published on MWC News.net. Alabbasi is an editor at Middle East Online.

"As Obama came into office, (former Secretary of State) Condoleezza Rice predicted he would follow the policies of Bush's second term, and that is pretty much what happened, apart from a different rhetorical style," Chomsky said.

Chomsky said the U.S. operates under the "Mafia principle," explaining "the Godfather does not tolerate 'successful defiance'" and must be stamped out "so that others understand that disobedience is not an option."

Despite pressure on the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq, Alabbasi reported, Chomsky said the U.S. continues to seek a long-term presence in the country and the huge U.S embassy in Baghdad is to be expanded under Obama.

"As late as November, 2007, the U.S. was still insisting that the 'Status of Forces Agreement' allow for an indefinite U.S. military presence and privileged access to Iraq's resources by U.S. investors," Chomsky added. "Well, they didn't get that on paper at least. They had to back down," Alabbasi quotes him as saying.

Chomsky said Middle East oil reserves are understood to be "a stupendous source of strategic power" and "one of the greatest material prizes in world history."

Concerning Iran, Chomsky said the U.S. acted to overthrow its parliamentary democracy in 1953 "to retain control of Iranian resources" and when the Iranians reasserted themselves in 1979, the U.S. acted "to support Saddam Hussein's merciless invasion" of that country.

"The torture of Iran continued without a break and still does, with sanctions and other means," Chomsky said. According to Alabbasi, Chomsky "mocked the idea" presented by mainstream media that a nuclear-armed Iran might attack nuclear-armed Israel. Iranian leaders would have to have a "fanatic death wish" to attack Israel, which reportedly has 200 nuclear weapons or more.

"The chance of Iran launching a missile attack, nuclear or not, is about at the level of an asteroid hitting the earth," Chomsky said. He said the presence of U.S. anti-missile weapons in Israel are really meant for preparing a possible attack on Iran, not for self-defense, as they are often presented.

Chomsky is professor emeritus of linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 01:36 PM

"Every once in a while I like to fact check the Wall Street Journal editorial page just to see how unbelievably low the intellectual standards on that page are. On today's page, John Steele Gordon argues that "the liberal paradigm [does] not even come close to agreeing with the social and economic reality on the ground today." What is that reality? Gordon offers up a handful of facts:

[T]he rich are still looked upon by liberals as enemies of the poor and disadvantaged, even though Mr. Obama not only carried a majority of voters earning less than $50,000 but also a majority of those earning over $200,000. He did, in other words, as well among the wolves as he did among the sheep. …

But in a world where a majority of Americans work at white-collar jobs, have high-school and college degrees, own their own homes, and hold financial securities in their own right, the so-called wolves are now a majority.

This is it, the sum total of factual assertions mustered by Gordon in support of his thesis. The rest in nonfalsifiable rhetoric (i.e., "the nastiness in American politics is largely on the left," "liberals refuse to engage [conservative] ideas, simply because they are not liberal ideas and must, therefore, be wrong," and so on.) Let us go through these five factual assertions.

There are a couple true things here. A majority of American workers do work in white-collar fields, though this is not exactly synonymous with affluence. A majority also own their own homes, though the same caveat applies.

Did Obama perform as well with voters earning more than $200,000 a year as those earning under $50,000? Not even close. He won voters earning over $200,000 by 6 points, and those earning under $50,000 by 22 points.

Do a majority of Americans have college degrees? Even assuming he means Americans in the workforce, the answer, again, is not even close. 70% lack a college degree.

Do a majority own stock? No. And it's only even close if you count things like a pension fund. If you mean direct ownership of stock, only one in five Americans owns any. (Economist Anna Turner at the Economic Policy Institute helped me round up some of these links.)

So, out of 1,279 words of mostly ideological blather, there are five actual facts that bear any relation to the thesis. And three of them are false. This from an author who is accusing his ideological opponents of failing to "come close to agreeing with the social and economic reality on the ground today"!" (New Republic)

---

Scurrilous rhetoric of the kind analyzed here is obviously not the monopoly of the right wing, but as a general observation their seems more dedicated and more ruthless, withless respect for their readers' intelligence and more regard for their readers' capacity for blind reaction in anger, hatred, or fear.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 04:36 PM

"Every once in a while I like to fact check the Wall Street Journal editorial page just to see how unbelievably low the intellectual standards on that page are."

I take a very brief look in at the Orillia bar scene now and then for about the same reason... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 12:45 PM

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama still has the approval of a majority of Americans, but it's an increasingly pessimistic nation.

The public grew slightly more dispirited on a range of matters over the past month, including war and the economy, continuing the slippage that has occurred since Obama took office, the latest Associated Press-GfK poll shows.

This comes at a time when he is trying to revive the struggling economy, considering sending more troops to the 8-year-old Afghanistan war, muscling a health care reform overhaul through Congress and hoping to push through other ambitious measures like legislation focused on climate change.

People were gloomier about the direction of the country than in October. They disapproved of Obama's handling of the economy a bit more than before. And, perhaps most striking for the commander in chief, more people have lost confidence in Obama on Iraq and Afghanistan over the last month. Overall, there's a malaise about the state of the nation.

"It's in pretty bad shape," said truck driver Floyd Hacker of Granby, Mo., a Democrat who voted for Obama. "He sounded like somebody who could make things happen. I still think he can."

Still, Hacker said, he questions the president's approach to the economy, what the U.S. is trying to accomplish in Afghanistan and Obama's focus on health care, adding, "He can't handle everything at one time."

Public attitudes like that are troubling for a president trying to accomplish an ambitious agenda at home while fighting wars abroad, as well as for a Democratic Party heading into a critical election year. It will have to stave off losses that a new president typically experiences in his first midterm elections. A third of the Senate, all of the House and most governors' offices will be on the ballot.

The findings underscore just how quickly the political environment can change, a lesson for out-of-power Republicans who are buzzing with energy after booting Democrats from rule in Virginia and New Jersey governors' races last week.

It was just over a year ago that Obama won the White House in an electoral landslide and Democrats padded their congressional majorities. The country was riding high with optimism by just about all measures when Obama took office in January.

Hope and change were in vogue back then. But change didn't happen overnight, as the rhetoric of campaigning crashed headlong into the realities of governing. And hope slipped in a country that always has clung to it.

Now, Obama's approval rating stands at 54 percent, roughly the same as in October but very different from the enthusiastic 74 percent in January just before he took office. And some 56 percent of people say the country is heading in the wrong direction, an uptick from 51 percent last month and 49 percent in Obama's first month as president.

The economy is by far the most important issue on Americans' minds. Unemployment hit 10.2 percent last month even though the administration has promoted glimmers of improvement and many economists say the recession is over.(AP)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 03:23 PM

Obama's making things happen with the economy all right. He's bailing out the huge monied organizations that f*cked the economy in the first place, so they can recover from the effect of their sins and do it all again in short order.

The public will end up paying for all of it. How? By paying off the ever larger national debt through their taxes and through inflation (which is a hidden but very devastating tax).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 05:07 PM

Oh, and what would the Republicans do if they were in office?

The same! ;-) Maybe even worse.

That's because they and the Democrats both serve the same masters, and you don't get to vote the masters out of office...nor even know who most of them are. Or where they live. Or where they move their money to.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 06:21 PM

On November 3, 2008, Amos wrote a post wondering what DougR, Sawz, and BB would suggest Obama do to improve the lot of US citizens, or words to that effect.

Today is November 11, 2009, and I list my suggestions:

1. Drop current the trillion dollar plan to designed to convert our current excellent health care system into one that mirrors single payer plans in other countries. It is just too expensive and he and his Democrat cohorts risk bankrupting the country.

2. Focus on ways to improve the economy, and that includes cutting costs, not increasing them.

3. Focus on ways and means to create jobs in the private sector, not in government.

4. Do not allow the Bush tax cuts to expire.

5. Cut corporate taxes and capital gains taxes.

Were he to do those things, he might find his approval rating increasing not tanking.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 06:21 PM

I'm sorry Little Hawk, but I don't buy your Grand Sceme of the Dominators of the Universe. I don't think there' a "they" there. Just a lot of greedy piglets needing to be herded.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 06:45 PM

I agree on some of your points, Doug.

1. Drop current the trillion dollar plan to designed to convert our current excellent health care system into one that mirrors single payer plans in other countries. It is just too expensive and he and his Democrat cohorts risk bankrupting the country.

Both disagree...and agree. Drop the trillion dollar plan? Yes. It's a giveaway to the wrong people. However, your current health system is not excellent at all, it's one of the very worst in the entire developed world. A single payer plan such as is in place in most other democracies would be far better.

2. Focus on ways to improve the economy, and that includes cutting costs, not increasing them.

Yeah....sort of. The best way to cut costs, Doug, is to turn your money back into REAL money again, money that is backed up by REAL gold and silver reserves. End the giant monopoly money game pyramid scheme that is being played by the big banks and the Federal Reserve. They create billions of dollars out of thin air by making loans, dollars that aren't backed by up anything but an unreal pyramid of debt, debt that can never realistically be paid off and never will be paid off. Abolish the Federal Reserve after a one or two year period of converting the Federal Reserve Notes back into the REAL money (gold and silver certificates and gold and silver coin). Abolish the practice of allowing the banks to lend out at least 10 times the amount of money that their depositors (the general public) have lent them.

3. Focus on ways and means to create jobs in the private sector, not in government.

I'm all in favor of that, Doug. Where does one end and the other begin, though? The reason I ask that is...the Federal Reserve pretends to be a federal entity, but it's not. It's a private cartel of big bankers. However, it's become so entwined with the government in various ways that it can be said to be a sort of hybrid...halfway between a private entity and a government entity. The real question is...does the government run the Fed...or is it the other way around? ;-)

4. Do not allow the Bush tax cuts to expire.

I'm not knowledgable enough about that to comment.

5. Cut corporate taxes and capital gains taxes.

Perhaps. Experience has shown that when big business is taxed, they simply pass their new expenses on to the public in the form of higher prices for goods....and the public pays the tax increase! Further to that, when the banks create a giant speculation bubble through totally irresponsible lending practices, the government bails them out and the public pays for the bailout!!! They pay for it through their taxes (which are used to service the national debt) and through inflation.

Both Bush AND Obama favored that bailout. Remember?

What you don't get, Doug, is that the Republican and Democratic parties both serve the richest corporate entities and largest banks in your land, and the public pays the price. Not sometimes. Always. Obama is carrying on much the same way. His rhetoric sounds different from Bush. His actual performance is quite similar...because he is serving the same entrenched interests Bush did.

The party game is there to keep you mesmerized and divided against one another so that you never see the little man behind the screen (Wizard of Oz reference). All you see is the latest "Magnificent Oz" who occupies the Oval Office...and his party. That's an illusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 06:52 PM

The little piglets have interests in common, Amos. In the hallowed halls of high finance that is all that is needed to bring the little piglets together to arrange things in a way that is most beneficial for them.

If the largest banks and corporate entities wanted to increase their profits by fixing prices, forming monopolies, and shaping public legislation, don't you think they would? Of course they would. And they have done so. And it's been happening for a very long time.

You speak of the piglets "being herded"? My good man, THEY are the shepherds and farmers in charge of the flock. The pigs are the bosses. Just like in "Animal Farm. The general public is who is being herded. On voting day the sheep troupe out dutifully to the polls and rubber stamp the foreordained result that the pigs have crafted, and it's strictly cosmetic.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 08:09 PM

The entire motivation in cutting taxes is to starve the beast... Repubs have been trying to starve the beast going back several decades... Problem is that when they are in power they spend like drunken sailors??? I just don't understand how they can be so hypocritical about governemnt spending and debt... The love both...

Cutting taxes is what Bush II said was the answer to the recession of the 2001... Problem is that we now learn that that tax cut didn't correct anything but made things much worse... The growth we saw wasn't from tax cuts... It was from a housing industry that was fueled by borrowing from the Chinese... That isn't a recovery anymore than taking out a loan increases one's net worth... It was all smoke and mirrors and now we are seeing the deficits from the Repub spend and borrow years...

But Dougie, being the died-in-the-wooler, says cut taxes, damn the torpedos and full steam ahead???

Well, that's about what I would expect from him...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 08:39 PM

The recitation of party mantra does not add up to a workable policy. As far as I know the office of the budget has said the reform program will reduce our medical costs over all . Why ignore thzat? Just for example.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 08:42 PM

Yep, Bobert. All smoke and mirrors. When dollars were taken off the gold and silver standard they became virtually worthless, and it's been all smoke and mirrors ever since. When I was a child you could redeem an American dollar in silver coin at any bank. Those were silver certificates, and that was real money.

The Fed creates fiat money...not real money...and they create massive amounts of it, mostly through huge loans to Third World countries who can never pay it back and through other scams like the real estate bubble. The Third World countries and other debtors end up staggering under an unpayable mass of debt, but the banks don't care as long as they get their interest payments.

Finally the whole thing starts to implode, because it's just a pyramid scheme. The government then rushes in (at the behest of the banks) to "save" the situation. The way they save it is by bailing out the banks with MORE borrowed money. That increases the national debt, which is already so huge that it staggers the imagination...and the banks get more interest...and the public pays ALL of it, through taxes and inflation.

And the boom and bust cycle rolls on once again.

Obama and Bush both rolled over and capitulated to the banks, and that tells me right there who really runs the government.

Imagine what you or I could do, Bobert, if we could create money out of thin air the way the banks do. Why, we could make a 12 billion dollar loan next week to Rumania, say, at a nice competitive interest rate. And where did that $12 billion come from? Well, it just magically appeared from thin air as an "asset" on our bank's balance sheet the moment the loan was signed and confirmed. Suddenly there were 12 billion more digital dollars floating around in the world's computers...and the government did not mint or print those dollars...but there they are on the balance sheet. Wow. And think of the interest payments! Yippee! We're rich. Meanwhile the Rumanians use much of the magic $12 billion dollars to pay off some of their old outstanding interest charges on previous such loans, they siphon off more for corruption and personal favors in Rumania, and maybe a bit of it is actually used for something worthwhile. Who knows? But we don't care, because we just acquired $12 billion more dollars in our assets and we're getting interest too. Let's make 20 more such loans to 20 other countries right away.

Holy shit. Talk about a money tree. Why doesn't everyone become a banker with a system like this in place?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 11:21 PM

LH,

With all due apologies and all respect for your usually scinitllating intellect, your analysis of monetary systems is horse pucky.

Anchoring money to scarce minerals is good in one respect--it makes it a limited system. But it is not the final answer because as an economy grows it hits the glass ceiling imposed by the arbitrary definition of money as limited by a mineral supply.

A unit of money is essentially an idea back by confidence.

The problem is not coming off the gold standard. The problem was not analyzing how to preserve the essential confidence in transactions while allowing the sphere of transactions to grow as far as actual productivity and expanding technology and new resources could grow it, while not allowing anyone to inflate it artificially on some imaginary basis.

It is the departure from reliability that corrupts a currency, not the departure from one or another mineral. Money is real when it represents a confident idea of production. When it represents paper dreams, then it becomes dangerously compromised as it moves away from real value.

Real value comes from manufacturing, from natural resources, and from actual service to others. Money is strong when it reflects only those things. That includes new ideas as a service to others. It includes competent organization, health care, good counsel, education and so on in the service sector.

It does not include paper derivatives with imaginary values added in. But there is no reason to curtail a money supply at less than the value of the economy by anchoring it to a metal. Any more than there is to anchor it to big round stone circles.


A


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 08:32 AM

What you been smokin', LH???

Ain't you up on the theory of "paradox of value"???

Amos is right... You are hanging onto a Lyndon LaRouche isde that in oder for money to have value it has to have some backing... That went out with Columbus... No offense, mind you...

Okay, think about it this way... You and Don Juan been out in the desert contimplatin'/meditatin' rocks and stuff and you come outta a deep session and Don Juan is no where to be found and you are lost in the desert... All you have is the clothes yer wearing and two dollars...

After two days wanderin' in the desert you come upon a vendor who has a little sdtand set up out there in the desert and all he is selling is water and gold... 2 bucks for a gallon of water... 2 bucks for an ounce of gold...

What to buy???

This is what the gold standard was all about... It was even more smoke and mirrors than the current sytem because it implied that gold has value??? Well, yeah, I guess it has some value but compared to water, not much... But the reason that gold became the standard is because of scarcity...

Now back to the desert...

What to buy???

See, it ain't all that different if money is backed by a standard if that standard has no real practical use in man's basic needs... Not wants, but needs...

So, bottom line, it's all smoke and mirrors...

Gotta go to work now...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 10:01 AM

Learning Economics from the Internet...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 12:12 PM

Amos, I often harken back to the student council elections we had in my high school in upstate New York. They were a rather silly affair...though not completely without merit...but I think their primary purpose (although it may not have been a conscious purpose in the eyes of the school administration)...at any rate, I think their primary purpose was to indoctrinate students in the habits of conforming to a 2 party system.

There were 2 slates of candidates nominated and chosen to run in each student council election.

2 candidates for each of the following positions:

President
Vice President
Secretary
Treasurer

Okay....but why 2 sets? Why not have 3 or 4 or even 6 people run for any given position if they wanted to? Why not? Well, because the unstated agenda (or assumption) built into the whole exercise was this: "When you grow up and become worker bee adults in our great democracy, you are going to be voting for one of two alternatives, the Democrats or the Republicans. You are going to participate in a 2 party system, because that's the ONLY real way to have a democracy (ha! ha!).

It was indoctrination in a pre-destined system, Amos...the same as our factory schools are indoctrination for going out to your 9-5 job five days a week and being a good little worker bee who gets up when he's supposed to, does what the boss tells him, works during the prescribed hours (mostly spent in a room somewhere), and conforms to the requirements of the system.

That cartoon you posted the link to is itself naive, because it fails to recognize that student council elections in the USA are themselves rehearsals for preparing young minds to accept a 2 party system and take it for granted. It is utterly naive in ignoring the essential problem with the Democrats and Republicans which is that they represent the same entrenched interests and do not represent the public interest at all.

I don't take the 2 party system in the USA for granted, I think it's an aberration.

As for the money thing (grin)....I'll get to that in awhile. Too busy now. But remember this: if you cannot redeem your money at the bank for something of real value, then it's not real money. It's just a promise, and it's a promise from people who routinely break their promises.

All I was suggesting is that we return to the Silver Certificate. The Silver Certificate was a normal American dollar bill when I was a kid. You could take it to the bank, and get a silver dollar in exchange. See what those silver dollars are worth now, and you will know exactly what has happened to American money in the interim.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 12:36 PM

If I were running a high school I would probabvly do something similar to keep it manageable. There have been multiple instances throughout our history of third party runs, notably Roosevelt's Bull Party. I don't know a lot about the history of them but they don't usually have the funding to raise a serious campaign.

There is nothing inherent in our methods of election that constrains it to two parties; that is just the inertia of the organizations involved. For many people the way to do something is the way you did it, period.

I fail to see how the silver certificate would change the problem, which is the invention of useless and valueless securities which inflate the cost of all real things by soaking up a significant portion of the money supply for no exchange or production.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 01:08 PM

Anyone can create "useless and valueless securities which inflate the cost of all real things by soaking up a significant portion of the money supply for no exchange or production"...if he can create vast amounts of money out of thin air, Amos, and that is what the banks do every time they make a large loan to someone.

It isn't that the loan "soaks up" the money supply. It's that it expands the apparent money suppy in a very unrealistic fashion, and that is the engine driving inflation.

Most of the money in the system wasn't made by the government, Amos. The government mints and prints just enough coins and paper money to allow normal daily transactions in actual people's hands to continue functioning, but the banks themeselves have created about 99% of all the supposed money that's out there, and they've done it by making loans on which they draw interest, and the interest charges create even more fictional money which comes from nowhere, and it's not paper money...it's not coins...it's a digital or paper record that shows up on a balance sheet at a bank or some other institution.

The bank into which you deposit your money could not possibly give you and all the other depositors back your deposits in real cash if you all went and demanded it on the same day. They don't have it. They have a tiny fraction of it, because they have lent it out 10 or 20 times over by now to generate interest payments to themselves.

They are running a pyramid scheme, and that is why the dollar keeps declining in real value against real goods. The main reason they can run a pyramid scheme is:

1. the government allows them to.
2. the dollar is not backed up by anything real. It was backed up by something real when we had silver certificates instead of federal reserve notes.

Why does the government allow the banks to create fiat money? Well, because he who creates the most money controls the system, that's why. The politicians have been bought by the bankers, and it happened a long time ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 01:29 PM

Jayze, LH, you sound like a baggy-ass pedant talking to an eight-grader, for crissakes. Come on. Youo are reciting truisms and established facts that have been well and widely communicated since the 1980's!

I agree completely that a governing control of some kind on the ratio of lending to holding for a bank is needed and the present arrangement is insane. But even so, although it flippflopped madly, it was much less dangerous before the additional liberty --caused in part by the repeal of Glass-Steagel--of securitizing mortgages came about by making banks into investment traders. Prior to that, a bank held its mortgages and had a strong interest in seeing them paid off. That system worked a lot better.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 04:14 PM

I am delighted to see that we agree on the essential points, Amos. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 04:43 PM

Me thinks that poor ol' LH mighta missed a few school days, Amos, so be kind to him... The stuff he knows he knows lots about but sometimes he don't know nuthin' about a subject so he just pulls a smoke and mirrors his ownself on folks here thinkin' he might get by???

We kinda expect that of Doug but when LH does it it's really funny so lighten up on him...

Kinda reminds me of this professor I had in college for "History of thr South"... Every Friday was test day and he's give 20 identification questions and 1 essay question... As long has you filled up the back of the page with essay question AND it was 3, not 4, not 2, paragraphs he would juct put a big check mark over it... But if it wasn't a f7ull page or didn't have 3 paragraphs he'd rip it to shreads... LH kinda has some forula he has discovered for times like that here...lol...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 04:48 PM

One thing I know nothing about is Glass-Steagel, and the repeal thereof. Anyone care to enlighten me?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Nov 09 - 10:39 AM

An interesing essay from the resident arch-conservative at the NY Times, the DougR of Gray Lady Street, in which he strongly vindicates the Obama treasury policies and their success so far.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 05:11 PM

CBS: John Bolton Was Right After All

.....Today, while the Iranians reprocess more fuel, the Obama team continues to compromise and offer even more incentives to them. No wonder Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is waiting - the deal keeps getting sweeter. President Obama has offered the Iranians more time, more sites to place their illegal fuel, more personal correspondence with the Ayatollah, more excuses as to what happened to the original deal they announced and no Chinese and Russian arm-twisting. The Obama team also keeps claiming that if Iran ships 2600 pounds of fuel out to Russia for re-processing then Iran will be unable to pose a nuclear threat for at least a year.

This often told claim is a dangerous calculation based on an assumption that Iran doesn't have more hidden fuel (we just found out about another reprocessing plant in September) and can't quickly convert what would remain if the plan had been accepted. Additionally, the low enriched uranium in question was produced in violation of UN Security Council resolutions so any deal to help Iran convert illegal fuel undermines Security Council credibility. The naivety of President Obama could be chalked up to hope and inexperience in foreign policy matters if it wasn't routinely and consistently happening......

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/24/opinion/main5761543.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 05:21 PM

Aha! Sawzaw, here is an article about that Iranian fuel enrichment program which will no doubt interest you. It's by Eric Margolis, a Canadian journalist who knows his stuff:

THOSE TRICKY IRANIANS ARE NOW THREATENING TO COOPERATE
NEW YORK October 05, 2009

The confusion over Iran's nuclear program mounts as accusations and denials intensify.

In an effort to browbeat Iran into nuclear submission, the US, Britain and France staged a bravura performance of political theatre last week by claiming to have just `discovered' a secret Iran uranium enrichment plant near Qum. On cue, a carefully orchestrated media blitz trumpeted warnings of the alleged Iranian nuclear threat and `long-ranged missiles.'

In reality, the Qum plant was detected by US spy satellites over two years ago, and was known to the intelligence community.   Iran claimed the plant will not begin enriching uranium for peaceful power for another 540 days.   UN nuclear rules, to which Iran adheres, calls for 180 days notice.   

But Iran cast suspicion on itself by hastily alerting the UN's nuclear agency, IAEA, right after the `revelation' of the Qum plant and inviting inspection. Iran may not have been actually guilty of anything, but it looked guilty – in western eyes.   

Iran can hardly be eager to reveal the locations of its nuclear sites or military secrets given the steady stream of threats by Israel to attack Iran's nuclear plants and the beating of war drums in the United States. Iran also recalls Iraq, where half the UN `nuclear inspectors' were actually spies for CIA or Israel's Mossad. This may explain some of Iran's secretive behavior.

The US, Britain, France and Israel have been even less forthcoming about their nuclear secrets. Israel and India reject all outside requests for information.   

Iran's test of some useless short ranged   missiles, and an inaccurate 2,000-km medium ranged Shahab-3, provoked more hysteria. In a choice example of media scaremongering, one leading North American newspaper printed a picture of a 1960's vintage SAM-2 antiaircraft missile being launched, with a caption warning of the `grave threat' Iran posed to `international peace and security.'

Welcome to Iraq déjà vu, and another manufactured crisis. US intelligence and UN inspectors say Iran has no nuclear weapons and certainly no nuclear warheads and is only enriching uranium to 5%. Nuclear weapons require 95%.   Iran's nuclear facilities are under constant UN inspection and US surveillance.

The US, its allies, and Israel insist Iran is secretly developing nuclear warheads. They demand Tehran prove a negative: that is has no nuclear weapons.   Iraq was also put to the same impossible test, then attacked when it naturally could not comply.   

Now, the US government is again leaking claims that Iran is working on a nuclear warhead for its Shahah-3 medium-ranged missile. Iran says the data supposedly backing up this claim is a fake concocted by Israel's Mossad. Forged data was also used to accuse Iraq.

Israel is deeply alarmed by Iran's challenge to its Mideast nuclear monopoly. Chances of an Israeli attack on Iran are growing weekly, though the US is still restraining Israel.

The contrived uproar about the Qum plant was a ploy to intensify pressure on Iran to cease nuclear enrichment – though it has every right to do so under international agreements.   The problem is that Iran has many good reasons for developing nuclear weapons for self-defense even though Tehran insists it is not.

More pressure was applied at last week's meeting near Geneva between the Western powers and Iran. The Iranians then fooled everyone by actually agreeing to ship a good part of their enriched uranium to Russia for safekeeping, thus taking the wind out of the sails of the war party in Washington, London and Paris – at least for a while.   

You could almost hear the outraged neocons in Washington yelling, `hey you sneaky Iranians, fight fair!'

Why does Ahmadinejad antagonize the West and act belligerent when he should be taking a very low profile?    Why would Iran face devastating Israeli or US attack to keep enriching uranium when it can import such fuel from Russia?

Civilian nuclear power has become the keystone of Iranian national pride. As noted in my new book, `American Raj,' Iran's leadership insists the West has denied the Muslim world modern technology and tries to keep it backwards and subservient.   Tehran believes it can withstand all western sanctions.

In my view, Iran appears to be very slowly developing a `breakout' capability to produce a small number of nuclear weapons on short notice - for defensive purposes.   Iraq's invasion of Iran cost Iran one million casualties. Iran demands the same right of nuclear self defense enjoyed by neighbors Israel, India and Pakistan.

But Iran's multi-level leadership is also split over the question of whether or not to actually build nuclear weapons. Iran is just as fearful of an Israeli nuclear attack as Israel is of an Iranian nuclear attack. For the record, President Ahmadinejad did not call for Israel to be `wiped off the face of the map,' but quoted an old Imam Khomeini speech calling for Zionism to be wiped away and replaced by a state for Jews, Muslims and Christians.   

What Iran really wants is an end to 30-years of US efforts to overthrow its Islamic regime. The US is still waging economic warfare against Iran and trying to overthrow the Tehran government. Like North Korea, Iran wants explicit guarantees from Washington that this siege warfare will stop and relations with the US will be normalized.

As Flynt and Hillary Leverett conclude in their excellent, must-read 29 September NY Times article about Iran's nuclear program, détente with Iran will be bitterly opposed by `those who attach value to failed policies that have damaged America's interests in the Middle East…'



Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2009

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Bobert, still in Charlotte
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 09:30 PM

Awwwww, screw 'um... Let's just nuke the entire region and be done with it...

Right, Sawz???

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,bankley
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 08:04 AM

welcome Ovavaememnper... I'd like to buy a vowel

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 12:13 PM

I thought this thread was about Obama's failed admistration.

Or as Amos would characterize it, the stunning success of the Obama administration.

What the hell has he done besides piss away money that we have to borrow from China? That card will be maxed out pretty soon.

The only concrete thing he has done is give the order to assassinate three pirates.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 12:35 PM

5. Resolved, That it is the duty of every branch of the government, to enforce and practice the most rigid economy, in conducting our public affairs, and that no more revenue ought to be raised, than is required to defray the necessary expenses of the government.

Democratic Party Platform of 1840

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 12:40 PM

30,000 more troops being sent in.....WHY?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 01:03 PM

I think what he's doing, Sawzaw, is exactly what all American presidents do. He's obeying orders straight from corporate central USA...if you know what I mean. There are people who profit off these wars and these bank bailouts we've been seeing.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 01:59 PM

"WASHINGTON – The head of the Secret Service asserted Thursday that the security breach at last week's White House state dinner was an aberration and President Barack Obama was never at risk. Mark Sullivan said three uniformed officers have been put on administrative leave.

.......

Said Sullivan: "In our judgment, a mistake was made. In our line of work, we cannot afford even one mistake."

"I fully acknowledge that the proper procedures were not followed," he said. " ... This flaw has not changed our agency's standard, which is to be right 100 percent of the time."

Thompson asked Sullivan what went wrong.

"Pure and simple, this was human error" in which normal security protocols were not followed, Sullivan said. The breach was not caused by poor screening technology, he added.

The Secret Service chief said the investigation so far has found three people from the agency's uniformed officer division responsible for the security breach and all three have been put on administrative leave. He added that the agency is still reviewing what security protocols weren't followed.

"What we find is if the protocols are followed, we would not run into this situation," Sullivan said.

......

Sullivan said there was no threat to Obama, noting that "last week we took him to a basketball game, and there was 5,000 people sitting around the president."

In response to a question from Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., he said Obama had not had an extraordinary number of threats against his life, contrary to her assertion, and said that Obama had received no more such threats at this point in his term than his two predecessors.
"




How DARE the head of the Secret Service contradict the experts here at Mudcat!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 02:04 PM

Perhaps he is unaware of their opinions on this matter... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 11:30 PM

Could it be that LH follows the orders of druglords that profit from the import and distribution illegal drugs and whacky weed into North America?

I can see no other explanation for his irrational logic.

Yeah. Whnever some "enlightened" individual breaks the law by lighting up, he supports murder and mayhem.

And just what is the purpose of smoking weed? What is the purpose of booze and tobacco for that matter? Are there some people so weak they need a crutch?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 01:50 AM

Yeah, I think they probably do need a crutch, Sawzaw. Or maybe they want to be "cool" or something.

I do not smoke weed or anything else. I don't drink to any extent worth mentioning (meaning I barely drink at all). I don't smoke cigarettes, and I don't take drugs...legal or illegal.

What is the purpose of weed, alcohol, and tobacco? Well, I guess you could ask someone who partakes, but I would guess that the purposes are many, starting during the teen years, and they are:

to begin with...

1. to be "cool" and seem "grown up"
2. to fit in with one's peer group and impress one's peers
3. to defy parental and state authority
4. to be "brave" (supposedly)
5. to have "a good time" (party, as they call it)
6. to relax and unwind
7. to get laid? (some people use alcohol for that, certainly)

later...

1.it becomes an addictive habit
2. you need heavier and heavier doses to get "a buzz"
3. your health starts to suffer, and your addiction grows
4. and it steadily gets worse from that point on.

Now, what was it you were concerned about?

The reason you don't get my logic is that I don't believe in the old phony Left/Right dichotomy that most people subscribe to in politics. It's not really about that anymore, and both the Right and the Left are riddled with hypocrisy these days, so I snipe at both of them. I'll tell you what it's really about, Sawzaw, it's about money. Big money. More money than you or I will ever see. I'm talking about trillions of dollars. That's what it's all about. The old phony Left/Right divide is just a red herring they use to keep the public distracted and divided against each other. Divide and conquer. That goes for your two phony political parties two. Just a shell game, that's all. "The hand is quicker than the eye." As long as they can bounce you back and forth between the Democrats and the Republicans, you will continue, like Don Quixote, to swat frantically at illusions.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 10:39 PM

You're so right, Little Hawk. It's a shame more people don't look into things a little more closely. It's a shell game to be sure. Sad, ain't it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 11:43 AM

LH: I agree on the left right logic completely. It is used to divide and create bogeymen that one side or the other will protect you from. Therefore you need to support one and fight the other. The pro pot and anti pot groups are extolling or condemning pot for their own political purposes

However it does not explain the need to smoke pot, drink, smoke tobacco or do drugs, All are unnecessary and not beneficial in any way. All are a crutch whether illegal or not.

I have smoked it and eventually I decided out it fucks up your thinking.

I think the expression "why do you think they call it dope?" sums it up.

nighttime, shooting star, the sun started to rain
trees lost branches, gurus' trances, black-brassiered dancers
little dears
showdown's coming, it's no joke, mouth is runnings, it's a stroke
that's what I think when I'm so fucked up I can't even find the door

why do you think they call it dope?
why do you think they call it dope?

when your heart beats fast, you're so broke, in your car with the red
lights flashing
look sincere, smell like beer, roach in the ashtray
going to the pokey
thirty days later, ten bucks left, hands are shaking
looking for a dime bag

why do you think they call it dope?
why do you think they call it dope?

dirty little dopers on dope so bad
dirty little dopers on dope so bad

when two and two turn into five you'll probably see it my way
when bad is good, like it should, things turn upside down
some people say it's hip to say no, my town it's green light go
for party rockin' angels now it's trigger happy
slang-bang-pow

why do you think they call it dope?
why do you think they call it dope?
why do you think they call it dope?
why do you think they call it dope?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,bankley
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 01:29 PM

pass the crutches, reality is lame.... now back to Marley and Willie

to each their own

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 01:34 PM

I see it much the same way you do, Sawzaw. Yes, they are all a crutch. I first encountered dope smokers at about age 20 when I moved to Toronto. Every young person I knew at that time smoked dope on a casual basis...except for me...and a few smoked it on a really heavy basis (several times every day). The whole thing struck me as idiotic. Mind you, I think smoking cigarettes is idiotic too, and almost everyone I knew was a tobacco smoker as well back then.

I was always a real nonconformist to (most) common and popular youth trends. There was something in me that allowed me to look at it from outside the social expectations of my peers, and I could plainly see that it was stupid, self-defeating, and bad for your health to smoke anything, as well as to drink very much alcohol. Yet everyone around me went for that stuff. It was strange to be part of that scene and yet not part of it at the same time. Here I was, a long-haired musician, had "the look", but didn't do the substance abuse. ;-) I can't tell you how many cops have stopped me on suspicion and found nothing.

I agree that it fucks up your thinking. I have smoked it a handful of times over the last 40 years...about 5 or 6 times. When I did so, I did it in order to educate myself as to what the heck it was that the other people were doing it for? My conclusion was that they were doing it for quite a variety of reasons, but that none of those reasons gave me any further impulse to join them. It seems to have different effects on different people, depending on their personality and their nervous system. Some people become much more relaxed under the influence, and that's why they like it. Others get paranoid and stressed out, and they don't enjoy the experience. In my case, it just complicates and to some extent confuses my mind...and I don't like that at all. So there is no reason whatever that I would want to smoke dope.

Looking back to all those friends I had, I'd say that the ones who smoked casually suffered little negative effect from it, while the ones who smoked heavily usually became more lazy, disorganized, and irresponsible than they would have without it...plus they wasted a lot of attention and money on it which might have been better spent elsewhere. Hell, some of them even turned it into a sort of religion! ;-)

I have one friend, a very nice and kindly person, who swears by it. He has medical conditions that it seems to alleviate. What can I say? Maybe for him it's an okay thing. That's something he has to decide, not me. I do think it's unfortunate that the stuff is illegal, because this very nice and totally harmless guy could have his whole life messed up if the cops happen to catch him...and that would be a shame, and would be of no benefit to society. He's a benefit to society right now just as he is, because he does a lot of things to help other people.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 05:23 PM

I don't think it should be legalized. If anything is to be changed, outlaw tobacco and watch health care costs drop.

It would be good to take the profits away from the Mexican Mafia et al but they would only switch to other crimes.

Opium supports the Taleban and Alquaeda. Coke supports the murderous cartels in SA.

Obama said it's immoral. Chavez ran the Simpsons off the air beccause it promoted pot.

Stepping up efforts to publicize its offensive against illegal drug trafficking in the region, the Cuban Government invited the media to fly to Holguín province, 457 miles east of Havana and smack in the middle of the most common drug routes, according to Lt. Col. Miguel Guilarte, the Cuban border guard's anti-drug czar. "This is the region of Cuba most affected by drug trafficking."

The marijuana burnt earlier in the day Tuesday had been dropped by the three-man Jamaican crew of "Nuff Respect," an eight-meter-long speed boat driven by two 200 HP Yamaha motors sighted on Nov. 8, 2004.

The crew, now in Cuban custody, carried no documents, according to border guard Chief Lt. Col. Juan Antonio Galindo, but gave their names as Robert Wallach, Malsom Cambell and Rudolph Allen Black.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 05:46 PM

I am not suggesting legalizing the marketing of dope, Sawzaw.

I'm suggesting that the forces of the law not persecute users, but go after the primary dealers of the drugs. Period. A user is not a criminal. Someone who grows pot strictly for his own use is not a criminal. Someone who smokes up is not a criminal. Someone who markets it in large quantities, on the other hand, is a dealer and a criminal, and those are the people I would go after.

I would make it entirely legal for private persons to grow their own pot on their own land and harvest it strictly for their own use (which any moron can do, I assure you...). That is no threat to society. It is the marketing of illegal drugs by large international criminal organizations that is a threat to society.

If pot were legalized in the manner I suggest, it would completely kill the marijuana business the drug dealers are engaged in. As you say, they'd have to find something else, and I'm sure they would (there's always prostitution, heroin, moving contraband goods, stolen goods, fraud, etc.).

You can't legislate ALL crime out of business by legalizing private use of one drug. But you can stop the police from wasting their valuable time on persecuting the users when it is of no benefit to anyone for them to do so.

Prohibition of a drug simply doesn't work. It never has. It never will. If you outlawed tobacco, it would simply create another vast illegal drug trade.

****

I think the fact that Afghanistan supplies the vast majority of the world's heroin is one major reason for why the USA is in there...and they are NOT there to stop the drug trade in heroin. Uh-uh. They are there to manage that drug trade through their friends in that trade and make sure that the profits go to their chosen people rather than to somebody else. The CIA has financed itself for decades with laundered drug money by moving drugs in quantity out of Asia and Latin America. That's an old story. Look into it some by doing some Internet searches and read all about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 11:19 AM

LOS ANGELES (KNX 1070 NEWSRADIO) -- A poll out today says support for the Afghanistan war, and President Obama's handling of it, is up.

57 percent of Americans say fighting the war is the right thing to do, compared to 35 percent who say it isn't, according to the latest Quinnipiac survey. That's up 9 percentage points in three weeks.

Approval of President Obama's handling of the war is now evenly split -- at 45 percent yes and 45 percent no. That's a gain for him of seven percentage points since last month.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 12:21 PM

"any moron can do" Quite aptly stated.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 12:36 PM

Yes, well, Sawzaw, I said that because I personally witnessed in the 1970s that people who were so damn lazy and disorganized that they could not get a job, maintain a relationship, wash themselves, clean their kitchen, or basically do anything.....those people could STILL get it together to grow and harvest their own dope, roll their own joints, and they could do it quite well.

Why? Well, it was their religion, you see, and people can become remarkably focused when they are motivated by great religious faith! ;-)

I kid you not.

However, I've also known some quite intelligent, well-organized, hard-working and responsible people who have grown their own dope strictly for their own use. So I wouldn't want to characterize ALL home dope growers as "morons"...and I thought I'd better make that 100% clear. ;-) You never know who may be reading this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 06:28 PM

Hey, Amos, I resemble those thoughts...

But nevermind trying to get anything across to Sawz about those of us who do grow our own, toke a little and get up and go to work every day and are, for the most part, model citizens in our communities...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 06:40 PM

Yo, Bobert! ;-) I was thinkin' about you when I typed that last paragraph.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 12:06 AM

"57 percent of Americans say fighting the war is the right thing to do"

whether it be Obama's war, or Bush's war it's still WAR.

Peace,
biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 08:31 AM

Well thankee, LH... Nice to have a few folks 'round here that don't have me firmly in the moron column....

(Cough)

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 11:08 AM

"I personally witnessed in the 1970s that people who were so damn lazy and disorganized that they could not get a job, maintain a relationship, wash themselves, clean their kitchen, or basically do anything.....those people could STILL get it together to grow and harvest their own dope, roll their own joints, and they could do it quite well."

I too have witnessed the 1970's and now I'm personally witnessing the new millennium ... things have gotten a whole lot worse

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 12:33 PM

This ain't about weed... It's about a failed educational and economic system that has produced way too many epsilons and not enought alphas and betas...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 10:52 AM

In Oslo, Obama was applauded only once for not being Bush.


silence


silence

Then...
One more more round of applause was heard for a MLK quote and that was it.

He was snubbed as effectively as they did George at the end.

IT was a tough crowd. Afterall it was only 9 days ago that Obama vowed to escalate the war.

Pete Seegar should have won the Peace prize. HE has EARNED it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 11:23 AM

Business leaders, Bay Area officials praise Obama's jobs plan

By Steve Johnson

[e-mail]
Posted: 12/09/2009 01:00:00 AM PST
Updated: 12/09/2009 08:54:47 AM PST

Business leaders and Bay Area public officials praised President Barack Obama's call Tuesday to reduce the nation's persistent double-digit unemployment through a major federal spending effort to improve roads, bolster small businesses and make homes more energy-efficient.

Under intense political pressure because more than 7 million Americans have lost jobs over the past two years and despite Republican criticism over the rising deficit, Obama called the nation's 10 percent jobless rate "staggering" and said the U.S. must continue to "spend our way out of the recession."

Although Obama didn't specify how much the plan would cost, experts said it would doubtless involve tens of billions of dollars, which local government officials said was sorely needed.

"I'm euphoric about it," said Dan Collen, Santa Clara County's deputy director for roads and airports, who said the county has $160 million of high-priority road needs, including improvements to its extensive network of expressways. And if the state tries to grab some county money to ease its own budget woes, "we may need all of the stimulus-for-jobs or whatever money is available just to keep the routine baseline operations going," said Collen.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 11:25 AM

This is from antiwar.com.

Neocons Get Warm and Fuzzy Over 'War President'

by Eli Clifton, December 05, 2009

.... a small group of hawkish foreign policy experts - who have lobbied the White House since August to escalate U.S. involvement in Afghanistan - are christening Obama the new "War President."

....foreign policy hawks who have accused the president of "dithering" in making a decision on Afghanistan are praising the administration's willingness to make the "tough" commitment to escalate the U.S. commitment in the war in Afghanistan.

Indeed, their approval of the White House's decision to commit 30,000 troops is the culmination of a campaign led by the newly formed Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI).

...The newly formed group is headed up by the Weekly Standard's editor Bill Kristol; foreign policy adviser to the McCain presidential campaign Robert Kagan; and former policy adviser in the GeorgeGeorge W. Bush administration Dan Senor.

Kagan and Kristol were also co-founders and directors of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a number of whose 1997 charter members, including the elder Cheney, former Pentagon chief Donald RumsfeldDonald Rumsfeld, and their two top aides, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Paul WolfowitzPaul Wolfowitz, respectively, played key roles in promoting the 2003 invasion of Iraq and Bush's other first-term policies when the hawks exercised their greatest influence.

The core leadership of FPI has waged their campaign in countless editorials and columns published in the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the Weekly Standard.

...Senor described himself as "pleasantly surprised" and "quite encouraged by the president's decision" in a Republican National Committee sponsored conference call.

"It seems to me that Obama deserves even more credit for courage than Bush did, for he has risked much more. By the time Bush decided to support the surge in Iraq in early 2007, his presidency was over and discredited, brought down in large part by his own disastrous decision not to send the right number of troops in 2003, 2004, 2005, or 2006," wrote Kagan in the Washington Post on Wednesday.

..The theme of heralding Obama as a stoic decision-maker in the face of an administration and Congress that seek to "manage American decline" - as Kagan wrote - was also echoed by Bill Kristol in the Washington Post on Wednesday.

"By mid-2010, Obama will have more than doubled the number of American troops in Afghanistan since he became president; he will have empowered his general, Stanley McChrystal, to fight the war pretty much as he thinks necessary to in order to win; and he will have retroactively, as it were, acknowledged that he and his party were wrong about the Iraq surge in 2007 - after all, the rationale for this surge is identical to Bush's, and the hope is for a similar success. He will also have embraced the use of military force as a key instrument of national power," wrote Kristol.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 11:26 AM

U.S. Mayors Praise President Obama for Supporting Fiscal Relief for Local Governments and States, Targeted Infrastructure Investment, Small Business Capital

WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following statement from Tom Cochran, USCM CEO and Executive Director, was released today:

"The President and his advisors have been meeting with U.S. mayors. The President understands the jobs and fiscal crisis happening in America's cities, and he is calling for action," Conference of Mayors CEO and Executive Director Tom Cochran said today following President Obama's jobs address.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors has developed A Call to Action which highlights the ongoing jobs crisis in America's cities -- predicted to last for years -- and the need for more targeted investments in cities and local infrastructure to create jobs.

One of the key action items called for by mayors is "Targeted Fiscal Relief for High Unemployment Cities and Metro Areas." Cities all across the country have faced significant layoffs and budgetary cutbacks this summer, with dire local revenue projections in the coming years. ARRA provided significant fiscal assistance to states, but none to local governments. The recession is now having drastic effects at the local level. Therefore, mayors are calling on the Administration and Congress to develop a fiscal assistance program targeted to cities with high rates of unemployment and budget shortfalls. This is needed to prevent even deeper layoffs in critical areas such as public safety and public works, and help cities promote private sector job creation through local infrastructure projects.

In his address today, the President said, Congress should extend "relief to states and localities to prevent layoffs." And during the recent White House Jobs Summit on December 3 -- attended by five mayors -- the President said, "As tough as this financial crisis or recession has been on the federal budget, it has in some cases been worse on state and local government budgets... Usually, state and local government revenues lag the recovery as a whole. They may need some more help from the federal government... If you see a complete collapse in state and local government spending on basic needs, that could create a very bad business climate for all of you."

The President also called for more targeted infrastructure investment in programs such as TIGER grants and public transit, as well as support for small business lending -- all strongly supported by mayors.

The Conference of Mayors is working closely with both the Administration and Congress to ensure that in this jobs bill, more resources and infrastructure projects go directly to cities and local areas -- ensuring they are not stalled in state bureaucracies - so that more jobs can be created now.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 11:28 AM

"There will be times when nations -acting individually or in concert - will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified."

At least he thinks weed is not morally justified.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 12:07 PM

Sooner or later the MSM will pick up on this and this guy will get rolled under da bus:

    Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings was the founder, and for many years, Executive Director of an organization called the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). GLSEN started essentially as Jennings' personal project and grew to become the culmination of his life's work. And he was chosen by President Obama to be the nation's Safe Schools Czar primarily because he had founded and led GLSEN.

    GLSEN's stated mission is to empower gay youth in the schools and to stop harassment by other students. It encourages the formation of Gay Student Alliances and condemns the use of hateful words. GLSEN also strives to influence the educational curriculum to include materials which the group believes will increase tolerance of gay students and decrease bullying. To that end, GLSEN maintains a recommended reading list of books that it claims "furthers our mission to ensure safe schools for all students." In other words, these are the books that GLSEN's directors think all kids should be reading: gay kids should read them to raise their self-esteem, and straight kids should read them in order to become more aware and tolerant and stop bullying gay kids.

    We were unprepared for what we encountered. Book after book after book contained stories and anecdotes that weren't merely X-rated and pornographic, but which featured explicit descriptions of sex acts between pre-schoolers; stories that seemed to promote and recommend child-adult sexual relationships; stories of public masturbation, anal sex in restrooms, affairs between students and teachers, five-year-olds playing sex games, semen flying through the air. One memoir even praised becoming a prostitute as a way to increase one's self-esteem.

http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/news/record/1294.html

"Late one night, Troy sneaked into Michael's basement bedroom while his parents and sister slept upstairs. For hours, they lay together in Michael's bed, hugging, kissing, and touching each other. Usually it was the park or Michael's car where they would make out, masturbating each other and having oral sex. They didn't use condoms, and instead abstained from sex that they thought would be unsafe, Troy says."

(Kevin Jennings recounts another early sexual experience.)
When we got back to my house, we went to bed and a conversation started. Maybe it was the alcohol, maybe it was our teenage hormones, but soon we were admitting our attraction to guys, then our attraction to each other and, soon after that, we were acting on that attraction. Peter rolled over and kissed me passionately (something I had never let Mike do) and said, "Well, I guess we've both screwed up our lives now," and then we went at it. But it didn't feel like I was screwing anything up. The old cliché "it felt so right" was true: for the first time, I was having a sexual experience with someone I was both attracted to and cared about. This was no one-way street. Peter was so cute and I was so turned on, soon all of our clothes were off and we "did it all," in a night that I can honestly say, twenty-five years later, was one of the most exciting ones of my life.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 01:47 PM

""There will be times when nations -acting individually or in concert - will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified."



Sawzaw, all governments and leaders make such utterances when they go to war....and their people and their soldiers mostly believe them. The same statement might just as well have been made by Hitler, Goebbels, Mao Zedong, Stalin, Napoleon, Mussolini, Frederick the Great, Julius Caesar....

They always believe that their use of force is both necessary and morally justified.

That might be true. It might not. But they always believe it is true.

I have a healthy skepticism for such notions.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 02:35 PM

LH

"I have a healthy skepticism for such notions. "


By the present administration's direct comments, that makes you racist, in favour of slavery, and totally evil. So maybe you need to rethink and accept the double-plus right-think that you have been told is true.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 03:11 PM

Oh, don't be silly, BB. Skepticism regarding government statements does not equate to absolute belief that ALL government statements are completely untrue nor does it equate to believing in the diametrical opposite extreme of some stated proposition. Skepticism is not an absolutist position, it's a position of expressing some measure of doubt about something.

Perhaps I should accuse you of some similarly heinous views as you have attributed to me, based on some fragment of something you once said? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 03:24 PM

Furthermore, no one is "totally evil". Even Hitler loved his dog. Even the neighbour's dog, Major, which is a nasty, thieving, smelly, rotten little bastard, loves his owner.

Try to avoid engaging in this sort of exaggerated personal hyperbole in the future, would you? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 04:29 PM

By the present administration's direct comments, that makes you racist, in favour of slavery, and totally evil. So maybe you need to rethink and accept the double-plus right-think that you have been told is true.

That is pretty silly, all right, BB. Do you actually have a reference lending itself (without distortion) to such an interpretation of an administration policy or statement??


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 04:45 PM

Settle down, folks... After all, it *is* BB and he does tend to be very dogmatic in his stances... No gray in his world... Black or white... No middle... Nothin' new here...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 05:24 PM

Left and right, pundits applaud Obama Nobel Peace Prize speech
Liberal and conservative pundits both approve of Obama's Nobel Peace Prize speech. They like his humility and his realism.

By Linda Feldmann | (Chr. Science. Monitor Staff writer)/ December 10, 2009 edition

WASHINGTON

If nothing else, the American punditocracy largely agreed on one aspect of President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize speech: that it was eloquent.

In offering a tutorial on just war theory, laid out in clear prose and compellingly delivered, Mr. Obama and his speechwriters showed once again that they know how to knock one out of the park.

But more noteworthy is the largely positive, or at least hopeful, tone of reaction across the political spectrum. From conservative former House speaker Newt Gingrich to writers at the liberal Nation magazine, the insta-analyses found hope in Obama's words, either in his justification for the war in Afghanistan or in his ultimate aspiration: to replace war with peace.

"I thought the speech was actually very good," Mr. Gingrich said on the WNYC radio's The Takeaway. "And he clearly understood that he had been given the prize prematurely, but he used it as an occasion to remind people, first of all, as he said, that there is evil in the world."

Sometimes a need for force

Gingrich also applauded Obama for reminding the Nobel committee that there would be no peace prize without the use of force. "A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies," Obama said.

Progressives upset by Obama's decision to escalate US involvement in Afghanistan may not have given the president the A grades that some conservatives and others offered. But at the Nation.com, a reliable gauge of liberal thought, the reaction was not wholly negative — a sign, perhaps, that Obama still enjoys a reserve of goodwill among his base.

Nation writer John Nichols called the address "exceptionally well-reasoned and appropriately humble." He then recommended the reaction of the Dalai Lama, who opted for a positive outlook: "I think the Nobel Peace Prize gives him more encouragement and also gives him more moral personal responsibility," the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader told Sky News.

Nichols also commended the reaction of Paul Kawika Martin, the policy and political director of the group Peace Action, who said: "Although Peace Action applauds him for stating a vision of a world without nuclear weapons and increasing diplomacy with Iran, we believe he has missed opportunities to advance nonmilitary solutions to conflict by dramatically increasing troop levels in Afghanistan and continuing the growth of the military budget. We challenge him to live up to the honor of being a Nobel laureate."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 06:42 PM

A few points here....

A non-violent movement in Germany during the 30's, had it been of sufficient determination and had it involved enough people, could have prevented Hitler's rise to power in the first place.

A similar non-violent movement in America could have prevented America from going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

911 was not an act of war, it was a criminal act by a small group of people who did not represent a government or a sovereign nation.

To attack Afghanistan and Iraq over 911 (and over fictional WMDs in the case of Iraq) was not a rational response to such a criminal attack.

The governments of Afghanistan and Iraq presented no real threat whatsoever to the survival and security of the United States, whereas Hitler's Germany in the late 30's and the 40's did represent a very real threat to the survival of the governments of a great many other nations who ended up fighting him.

Therefore, it is disingenuous to use the example of fighting Hitler for some quasi-justification for invading Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a red herring. To put it less generously, it's doubletalk. There is no real correlation between the one and the other. It is, in fact, America that is presently taking up the role Hitler once did...in this sense: America is practicing imperial aggression by a great power upon smaller nations and with imperial intentions in so doing. Like Hitler in 1939, America has pretended to be defending itself against an outside attack or the threat of an attack. (Hitler claimed that the Poles had attacked Germany first and had committed atrocities against Germans in Poland, and most Germans at the time believed him. They also believed that Communist saboteurs had burned down the Reichstag...their version of a 911 attack. This enabled Hitler to establish emergency powers which were never rescinded, paving the way to a dictatorship.) The Patriot Act was a somewhat similar American government response to 911, but to a lesser extent.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 08:15 PM

I'm not too sure how many more folks would have had to been in the streets prior to the Iraq invasion to stop it... All I know is that I was at the Moritorium march during the Vietnam war and at the January march on DC prior to the Iraq invasion and there were at least as many people at the Jnauary march as there were at the Moritorium...

Millions of people took to the streets that day across the country and the world and Bush couldn't have cared less... He was going to order up this war come hell or high water...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 08:20 PM

Yes, unfortunately that is so. Once a government is in place that is absolutely bent on having a war, there is little that a population can do to stop it. The military will follow the orders once they are given...and after that, Pandora's box has been opened.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 08:50 PM

The myth:

"turn around the divisions and bitternesses that have poisoned our nation for the last many years, and start healing its Union, and its economy, and its repute, and its political framework"

The reality:

AP: WASHINGTON – Black lawmakers who have largely held their tongues during President Barack Obama's first year in office are stepping up their demands that the nation's first black president do more for minority communities hit hardest by the recession.

While still careful about criticizing Obama publicly, they appear to be losing their patience after watching him dedicate more than $1 trillion to prop up banks and corporations and fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while double-digit unemployment among blacks crept even higher.

"Obama has tried desperately to stay away from race, and all of us understand what he's doing," said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo. "But when you have such a disproportionate number of African-Americans unemployed, it would be irresponsible not to direct attention and resources to the people who are receiving the greatest level of pain."

Dating back to Obama's campaign, many black leaders have pressed him to take more of a stand on the challenges facing minorities. Most voiced criticisms privately for fear of jeopardizing his candidacy or undercutting his popularity after his election. They also have tread lightly so as not to be at odds with their own majority-black constituencies, who strongly support Obama.

But frustration has been building.

The 42-member Congressional Black Caucus flexed its influence last week when 10 of its members held up a financial regulation bill backed by the administration until leaders agreed to add about $3 billion in foreclosure relief for struggling homeowners. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the House Financial Services Committee chairman, later added $1 billion for neighborhood revitalization programs.

During the stalemate, the lawmakers issued a statement saying they would no longer support public policy "defined by the world view of Wall Street."

"Policy for the least of these must be integrated into everything that we do," they said.

And earlier this week, the all-Democratic caucus responded to Obama's proposal for a new jobs package by saying it would insist on initiatives targeted to minorities. Pointing to outsized percentages of African-Americans losing their jobs and homes, caucus Chairwoman Barbara Lee, D-Calif., said Obama must live up to his campaign talk that racial disparities cannot be ignored.

"The facts speak for themselves," Lee said. "The gaps are very real."

Some have sought to pin blame on the president's advisers.

"It's not the president. It's his economic team," said Rep. Corrine Brown, D-Fla. "I don't think they're doing their job."

The unemployment rate among African-Americans is nearly 16 percent, almost double the 9 percent rate for whites. Roughly one in four blacks lives in poverty, compared with about 11 percent of whites.

Obama was a black caucus member in the Senate before winning the White House last year, but he has never had a close relationship with the group. In recent interviews, he has addressed their criticisms by saying he must represent the entire country, not any one population, and the best way to help low-income communities is to improve the overall economy.

"I think it's a mistake to start thinking in terms of particular ethnic segments of the United States rather than to think that we are all in this together and we are all going to get out of this together," he said.

Many blacks in Congress take exception to that view, arguing that decades of neglect and discrimination warrant particular attention to minority concerns. Veteran black lawmakers such as Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., and House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., have been among the most vocal.

Conyers told The Hill newspaper that Obama called last month to ask why Conyers was "demeaning" him so much. Conyers has since declined to discuss the call, and Lee wouldn't say whether she has had a similar conversation with the president.

Black lawmakers say the differences are not new and Obama shouldn't take them personally. The caucus has had similar disputes with most recent presidents, including in 1993 when it spurned an invitation to meet with President Bill Clinton over potential budget cuts to domestic programs such as Medicare.

"What I think the CBC is saying is that our voices have to be raised on behalf of our constituents, just as the Blue Dogs or any other caucus does," said Rep. Chaka Fattah, D-Pa., referring to the conservative Democratic group that has leverage because it often holds swing votes. "In politics, what happens is the squeaky wheel gets the oil."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 09:43 PM

I agree... Obama needs to address the realities that black folks in America are still getting shafted... Lower wages, higher incarceration rates, more poverty and homelessness, disporportonate numbers getting killed in wars, disporportunate being shot down in our streets...

Doesn't matter that Obama is also black here... What matters is that these sad statsitcs are hard to acdept when the country could be doing much better job at leveling the playing field...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 09:56 PM

"Mr. Obama and his speechwriters showed once again that they know how to knock one out of the park."

Gag, Puke, Gag. Bush could have written it. "wagers of peace" ?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 10:09 PM

Watch out for wolves who speak with the tongues of lambs and shepherds...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 10:35 PM

"Obama needs to address the realities that black folks in America are still getting shafted..."

            Black folks aren't the only ones getting shafted. Obama doesn't care; his priorities lie elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 10:53 PM

Attacks on the messanger are proof of the bankruptcy of the attacker's arguement.


LH,

"it's a position of expressing some measure of doubt about something."

And THAT is what this administration, as stated by Al Gore, Harry Reid, Pelosi, and Barack Obama, does not welcome nor allow without attack.




"Perhaps I should accuse you of some similarly heinous views as you have attributed to me, based on some fragment of something you once said? ;-) "

** I ** accuse you of nothing- those stated above have classed all those who do not actively support them and their agendas as such. Go talk to them, and stop attacking those who bring truth to your attention.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 07:02 AM

That, Rigs, is also true... Unfortunately it is still truer for black Americans... But no argument on the overall agenda... Alot better than the Repubs but still very much lacking...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 01:31 PM

BB, I am not a vociferous defender of Barack Obama, Al Gore or any of those other politicians you mentioned. In fact, I have been quite critical of Obama on a number of points...and I don't buy Al Gore's Global Warming agenda either.

By the way, I recall you made a confident prediction back in 2008 that if Obama were elected, we'd be in a major war (in addition to Afghanistan and Iraq) by no later than the summer of 2009. You seemed quite sure of that. Well, it didn't happen, did it?

I'm not saying that to defend Obama....I disagree radically with his foreign policy decisions so far....but I'm saying it to say that you tend to go to a bit of an extreme in your negative assessments of Obama. He's not the AntiChrist, you know. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 06:26 PM

LH,

Your statement "By the way, I recall you made a confident prediction back in 2008 that if Obama were elected, we'd be in a major war (in addition to Afghanistan and Iraq) by no later than the summer of 2009. You seemed quite sure of that. Well, it didn't happen, did it?"

Is basically correct. I did predict a large PROBABILITY of a war with both sides using WMD, and involving the US or a US ally, by August of 2009.

1. I was wrong: Obama continued enough of the Bush policies to keep this from happening YET. That, or those in the rest of the world have figured out they can get their goals by just waiting until Obama gives those goals to them. Pick one.

2. I would NOT be surprised to see such a war in the next year- after all, the Obama administration needs a war in order to have any hope of keeping support in Congress after the next election. What did Clinton do, when he was being pressed for his activities? Blow up an asprin plant!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 07:42 PM

I suspect you will be wrong again, and for the same reason, Bruce.

Barack Obama has not proved to be Superman, but he sure has hell proved to be a thoughtful and intelligent American leader. And about time we had one of those.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 07:44 PM

I wouldn't be surprised to see it either, BB...if the recipient of the attack is Iran. The other strong possibility is Pakistan (depending on what happens there in a domestic sense).

You wish to see Bush's war policies continued? I think that is precisely what will make further wars almost inevitable, because it is those policies which provoke further wars.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 07:46 PM

Better to blow up an asprin plant trying to get some bad guys than blowing up two countries killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people...

Plus, had the US had the technology in the 90's that it has now then Clinton would more than likely gotten bin Laden... The bad guys have adapted very well to the older technology...

But alot of this has nothin' to do with technology but the wrong-headedness of blowin' folks up in the first place... The US is in a unique position to act as a model of pluralism where folks get along... I thought we did a purdy good job after the Shah was ousted in accepting Iranians into the country as our neigbors and citizens... Since then I don't think we have done as well and alot of that is because the right wing has used immigrants as whippin' boys to lather up their base and not only set back our little pluralistic experiement but also piss off alot of other folks around the world... This is one area that the right cannot blame the left for the left has been far more tolerant...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 08:58 PM

LH,

You state:"You wish to see Bush's war policies continued? "

Whther I do or not, I have NOT stated that- Just because I can see likely outcomes to probable actions does NOT indicate my approval of either those actions, or my desire for the resultant actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 09:04 PM

Umm-hmm. I see.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 11:19 AM

"a thoughtful and intelligent American leader"

Dear Amos: In my opinion Obama has been a weak, ineffective and disappointing leader that has done nothing but plunge the nation deeper in debt.

If you have any knowledge of any accomplishments, Let's have a list.

I can only find broken promises. Surely anybody that is thoughtful and intelligent wouldn't say one thing and do another would they?

Obama campaign speech:

Tomorrow, you can turn the page on policies that have put the greed and irresponsibility of Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street.

Tomorrow, you can choose policies that invest in our middle-class, create new jobs, and grow this economy so that everyone has a chance to succeed; from the CEO to the secretary and the janitor; from the factory owner to the men and women who work on its floor.

Tomorrow, you can put an end to the politics that would divide a nation just to win an election; that tries to pit region against region, city against town, Republican against Democrat; that asks us to fear at a time when we need hope.

Tomorrow, at this defining moment in history, you can give this country the change we need.

I hoped for a change. Where is the change?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 11:29 AM

The change is in the pockets of the corporate lobbyists who control Congress and the Presidency.

Basically, nothing has changed except the face you see on your TV screen when the president meets the press.

Read this article from Eric Margolis:

THE BIG CHILL IN OSLO
December 14, 2009

I guess President Barack Obama has never read Benjamin Franklin's maxim, "there never was a good war, or a bad peace."
Obama's speech in Oslo proclaiming Afghanistan a "good" war and trying to justify US global military operations echoes to America's detriment around Europe and, more important, the Muslim world.

The president's address dismayed many who foolishly hoped the "anti-war" president might curb or even end his wars because of a highly politicized and leftish Swedish award. Not so. America's military-industrial-financial juggernaut continues to roll on.   

But what could Obama do? Unwilling to turn down the award he did not solicit, the president had to turn up in Oslo and accept a peace prize as he was widening and deepening the Afghanistan war. In retrospect, he probably should have turned the prize down, saying, as he did at Oslo, that he has not yet done enough to merit such an award.

Instead, President Obama delivered an oration that at times sounded as if it had been lifted from George Orwell's prescient novel, "1984."

War is peace, explained the president. Conflict, he asserted, had to be relentlessly waged by the west ("Oceana" to Orwell, the union of the United States and Britain) in the Muslim world (Orwell called it "Eurasia") until the dire threat of al-Qaida is eliminated. Of course, the threat never ends and low-grade war becomes permanent, justifying dictatorship and endless arms contracts for industry.

Al-Qaida barely exists as an organization, though its philosophy of driving the US from the Muslim world continues to motivate a scattering of tiny, anti-American groups in Asia and Africa who are a minor, if occasionally spectacular, nuisance rather than a major threat.

So here was a major untruth from the president who had vowed to tell Americans the true after eight years of lies and prevarications from the previous administration.

The "New York Times," an ardent liberal backer of wars in the Muslim world, arrogantly editorialized on 14 December that Europe was delinquent in supporting the Afghan War. The "Times" hectored Europe's leaders to "educate" their citizens in the need for war in Afghanistan. But the problem is that Europeans are too well educated. A majority see Afghanistan as a traditional colonial war being waged for energy resources and imperial strategy in which their continent has no business at all.   

The political big chill that came from Oslo left many Americans and Europeans wondering just who was really in charge of US foreign policy. Readers of George Orwell might suspect that real power in Washington is wielded by the same kind of hidden oligarchy he described in "1984" that conjured fear of foreigners and drove permanent war policy.

Could the former civil rights worker from Chicago's roughest section really be speaking with the same voice as Wall Street's money barons, pro-war neocons, and the military-industrial complex about which the foresighted President Dwight Eisenhower warned the nation?   What happened to the man only lately denounced by Republicans as a "socialist" and "appeaser?"

Are Americans victims of a presidential bait and switch? Obama is maintaining or advancing so many of Bush's hard right domestic and foreign policies that one indeed wonders of we are seeing Bush's third term.   

If President Obama ended the futile, eight-year war in Afghanistan against Pashtun tribesmen, he would of course face Republican charges of defeatism, appeasement and "losing Afghanistan." Republicans are already battering him with spurious claims of "their" victory in Iraq thanks to the "surge" advocated by Senator John McCain.   American soldiers and Afghan civilians will pay the price for this lack of political courage in Washington – to say nothing of US relations with the Muslim world which sees Afghanistan as a martyr nation ravaged by western forces.

Adding to this miasma of untruth, the US commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, just proclaimed that the US had "won" the war in Iraq, and was now about to work the same military magic in Afghanistan. The notion of a US victory in Iraq has become common currency in Washington and the media, justifying another "surge' in Afghanistan.

To quote the great Roman historian Tactius, "they make a desert, and call it peace."   Such is the US supposed US victory in Iraq that now looms over Afghanistan. Let's look at this Carthaginian Peace:

*Iraq effectively sundered into three de facto independent parts: a Shia region; Sunni region; and Kurdistan. The US vowed never to do this – but did, turning it into a weak, obedient Petrolistan.   

*The world's biggest refugee problem. Four million Iraq refugees created during the US occupation. Two million in neighboring Arab nations; two million internal refugees, victims of ethnic cleansing.   Massive flight of intellectuals and trained personnel. Over 2,300 Iraqi doctors murdered.   

*After rightly bombing Serbia to stop its attempted genocide against Balkan Muslims, the US closed its eyes to massive atrocities and ethnic cleansing of Sunni civilians committed by Shia death squads, run by the US-installed Shia regime.   

*Iraq is now in worse shape then it was before the US invasion, terrorized by criminal gangs, death squads and local warlords. What was in 2000 the Arab world's most advanced nation in terms of education, technology, public health and industry, today lies in ruins.   Its rich oil field are about to be exploited by foreign firms, many from the US and Britain.   

No one knows how many Iraqis have been killed or maimed. Estimates run from 100,000 to one million. What is a known, to use Rummy's delightful phrase, is that the Iraq War has cost the US $1 trillion to date. Important numbers of US troops and tens of thousands of US-paid mercenaries look likely to remain in Iraq for many years on "training" and oilfield protection missions.

Such is Gen. Chrystal and Sen. John McCain's "victory." This is what awaits Afghanistan in President Obama's version of a "good" war.

Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2009

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 11:30 AM

"the wrong-headedness of blowin' folks up in the first place"

U.S. Missiles Kill 15 People Near Border in Pakistan
NYT December 17, 2009:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — In an exceptionally heavy barrage by American drones in Pakistan, five Predator aircraft fired 10 missiles at suspected militant compounds along the border with Afghanistan on Thursday. Along with an earlier attack, at least 15 people, including 7 foreigners, were killed, Pakistani security officials said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 03:01 PM

Sawz:

I am acutely aware of the differences since the election; despite having the world's worst economic catastrophe since the Depression handed tohim by the Paulon gang; despite having two screaming confused wars handed to him by the CHeny gang; despite having the worst PR situation inthehistory of the United States handed tohim as the personal legacy of GWB, Obama has dug in and worked on digging the country out. Despite being blockaded, harangued, obstreperously and illogically harassed at every corner by the party of "No" he has managed to move ahead, bringing us out of the worst of the Bush recession, although not all the way out of it, bringing us closer to the end of Bush's war in Iraq, and working to end his war in Afghanistan. In all these actions he has brought to bear dialogue, a greater degree of openness, intelligent curiousity and many other qualities that were completely missing from the arrogant abrasion that was the signature of the Bush Cheny axis.

That you cannot perceive the differences or the changes speaks ill of your capacity for simple observation. For Little Hawk on his part to assert it is just a face change is to advertise the fixidity of his own self-generated notion of things, not the ground truth.

Year 1 of the Obama administration was largely spent trying to repair the ruination of the previous eight years of hard neocon government and start the ground work for major improvements. I look forward to year two. Despite the continuous effort of the LImbaugh axis of inanity, the PResident marches ahead making things better, one step at a time.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 10:26 PM

Amos:

He asked for it and he said he would fix it.

When is he going to take on the job he applied for?

His focus is on ideological bullshit that does not put bread on the table for the American people. It just runs up the deficit that the american people owe.

Out of work? Sure, here is some extended unemployment beneifts that you will eventually have to pay back with interest.

His chosen Treasury Secretary, head of the IRS [who does not have the brains to fill out an income tax form] was part of the Paulson Gang.

How about a list of the members of this gang?

---

The Myth:

Larry Summers: "everybody agrees the recession is over"

The reality:

AP December 18, 2009:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a reversal of earlier gains, more states lost jobs than added them in November, signaling that hiring is occurring only sporadically around the country.

Unemployment rates dropped in 36 states and the District of Columbia, but that trend appeared to reflect more people leaving the work force. Unemployed people who stop looking for jobs out of frustration aren't counted in the labor force.

Friday's Labor Department report underscored that employers have yet to ramp up hiring, and many Americans can't find work. The number of people jobless for at least six months rose last month to 5.9 million, according to a separate report released earlier this month. And the average length of unemployment exceeds 28 weeks, the longest on records dating to 1948.

It was the first time since April that more states' unemployment rates fell than rose. But two states, South Carolina and Florida, saw joblessness reach its highest point in 25 years. And economists say most states' unemployment rates will rise as the stimulus programs wind down and seasonal jobs taper off.

"Even though things are getting better, they're not getting better fast enough to keep unemployment from rising in the next six to nine months," said Mark Vitner, senior economist at Wells Fargo & Co.

Vitner said he expects unemployment nationally and in most states to continue inching up before cresting in about nine months. He predicts it will be six more months before there are any consistent job gains.

In all, 19 states added jobs in November, down from 28 in October. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia suffered a net loss of jobs.....

The Democrat solution for rising unempyment is to extend unemployment benefits.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 10:35 PM

"handed tohim by the Paulon gang"

In Crucible of Crisis, Paulson, Bernanke, Geithner Forge a Committee of Three

Washington Post September 19, 2008

From the rescue of Bear Stearns to the takeovers of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and American International Group, all the key decisions have been made by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Timothy F. Geithner, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

It is this unusual collaboration among a consummate dealmaker, a professor and a seasoned public servant that could determine how the nation weathers the most profound threat to its economy in modern times. Despite their disparate backgrounds, the three men have formed a close, informal partnership built on rapid-fire phone calls and open debate that breaks the mold of Washington policymaking.

As they chart a government response to the crisis, the stakes could hardly be higher. If they succeed, they could tame the economic downturn and orchestrate a restructuring of Wall Street with minimal collateral damage. If they fail, the toll could be millions of jobs, trillions of dollars in lost wealth and a crisis of confidence in global capitalism.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 10:47 PM

PS Amos:

Maybe Larry Summers is a member of the gang that handed the big turd to Obama.

"Geithner, 47, was a career staff member at the Treasury Department when Lawrence Summers, then a Treasury undersecretary, plucked him from obscurity in the early 1990s."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 12:58 AM

"making things better, one step at a time."

Name one of these steps that has made things better for the American people.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 09:11 AM

"despite having the worst PR situation inthehistory of the United States"

Courtesy of Amos types who's mental capabilities limit them to echoing anything anti Bush.


One step at a time:

Congress raises debt ceiling to $12.4 trillion - AP - 27 minutes ago
The Senate voted Thursday to raise the ceiling on the government debt to $12.4 trillion, a massive increase over the current limit and a political problem that President Barack Obama has promised to address next year.

SO he is finally going to take on the job he applied, for got and said he was capable of next year? But first a big, fat pork barrel spending package on health care thet does nothing to reduce the cost.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 09:51 AM

"bringing us closer to the end of Bush's war in Iraq"

By following Bush's plan and now He takes credit for it. How is his ending of the Afghan war doing? Not a peep out of Amos so He must be another warmonger.

Where is the shrill, whiny, crybaby liberals' criticism of Obama's handling of the Swine Flu vaccine?

ABC News, "Avian Flu: Is the Government Ready for an Epidemic?" by Brian Ross, September 15, 2006: "According to Dr. Irwin Redlener, director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health, Bush's call to remain on the offensive has come too late. 'If we had a significant worldwide epidemic of this particular avian flu, and it hit the United States and the world, because it would be everywhere at once, I think we would see outcomes that would be virtually impossible to imagine,"he warns."

New York Times, "Fear of avian flu Outbreak Rattles Washington," by Gardiner Harris, October 5, 2005: "Thirty-two Democratic senators sent a letter to President Bush on Tuesday expressing "grave concern that the nation is dangerously unprepared for the serious threat of avian influenza."

We can realistically hope that our current federal government will improve upon the bungled effort made by the Bush Administration to prepare for the onslaught of avian flu—which fortunately didn't materialize. But certain aspects of the crisis are likely to be repeated, and profiteers will waste no time in gathering at the trough.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 10:12 AM

Danged, Amos... Look at Sawz go... BTW,...

...ain't it up to 1300???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 24 Dec 09 - 01:11 PM

Life and premature death of Pax Obamicana

Asian Times Dec 24, 2009

History speaks of a Pax Romana, a Pax Britannica, and a Pax Americana - but no other namable eras of sustained peace, for the simple reason cited by Henry Kissinger: nothing maintains peace except hegemony and the balance of power. The balancing act always fails, though, as it did in Europe in 1914, and as it will in Central and South Asia precisely a century later. The result will be suppurating instability in the region during the next two years and a slow but deadly drift toward great-power animosity. Those who wanted an end to US hegemony will get what they wished for. But they won't like it.

"No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation," US President Barack Obama told the United Nations on September 23. "No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold." Having renounced hegemony as well as the balance of power, Obama by year-end chose to prop up the power balance in the region with additional American and allied soldiers in Afghanistan. Obama chose the least popular as well as the least effective alternative. The US president's apparent fecklessness reflects the gravity of the strategic problems in the region.

So much for this alleged "respect" Obama has brought to the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Dec 09 - 06:58 AM

He's doing quite well on the immigration front, though. This from the Freson Bee:

FRESNO - Federal officials say the number of cases filed in Northern California against illegal immigrants with criminal records is at a 10-year high.

Authorities in the Eastern District, which covers inland areas from Bakersfield to the Oregon border, announced Wednesday that 414 illegal immigrants were prosecuted this past fiscal year. Nearly all of the cases involved illegal re-entry to the United States.

They say that's a 45-percent increase over the previous fiscal year, and a 130-percent increase over 2007.

Immigration Customs and Enforcement officials say this effort is part of a push to target suspected illegal immigrants with criminal records. Most of the defendants had previously served prison time for aggravated felonies in this country.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 11:11 AM

Janet Napolitano Dec. 27 "So the system has worked really very, very smoothly over the course of the past several days"

AP: Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano conceded Monday that the aviation security system failed when a young man on a watchlist with a U.S. visa in his pocket and a powerful explosive hidden on his body was allowed to board a fight from Amsterdam to Detroit.

The Obama administration has ordered investigations into the two areas of aviation security — how travelers are placed on watch lists and how passengers are screened — as critics questioned how the 23-year-old Nigerian man charged in the airliner attack was allowed to board the Dec. 25 flight.

A day after saying the system worked, Napolitano backtracked, saying her words had been taken out of context.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 11:34 AM

Politics: the Great Divider.

It can screw up good relations between folks who would otherwise get along fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 02:43 PM

Works both ways, LH... It can bring folks together who wouldn't have gotten together in the first place... You know, that half full glass thing...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 03:53 PM

True. Which part do you think holds sway most of the time? And what could be done to move us more to the positive part?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Dec 09 - 04:10 PM

You come up with the answer to that one, LH, an' I'll sign up to come to Canada twice a year and wash yer windows...

But seriously, a major problem we have is that we have dumbed down the general population at the same time we have ceated systems where only the extremes are heard... In doing those things we have lost out ability to think critically and to compromise...

No, I'm not speaking of you or me, of course... It's them other folks... lol...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 12:08 PM

Obama most admired by Americans, again

For the second year in a row, President Barack Obama is the most admired man in the United States, according to a survey by USA Today and Gallup.

Obama was cited by 30 percent of respondents as the man they admired most, the third highest score by a president since Gallup began the year-end poll in 1948. ...

On the women's side, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and 2008 Republican Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin finished in a virtual dead heat, with 16 and 15 percent.

For the second year in a row, George W. Bush finished a distant second to Obama, this time with 4 percent. Former South African President Nelson Mandela finished third with 3 percent.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 01:58 PM

You can't be serious, Amos!!! What about William Shatner?

But such lists are meaningless bullshit anyway, demonstrating nothing but the fickle attention span of a media-addled public that, like domesticated farm animals, will always eat exactly what is put in the trough in front of them.

Your silly list of polls about "the most admired man in America" is as laughable and patheticically superficial and predictable and ephemeral as People Magazine's yearly poll to determine who is "the sexiest man in America". Who really gives a shit? ;-) I know I don't. Some of the past ones I can vaguely recall (I saw them while standing at the grocery checkout line) were Kevin Costner, Sean Connery, Harrison Ford, Brad Pitt, Bruce Willis, and...most recently, Johnny Depp.

I think I sort of agree in Johnny Depp's case...but I digress... ;-)

Because it's bullshit, bullshit, bullshit...delivered on a plate by the mass media who have themselves sculpted and choreographed the very phenomenon by what they themselves chose to put in the public trough and focus on obsessively until it became its own self-fulfilling prophecy.

It's like watching a room full of manatees masturbate and then congratulate themselves for it after attaining a group orgasm.

Note, Amos: I say all of the above not in anger, but with a wry smile on my face. It's damned funny watching this monkey-brained civilization go through its silly PR-generated inanities like this business of a poll to determine the "most admired man in America".

It has nothing to do with the relative value of Obama, his policies, and his performance in office. Nothing. Nada. Zippo. Zilch. It has everything to do with the mass media and a lobotomized public that eats whatever is put in its daily trough and delivers the approved Pavlovian response when the bell is rung.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 04:03 PM

Dec. 31 (Bloomberg) -- Fewer Americans than anticipated filed claims for unemployment benefits last week, pointing to an improvement in the labor market that will help sustain economic growth next year.

Initial jobless claims fell by 22,000 to 432,000 in the week ended Dec. 26, the lowest level since July 2008, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The number of people collecting unemployment insurance fell in the prior week to 4.98 million, and those receiving extended benefits jumped.

Companies are retaining staff as sales improve and production picks up. Gains in consumer spending, which accounts for 70 percent of the economy, may encourage more hiring in coming months, helping to bolster the rebound from the worst recession since the 1930s.

"It's boding well for outright job growth," said Stephen Gallagher, chief U.S. economist at Societe Generale in New York, who forecast claims would drop to 430,000. "It seems that some of the layoffs that took place in the early part of the year were excessive."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 10 - 11:57 AM

In reference to my prediction on 3 December 08 (one year and a bit ago):

"Monday, January 4, 2010; 11:11 AM

WASHINGTON -- An unexpectedly strong report on manufacturing activity Monday bolstered confidence that the nation's factories will help sustain an economic recovery.

The Institute for Supply Management, a trade group of purchasing executives, said its manufacturing index read 55.9 in December after 53.6 in November. A reading above 50 indicates growth.

That is the fifth straight month of expansion and the highest reading for the index since April 2006. Analysts polled by Thomson Reuters had expected a reading of 54.3. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Jan 10 - 11:30 PM

Bobert's man Hugo:

"Nobel War Prize winner walked in and out of a secret door, and that is the way capitalism and the United States Empire will end up leaving the planet, through a secret back door." So spoke Venezuela President Hugo Chavez from the plenary podium on the last afternoon, December 18, of the 12-day long Copenhagen climate conference (COP15).

"While the conference was a failure, it, at least, led to more consciousness of what the problem is for all of us. Now starts a new stage of the struggle for the salvation of humanity, and this is through socialism. Our problem is not just about climate, but about poverty, misery, unnecessary child deaths, discrimination and racism—all related to capitalism", Chavez said at the Bolivarian Alliance of the Peoples of Latin America (ALBA) press conference held at the Bella Centre immediately following Chavez' last remarks at the plenary.

Bolivia's President Evo Morales followed Chavez' remarks by saying:

    Barack Obama said a while ago -- the only delegate to walk in and out of the stage from a concealed door -- that he came here not for more words but for action. Well, then you should act by using the money you are spending for wars against the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq, for militarising Colombia with seven military bases to save lives, to save the planet our Mother Earth.

Both presidents, the only heads of state representing eight of the nine ALBA countries present at COP15,[1] denounced the failure of the Copenhagen conference in both form and content.

    Chavez: "There are no documents presented for consultation by all. The responsibility is a lack of political will by a few rich countries, including the host Denmark, headed by the US Empire."

Bolivia's President Evo Morales followed Chavez' remarks by saying:

    Barack Obama said a while ago -- the only delegate to walk in and out of the stage from a concealed door -- that he came here not for more words but for action. Well, then you should act by using the money you are spending for wars against the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq, for militarising Colombia with seven military bases to save lives, to save the planet our Mother Earth.

Both presidents, the only heads of state representing eight of the nine ALBA countries present at COP15, denounced the failure of the Copenhagen conference in both form and content.

    Chavez: "There are no documents presented for consultation by all. The responsibility is a lack of political will by a few rich countries, including the host Denmark, headed by the US Empire."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Jan 10 - 08:47 AM

Well, Hugo will be, ahhhhhhh.... Hugo... He reminds me of Lyndon LaRouche in many ways... He can sound like he understands everything very well one minute and then go completely off the deep end in the next...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 10 - 12:08 PM

Yeah, about half of what he says is right on the mark...and then he loses himself in oratorical excess. ;-) He'd make a killer presidential candidate in the USA for either party...if he just adopted a very different core philosophy (such as: "Socialism is a satanic plot, but an unfettered and deregulated free market will lead us all straight to paradise!").

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Jan 10 - 12:48 PM

I guess it is a case of whether what he says is half bullshit or half true.

I think I will refrain from call him the "man" unless what he says is less that 5% bullshit.

But Bobert likes to change his standards at will if it serves to bolster his tattered ego.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Jan 10 - 12:54 PM

Wall Street Journal JANUARY 8, 2010

Employers Cut 85,000 Jobs in December

WASHINGTON -- U.S. job losses were higher than expected in December of last year and the unemployment rate remained at a lofty 10%, a sign the labor market has still some way to recover.

Although the November 2009 data was revised to show the U.S. economy added jobs for the first time since the recession began two years earlier, the December payroll number was worse than forecast.

Nonfarm payrolls fell by 85,000 last month, compared with a revised 4,000 gain in November, the Labor Department said Friday.

Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had expected a payroll decrease of just 10,000. The November figure originally showed an 11,000 drop in payrolls.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jan 10 - 01:04 PM

Bumpy times, indeed. If Obama and his SecTreas had stiffed the big banks and let them fail on their own failures, we'd be better off. Here's a prediction: Obama will ask for the SecTreas' resignation within six months.


However, Sawz, your snarling invective is uncalled for, injudicious, purblind, histrionic, ad hominem arm-waving. Learn to think.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jan 10 - 01:05 PM

"job losses were higher than expected"

Ummm...by whom? What I mean is, did everyone have the same expectation as to what those job losses would be? ;-) Who sets the mark? Whose opinion is definitive? Whose expectation rules?

I'm always a bit suspicious of these general sort of statements in the media, as they are usually concocted to push a certain point of view.

Chongo tells me, for instance, that he was expecting a much higher loss of jobs in December...but no one quotes Chongo, do they??? (except me, that is)

See my point? ;-) I'm not defending Obama...I'm just saying that most of the stuff we hear from the media is already pre-cooked to push some point of view, and it's not objective....it's biased.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Jan 10 - 01:06 PM

Amos:

Can you explain away this balance sheet?

Looks to me like the US is plunging further in debt and Obama's solution to unemployment is to extend unemployment benefits indefinitely while he whines like a little girl about health care insurance.

And don't go blaming it on the straw man "Paulson Gang" which you are unable to define.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jan 10 - 01:07 PM

"If Obama and his SecTreas had stiffed the big banks and let them fail on their own failures, we'd be better off."

That's been my opinion all along.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Jan 10 - 01:53 PM

Venezuela: Obama is worse than Bush
07 Jan 2010

Venezuelan National Assembly President Cilia Flores
Head of Venezuela's top legal body has lashed out at President Barack Obama for his undelivered vows of change in US policy.

The Venezuelan National Assembly President, Cilia Flores, strongly criticized Obama for failing to overrule former President George W. Bush's doctrines of war, adding that Obama's administration is "worse" than his predecessor's.

She slammed the US for following in Bush's 'footsteps' in "installing" military bases in South America under the pretext of combating organized crime, a reference to the recent stationing of US troops in seven Colombian military camps.

"When we thought there couldn't be anything worse than Bush," Flores noted, along came Obama "masked" as the "hero of the film" who emerged as "more of the same," the Latin American Herald Tribune quoted her as saying on Wednesday.

Obama had repeatedly spoken of major changes in US foreign diplomacy, but his failure to bring about the overhaul in America's international relations policy has drawn fire from critics worldwide.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez once referred to the improbability of significant change in Washington's policy and implied that the "young black" man, meaning Obama, would be taken over by "Washington Establishment."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jan 10 - 01:57 PM

"However, Sawz, your snarling invective is uncalled for, injudicious, purblind, histrionic, ad hominem arm-waving. Learn to think."


THIS from the "Lynch Bush because the NYT hates him" poster?????


I note you are not very critical of Obama when he

a. does the same thing as Bush did ( which you DID criticise).

b. has the SAME failures of intelligence ( ie, coordinating information) in his administration as Bush did ( which had you calling for impeachment).


I seem to note a double standard- you do NOT apply the same requirements to Obama that you demanded of Bush. Affirmative action? Is it that you expect so much less of him that you cut Obama such slack???

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Jan 10 - 02:07 PM

Geithbergate:

US House Panel Seeks Geithner Testimony On AIG
CNN January 08, 2010

...."More than one year after the first Federal bailout of AIG, the American people continue to question where their tax dollars were really sent when the government rescued this company," Towns said.

The call for a hearing comes the day after new documents revealed that the New York Fed told the embattled insurers not to disclose key details of their agreements to make big payouts to banks in regulatory filings in late 2008.

Geithner was president of the New York Fed when the government first decided to bail out AIG in September 2008, and played a role in the controversial decision to make U.S. and European banks whole on $62 billion in bets on soured mortgage securities.....

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/201001081347DOWJONESDJONLINE000488_FORTUNE5.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jan 10 - 02:13 PM

Indeed, I must agree that you seem to detect a double standard.

Sawz, I have no intention of trying to explain away facts.

I think, however, that tracing these things to their root causes only a smallportion of our current difficulties are attributable to decisions taken in the last twelve months. The house of cards tumbled into a hellhole in the eight previous years with huge unwarranted military operations, bloated contractor costs, and a business environment that would have made a robber baron proud. Your Big Guy drove the country into a hole, and you are yelling about the balance sheet this year. National economies do not work that way.
The Bush Recession is finally showing some signs of being over, but we have a long way to go before we can call our economy sane, a large part of which comes under the heading of reform--such as, for example, divesting investment houses from banking houses, a workable method which we had under Glass-Steagal, but which Reagan eradicated under pressure from adventurous and irresponsible money men.


That said, I think the SecTreas is doomed, and Obama will have to (and will) face that fact sometime in the next six months. I also think he should have held a tougher line, and Bernanke especially should have also. But the TARP game invented by Paulson (who is not a gang, but the previous SecTreas) to try and solve the Bush collapse was already in play, and politics is an awful game.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Jan 10 - 02:54 PM

Amos: You can add all the adjectives and smoke screens you want to your double standard but Geithnergate continues:

The Three Magi of the Meltdown

Had Paulson, Bernanke and Geithner handled Bear Stearns differently two years ago, we might have avoided Tarp, 10 percent unemployment and the Great Recession.
New York Times January 7, 2010,

Just because hindsight is 20/20 doesn’t mean we shouldn’t occasionally avail ourselves of it. The upcoming second-year anniversary of the collapse of Bear Stearns provides just such an opportunity to look back with a degree of analytical wisdom not available at the time of the firm’s shocking demise in March 2008.

The new, inescapable conclusion â€" thanks to the passage of time, of course â€" is that Wall Street and Main Street would be better off today had the power troika of Henry Paulson, Ben Bernanke and Tim Geithner (at the time, Treasury secretary, Federal Reserve chairman and president of the New York Federal Reserve, respectively) let the 85-year-old firm fail outright instead of crafting their clever rescue.

By arranging for Bear’s shareholders to get a tip â€" it turned out to be $10 a share in JPMorganChase stock at the time (worth around $9 a share these days, based on JPMorgan’s recent stock price) â€" and for Bear’s creditors to get 100 cents on the dollar for what was a bankrupt company (where creditors would likely fight for years over the carcass), these three men single-handedly sent to the market a powerful message it would all too quickly misinterpret, much to our collective peril: For the first time in the history of American capitalism, the federal government would not let a big Wall Street securities firm fail.

As painful as it may have been at that time, the Committee to Save the World, Version 2.0, could have just as easily sent a very different message, one sent to the shareholders and creditors of poorly managed companies all the time: Too bad.

You took risks you didn’t understand? Got too greedy? Took your eye off the ball? Kept in place executives and their cronies on the board of directors who should have retired or been replaced years earlier? Well, then, you are about to learn the valuable lesson of American capitalism and what it means to take stupid risks with other people’s money. You will lose your investments, your jobs and your company. Sorry about that. Stuff happens. The market understands that message loud and clear.

Instead, the message got very muddled. It is useful to remember how that happened, especially with free-market oriented Republicans like Paulson and Robert Steel, his deputy at Treasury and liaison with Wall Street. Both Paulson and Steel were former senior Goldman Sachs executives. And there is little question that before March 2008, neither man was of a mind to save a failing securities firm. Their prevailing thinking, Steel has told me, was that “depository institutions are systemically important institutions, but securities firms aren’t. A failed securities firm was not a systemic issue.â€쳌 Before March 2008, if a securities firm failed it was either liquidated or merged into a healthier business.

That view changed suddenly on the morning of March 13, after Bear Stearns’ outside counsel, H. Rodgin Cohen of the white-shoe law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, informed Steel that Bear Stearns was having serious liquidity problems and might not be able to meet its obligations â€" of around $75 billion a day â€" when they became due. In other words, the firm was bankrupt. The night before, Cohen had given the same message to Geithner, who while not Wall Street’s primary regulator â€" that job belonged to the Securities and Exchange Commission â€" was intimately familiar with the plumbing of Wall Street and knew what it could mean if Bear Stearns went belly up.

“I think I’ve been around long enough to sense a very serious problem, and this seems like one,â€쳌 Cohen recalled telling Geithner. And at breakfast with Steel the next morning in Washington, Cohen told me later, he said, “There’s a chance we can work through this. But this is pretty unattractive.â€쳌 Steel has told me that after that breakfast he ducked into Paulson’s office and warned him about his growing fears. “We’re not going to know a lot more for a few hours,â€쳌 Steel told his boss, “but let’s get some people to start to think about various issues and ways to deal with this.â€쳌

In an understandable panic brought on by their collective concern that the rapid demise of Bear Stearns would rupture confidence in the global capital-markets system â€" since Bear was a counterparty on many thousands of trades the world over â€" they decided to have the Fed provide a $30 billion line of credit to the firm (using JPMorgan Chase as a conduit since Bear Stearns could not borrow directly from the Fed). But the market responded poorly to that drastic move, so a day later Paulson, Bernanke and Geithner arranged for the outright sale of Bear Stearns to JPMorgan by agreeing to have the Fed underwrite $29 billion in losses on $30 billion of Bear’s squirrelly assets that JPMorgan refused to take.

At the time, the plan seemed like a good one. Staunch the bleeding by applying a tourniquet directly to the gaping wound that was Bear Stearns, and hope the other large financial firms â€" including Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and A.I.G., the global insurer, which were nothing more than Bear Stearns on steroids â€" would somehow survive. The Band-Aid worked for six months until the patients all bled out in September 2008.

In retrospect, had Bear been allowed to fail and then been liquidated, the rest of Wall Street would have immediately come to grips with the seriousness of the situation instead of dallying for six months while thinking the Feds would step in and save them, too. Chances are Lehman rather than Bear would now be part of JPMorgan; Bank of America would likely still have bought Merrill Lynch. Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs would probably have just skated by with their investments from Mitsubishi and Warren Buffett, respectively.

But the Panic of 2008 could have been largely avoided, and with it large chunks of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (the Fed’s $12 trillion â€" and counting â€" pledge to buck up the financial system), the misery of 10 percent unemployment and today’s Great Recession.

Easy to say now, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Jan 10 - 03:00 PM

Mr. Geithner’s admonition is simply staggering:

    "Note that there should be no discussion or suggestion that AIG and the NY Fed are working to structure anything else at this point."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/tim-geithner-protects-america-from-itself-by-forcing-elimination-of-material-aig-disclosure.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Jan 10 - 04:37 PM

Doddgate:

LA Times January 8, 2010

a provision that he inserted into the stimulus bill last year capping the compensation of executives at companies receiving taxpayer money. At the behest of Obama administration officials, Dodd modified his amendment to exclude bonuses from contracts that were signed before passage of the legislation. That allowed financial services company American International Group to dole out $165 million in bonuses to executives in a division that had played a central role in the banking system's collapse. Dodd became a focus for national outrage as a result, yet if he hadn't modified the amendment, the bill probably would have been unconstitutional.

Far more troubling was Dodd's relationship with mortgage lender Countrywide Financial, which appears to have given him a sweetheart deal on a pair of loans under a VIP program called "Friends of Angelo," named for former Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo. Though Dodd was cleared of wrongdoing by the Senate Ethics Committee, he should have known better than to accept special terms from a company whose regulation he oversaw. And then there was Dodd's cottage in Ireland. After buying a third of a 10-acre island property in partnership with businessman William Kessinger in 1994, he bought out Kessinger's share in 2002 for a fraction of its worth, then underreported the value of the cottage on Senate disclosure forms. This failure to properly account for what looks very much like a gift from a wealthy acquaintance is similar to the shenanigans that ended the political career of Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska.

AIG Financial Products CEO Joseph Cassano urged his top executives to donate to the man in line to become chairman of the critical Senate Banking committee. It didn’t hurt that Dodd was also home state senator for the Wilton, CT.-based unit.

---

“As he considers running for president in 2008, Senator Dodd has asked us for our support with his re-election campaign and we have offered to be supportive,â€쳌 Cassano wrote in a Nov. 17, 2006 email to his top executives, according to the Washington Times.

The executives were asked to write checks for $2,100 from themselves and their spouses. They were also supposed to pass on the message to members of their management teams, according to the Times.

Cassano’s entreaty got results: In the next few weeks, Dodd’s campaign received $160,000 from the Financial Products group. Besides Cassano, those writing checks included executive vice presidents Alan Frost, David Ackert, Douglas L. Poling, Jake DeSantis, Jon Liebergall, Robert Leary and William Kolbert.

Dodd’s relationship with the teetering insurance giant has come under increasing scrutiny since he acknowledged he had inserted the provision in recent bailout legislation that authorized the bonus payments, after initially denying he had any role. Dodd insisted, however, the Treasury Department had asked him to do it because of concerns about lawsuits.

In a subsequent statement, Dodd said he had no idea the legislation would impact AIG. “Let me be clear - I was completely unaware of these AIG bonuses until I learned of them last week,â€쳌 he said.

The March payment of an estimated $165 million in bonuses to AIG executives ignited a political firestorm, spurring the House to pass a huge tax on the bonuses, and putting the career of the longtime Connecticut senator in potential jeopardy.

Dodd - who was the top recipient of AIG donations from 1989-2008, according to the Center for Responsive Politics - is being hammered for being too cozy to Wall Street and faces the first significant political challenge since he was elected in 1980.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Jan 10 - 04:49 PM

(AP:WASHINGTON) The wife of a senator playing a lead role on a national health care overhaul sits on the boards of four health care companies, one of several examples of lawmakers with ties to the medical industry. Jackie Clegg Dodd, wife of Sen. Chris Dodd, serves on the boards of Javelin Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cardiome Pharma Corp., Brookdale Senior Living, and Pear Tree Pharmaceuticals, a financial disclosure report the senator released Friday shows....

....Mrs. Dodd earned $79,063 in fees from Cardiome in its last fiscal year, while Brookdale Senior Living gave her $122,231 in stock awards in 2008, their SEC filings show. She earned no income from her post as a director for Pear Tree Pharmaceuticals but holds up to $15,000 in stock in Pear Tree, which describes itself as a development-stage pharmaceutical company focused on the needs of aging women.

Bryan DeAngelis, Dodd's spokesman, said, "Jackie Clegg Dodd's career is her own; absolutely independent of Senator Dodd, as it was when they married 10 years ago. The Senator has worked to reform our health care system for decades, and nothing about his wife's career is relevant at all to his leadership of that effort."

A complaint filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a government watchdog group, led the Senate Ethics Committee to begin looking at mortgages that Sens. Dodd and Kent Conrad, D-N.D., received from Countrywide Financial Corp.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jan 10 - 04:58 PM

Chavez expected Obama to be taken over by the Washington establishment once he became president? Well, so did I. I hoped it might be different than that, but my hopes were very slender ones indeed. I've seen all this before. Electing a Democrat does not end a Republican war. Electing a Republican does not end a Democratic war. The only thing that ends a war the USA is in is when that war is either decisively won (which this one simply can't be...as it has no definable boundaries and no controlling enemy government to force to surrender) or when it finally becomes completely untenable and unsustainable in the face of negative public opinion IN America itself. What the rest of the world thinks has little effect on American policy, because Americans have a fortress mentality and they don't really give a damn what the rest of the world thinks. They're sure they are "right" and represent "good" (vs evil) after all, so why would they give a damn what anyone else thinks? Matter of fact, the more the rest of the world disapproves, the more bellicose Americans (on average) seem to get.

Then there's the economic stuff... ;-) Every past American administration I can recall has played ball with the big banks and the Fed Reserve, increased the public debt and the national debt and enlarged government spending (while simultaneously, in recent decades, cutting public services and repairs to domestic infrastructure). What a deadly combination of irresponsibility! Did I expect Obama to do differently? Ha! I laugh at the notion. I might have had some tiny hopes he would do differently, but did I expect it? No sir.

Kucinich would do differently. But Kucinich would never be elected president...not if the moon turned green and took up orbit around Pluto...not if Tiger Woods got a sex change...No frikkin' possibility! Genuine progressives CANNOT be elected president in the USA. And if one was, someone would shoot him. End of story.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 10 - 04:17 PM

Federal Reserve earned $45 billion in 2009


By Neil Irwin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Wall Street firms aren't the only banks that had a banner year. The Federal Reserve made record profits in 2009, as its unconventional efforts to prop up the economy created a windfall for the government.

The Fed will return about $45 billion to the U.S. Treasury for 2009, according to calculations by The Washington Post based on public documents. That reflects the highest earnings in the 96-year history of the central bank. The Fed, unlike most government agencies, funds itself from its own operations and returns its profits to the Treasury.

The numbers are good news for the federal budget and a sign that the Fed has been successful, at least so far, in protecting taxpayers as it intervenes in the economy -- though there remains a risk of significant losses in the future if the Fed sells some of its investments or loses money on its stakes in bailed-out firms.

This turn of events comes as the banks that benefited from the Fed's actions are under the microscope. Starting at the end of the week, major banks are expected to announce significant earnings and employee bonuses. Anger in Washington is at such a high boil that the Obama administration will probably propose a fee on financial firms to recoup the cost of their bailout, officials confirmed Monday.

As it happens, the Fed's earnings for the year will dwarf those of the large banks, easily topping the expected profits of Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan Chase combined. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Jan 10 - 07:18 PM

I hope the fed chairman is not paying himself a bonus.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 12 Jan 10 - 10:39 PM

The White House said the public could have confidence in those new numbers, which officials argued proved the administration was on track to keep Obama's promise that the stimulus would save or create 3.5 million jobs by the end of this year. But more errors were found, with tens of thousands of problems documented in corrected counts

API Jan 13 2010

The White House has abandoned its controversial method of counting jobs under President Barack Obama's economic stimulus, making it impossible to track the number of jobs saved or created with the $787 billion in recovery money.

Despite mounting a vigorous defense of its earlier count of more than 640,000 jobs credited to the stimulus, even after numerous errors were identified, the Obama administration now is making it easier to give the stimulus credit for hiring. It's no longer about counting a job as saved or created; now it's a matter of counting jobs funded by the stimulus.

That means that any stimulus money used to cover payroll will be included in the jobs credited to the program, including pay raises for existing employees and pay for people who never were in jeopardy of losing their positions.

The new rules, quietly published last month in a memorandum to federal agencies, mark the White House's latest response to criticism about the way it counts jobs credited to the stimulus. When The Associated Press first reported flaws in the job counts in October, the White House said errors were being corrected and future counts would provide a full and correct accounting of just how many stimulus jobs were saved or created.

Numbers published later identified more than 640,000 jobs linked to stimulus projects around the country. The White House said the public could have confidence in those new numbers, which officials argued proved the administration was on track to keep Obama's promise that the stimulus would save or create 3.5 million jobs by the end of this year.

But more errors were found, with tens of thousands of problems documented in corrected counts, from the substantive to the clerical. Republicans have used those flaws to attack what so far is the signature domestic policy approved during Obama's presidency.

The new rules are intended to streamline the process, said Tom Gavin, spokesman for the White House's Office of Management and Budget. They came in response to grant recipients who complained the reporting was too complicated, from lawmakers who complained the job counts were inconsistent and from watchdog groups who complained the information was unreliable, Gavin said.

"We're trying to make this as consistent and as uniform as we possibly can," he said.

The new stimulus job reports will continue to offer details about jobs and projects. But they were never expected to be the public accounting of Obama's goal to save or create 3.5 million jobs, Gavin said.

The quarterly job reports posted on the Web site for the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board reflect only a fraction of the jobs created under the program and can't account for job creation stemming from other stimulus programs such as tax rebates and other federal aid, the spokesman said.

One scenario could see job counts on some projects decrease from the number that would have been reported under the old rules, if saved full-time jobs are converted into partial jobs under the new reporting rules. But other job counts for projects likely will increase, with recipients now required to add jobs under new rules that previously weren't counted because they were not in jeopardy.

The changes are in line with Government Accountability Office recommendations and "should reduce the debate around these figures," said Elizabeth Oxhorn, a spokeswoman for the White House recovery office.

But the result of the new rules will be that future claims of job creation from the stimulus will be even more misleading, said Rep. Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

"It is troubling that the administration is changing the rules and further inflating the Recovery Act's impact and masking the failure of the stimulus to produce sustainable economic growth or real job creation," Issa said in a letter sent last week to the government board monitoring stimulus spending.

Recipients of recovery money no longer have to show that a job would have been lost without the stimulus help, and they no longer are required to keep an ongoing tally of jobs saved or created. The new rules allow stimulus recipients to limit the job tally to quarterly reports, making it impossible to avoid double-counting a job that was created in one quarter and continued into the next.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 12 Jan 10 - 10:55 PM

Obama:

I've appointed a proven and aggressive Inspector General to root out waste and fraud.
And I'm also deputizing every single American to visit a new website called recovery.gov so you can see
where your tax dollars are going and hold us accountable for results.

Note: This website IS waste and fraud. Go see for yourself: RECOVERY.GOV

ABC News' Rick Klein reports: For those concerned about stimulus spending, the General Services Administration sends word tonight that $18 million in additional funds are being spent to redesign the Recovery.gov Web site.

The new Web site promises to give taxpayers more information about where their money is going than the current version of the site.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 01:55 AM

Obama March 3, 2009:

"Having inherited a trillion-dollar deficit that we're working to cut in half."

The $1.4 trillion deficit for the 2009 fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30, was about 10 percent of the gross domestic product.

Increasingly, even supporters are saying Mr. Obama cannot keep both his promise to bring deficits under control and his vow not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 02:45 PM

January 12, 2010, 1:50 pm

Poll: Obama's Ratings on Health Care, Economy Drop Lower

By DALIA SUSSMAN

Fewer Americans now approve of the way that President Barack Obama is handling the economy and health care, pushing his overall job rating below the crucial 50 percent mark, according to the latest CBS News poll.

The poll finds 46 percent approve of the job Mr. Obama is doing as president, while 41 percent disapprove. His approval rating is down from 50 percent in a New York Times/CBS News poll last month, and 56 percent from October, to its lowest level in Times or CBS News polls to date.

The president's marks for handling the top domestic issues are even lower, according to the poll. On the economy, 41 percent approve, down 6 points in the last month to a new low. And just 36 percent approve of the way Mr. Obama is handling health care, also down 6 points to a new low. Most, 54 percent, disapprove.


The public extends its low marks for handling health care to Congress. The poll found 57 percent disapproving of the way Democrats in Congress have dealt with the issue, and 61 percent disapproving of the way Republicans have. Few are satisfied with how the changes under consideration in Congress will expand coverage, control costs, or regulate the health insurance industry. Instead, most say they will either go too far or won't go far enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jan 10 - 02:31 PM

Christ! This is almost as exciting as listening to the latest baseball or hockey scores... (yawn) Be still, my beating heart! Why don't you start keeping a big graph on the wall of the weekly (or even daily) polls on Obama's popularity and you could use it to guide your life. ;-) Maybe start a betting pool. "How low will he go next week?" "Will his percentage slide accellerate or decelerate, and how will it compare to the statistics on glacier flow in Norway and hair loss among septegenarians in Athens?"

Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 15 Jan 10 - 02:10 AM

Last year’s annual deficit surged to $1.42 trillion, more than three times the record of the previous year â€" an imbalance of $454.8 billion set in 2008.

The Obama administration is projecting that this year’s deficit will climb even higher, to $1.5 trillion, which would be 5.6 percent higher than the 2009 deficit. That figure will be revised when the president sends his new budget to Congress in early February.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Jan 10 - 07:48 AM

Actually, even if Kucinich were president, which BTW would be fine with me, the realities on the ground aren't very pretty and before any responsible president could do much he or she would have to do alot of cleanup after George W's terribly irresponsible presidency...

I mean, the right is blasting away at Obama for not creating jobs and for running deficits... Well, the reality is you can fight one or you can fight the other because there is no way on earth that you can create jobs in this economy without it impacting the deficit negatively... This is basic Economics 101 and if any of you righties think differently then before you begin to spin yer solutions just keep in mind that there is a reason this thread is in the BS section... lol...

No, the deficits we are seeing were accounting time-bombs that the Bush folks left that we going to go off no matter who became president... I mean, God hisself wouldn't have been able to avoid them...

So ya'll righties gotta make up yer minds and decide which is more important between cutting the deficit and seeing a long deep depression with unemployment numbers in the teens or...

...a gradual recovery, less unemployment and deficits...

You can't have it both ways...

Ya'll pick... I gotta go to work...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jan 10 - 11:59 AM

"So ya'll righties gotta make up yer minds and decide which is more important between cutting the deficit and seeing a long deep depression with unemployment numbers in the teens or..."

You misunderstand their motivations, Bobert. Neither one of those things is very important at all to them compared to absolutely trashing Mr Obama's administration in every way possible, destroying his personal credibility, ruining his reputation, and thereby giving the Republicans control of Congress and the presidency again at the earliest possible opportunity! ;-)

THAT's what it's really about. It's partisan bullshit as usual.

(And I do disagree radically with much of what Obama has done....but that doesn't make me blind to the idiotic and destructive and totally self-interested tactics of most of his Republican opponents...)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Jan 10 - 01:30 PM

I know what it's about, LH... It's just that they need to be called on it at every turn and not be allowed to propagate their lies...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Jan 10 - 02:34 PM

You misunderstood the Democrats motivations, LH. Nothing was very important at all to them compared to absolutely trashing Mr Bush's administration in every way possible, destroying his personal credibility, ruining his reputation, and thereby giving the Democrats control of Congress and the presidency again at the earliest possible opportunity!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jan 10 - 02:46 PM

You are so right, BB. That's why I detest both of those corrupt political parties and make fun of them ruthlessly whenever I can. To me, they are like 2 gigantic turds lying across the face of North America.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Jan 10 - 02:49 PM

Bobert said it as well as I can:

"I know what it's about, LH... It's just that they need to be called on it at every turn and not be allowed to propagate their lies... "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jan 10 - 03:03 PM

Well, yeah, but stop and think for a minute...who is "they"?

In terms of this forum, "they" turns out to be a very small group of individuals on this forum such as Amos, Bobert, and perhaps a handful of other Democratic sympathizers...who bother to go to these political threads. Mostly, in fact, it's just Amos. ;-)

This entire thread is your attempt to get back at Amos for his "Bush" thread.

These efforts are quixotic, both in your case and in Amos's case. I don't think it will make a particle of difference either way if a handful of political firebrands on this forum such as you, Amos, Ron Davies, me, Don T, and whoever else in your words get..."called on it at every turn and not be allowed to propagate their lies".

So what? How many people ever hear "their lies", etc? A few people here on Mudcat. Is anyone changed by hearing them? No.

So what I'm saying here is this. You are deluding yourself in imagining that you're performing some useful service to society by challenging Amos's political assertions at every turn, and he's deluding himself in a similar manner in regards to challenging your political assertions.

What you are REALLY both doing is giving in to an irresistible impulse to express yourself, oppose someone else, and try to get the last word in against them. You can't resist not doing it. It draws you back again and again like a drug habit, but it doesn't mean diddly-squat to the political fate of America. You're merely engaging in a behavioral addiction, that's all.

And so am I. ;-) That's why I just bothered to type this post. Nothing you say here will ever significantly change anything, and nothing I say here will either. Ditto for Amos.

We do it because we can't resist NOT doing it. Period.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Jan 10 - 03:07 PM

LH,

Perhaps, as I stated early on, I am trying to show Amos how his thread on BUSH was what you have stated- it just seems like he can't see the parallel.

Besides, reading this thread is good for at least 15 minutes of accelerated heart rate. Exercise MUST be good for me ( though I am producing more CO2 every time, so I should insist in the name of Global Warming that everyone agree with me. 8-{E

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jan 10 - 04:25 PM

LOL!!! Now you're making sense!

I take great satisfaction in knowing that I am adding some precious (and relatively scarce) CO2 to the atmosphere every time I exhale, thus helping to keep the plant kingdom a little happier and healthier. I'm sure you do too. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Jan 10 - 09:40 AM

A year into his presidency, Barack Obama faces a polarized nation and souring public assessments of his efforts to change Washington, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Nearly half of the Americans surveyed said Obama is not delivering on his major campaign promises, and a narrow majority had some or no confidence that he will make the right decisions for the country’s future.

More than a third saw the president as falling short of their expectations, about double the proportion saying so at the 100-day mark of Obama's presidency in April. At the time, 63 percent said the new president had accomplished a "great deal" or a "good amount. The percentage saying so in the recent poll dropped to 47 percent.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Jan 10 - 10:27 AM

The Idealism:

"The people of the United States tonight have elected Barack Obama as their voice and their representative, and their President Elect.

This is an incredible moment. In it, we are seeing the beginning of a new generation of American possibility and hope."

The reality:

ABC News Poll Jan. 17, 2010:

Sixty-two percent of Americans now say the country's off on the wrong track.

For the first time more than half, 53 percent, aren't confident in Obama to make the right decisions for the country's future.

Just 41 percent say he's keeping his major campaign
promises.

And while a year ago 76 percent thought he’d bring "needed change" to Washington â€" his campaign mantra â€" far fewer, 50 percent, today say he's actually done so.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Jan 10 - 10:47 AM

The Idealism:

"I notice she did not address what he actually said--that lobbyists would no longer set the agenda in his Administration. I notice she did not mention the fact the the Obama's rule-set for anyone who was a lobbyist prohibits them from having any direct connection with any field in which they lobbied. Seems to me that's a mess of data to leave out if you are trying to be "without Bias". "Maybe struggling to keep..." is a pretty broad and un-detailed and speculative assertion for someone dedicated to cutting through BS, wouldn't you think?"

The reality:

Promises Broken

During the run-up to the election, Obama spoke frequently about the need to purge the government of lobbyist influence. He called for new rules to make it more difficult for people to pass back and forth between public office and special interest organizations.

"This gets to a key theme during his campaign, which was that lobbyists were not going to run the Obama administration," Adair says. "But ... in Washington, the lobbyists are the people who know how the place works, and so he appointed lobbyists to some key positions and basically created loopholes in the policy for them."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Jan 10 - 12:11 PM

Counting Conundrum

January 12, 2010

We’ve been questioning the Obama administration’s claim that the stimulus bill would "save or create more than 3.5 million jobs" since the president began saying it. In February, we pointed out that although several economists made such a projection, they all said there was a lot of uncertainty surrounding these estimates. Late last year, the administration’s effort to count actual stimulus-created (or saved) jobs was plagued by the reporting of jobs in nonexistent congressional districts. And now, it appears, we’ll never really get an accurate count of actual jobs.

As ProPublica’s Michael Grabell reports, the administration will now count any job paid for with stimulus money, regardless of whether the job would have existed in the absence of stimulus money or not. A Dec. 18 memo from Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag said:

    OMB Memo: Recipients will no longer be required to make a subjective judgment on whether jobs were created or retained as a result of the Recovery Act. Instead, recipients will more easily and objectively report on jobs funded with Recovery Act dollars.

Granted, asking recipients to decide whether or not a job would have existed in some kind of parallel universe without the stimulus money is sometimes pretty subjective. All the more reason for Obama to couch his "will create" claims with a "could."

Grabell quotes Harvard University labor economist Lawrence Katz as saying the whole counting exercise is just "silly." To truly determine what jobs exist now but wouldn’t have existed without the stimulus, Katz says, there would have to be a control group â€" such as a state that doesn’t get stimulus funds, to be compared with one that does. Katz says a more accurate estimate would come from economic models â€" like the ones the White House touted early last year, the ones that are still filled with uncertainty.

In late November, the Congressional Budget Office said that the stimulus had added an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million jobs in the third quarter of 2009 than would have been the case otherwise. That large range, CBO said, "reflect[ed] the uncertainty involved in such estimates."

sub·jec·tive adj.
1.
a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
b. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
2. Moodily introspective.
3. Existing only in the mind; illusory.
4. Psychology Existing only within the experiencer's mind.
5. Medicine Of, relating to, or designating a symptom or condition perceived by the patient and not by the examiner.
6. Expressing or bringing into prominence the individuality of the artist or author.
7. Grammar Relating to or being the nominative case.
8. Relating to the real nature of something; essential.

ob·jec·tive adj.
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3.
a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
4. Something that actually exists.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jan 10 - 12:54 PM

"
I take great satisfaction in knowing that I am adding some precious (and relatively scarce) CO2 to the atmosphere every time I exhale, thus helping to keep the plant kingdom a little happier and healthier. I'm sure you do too. ;-) "


Al Gore will get you for that sacrilidge!!! HOW DARE you contribute to the global warming! STOP THAT immediately!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jan 10 - 02:04 PM

Heh! Heh! (evil laughter)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 10 - 10:47 AM

In Obama's first year, successes outweigh missteps
        


By Fred Hiatt WaPo
Tuesday, January 19, 2010

On Wednesday one year will have passed since President Obama's inauguration. Much of the tidal wave of assessments has been negative: Falling poll numbers. Unfulfilled promises. Disappointed supporters, disillusioned independents, angry opponents. He's been too cool or too egotistical, too left-wing or not left-wing enough. And if voters repudiate his policies in a special Massachusetts Senate election on Tuesday, as is quite possible, the tidal wave will become a tsunami.

So before that happens, I'd like to interrupt the anniversary-bash-Obama-fest with a simple proposition: Obama has done a good job so far.

I've had my share of complaints. I harbor my share of misgivings. But on the issues that mattered most in his first year, Obama got things right.

Begin with something that didn't happen: financial collapse and great depression.

It's easy to forget, but Obama came into office facing a frightening situation. He assembled in short order an extremely competent economic team and took -- or, in many cases, continued -- the drastic measures needed to stave off disaster. And those measures succeeded.

White House political aides knew that, no matter what they did, the economy would still be reeling one year later and that Obama would be unfairly blamed. They knew that little credit would be awarded for jobs that weren't lost or bankruptcies that were averted, and little credit has been. But credit is due.

The other primary responsibility facing a president is to keep the country safe, and there, too, Obama has gotten things mostly right. He again assembled, through judicious retention and new hires, a solid team, and for the most part it has shaped reasonable policies to defend against terrorism.

You could wish that his support for Iraq weren't accompanied by such teeth-gritting reluctance. You might have hoped that his commitment to Afghanistan would come with less public ambivalence. But in both cases, he has put national interest ahead of political consideration and committed the United States to success. He has assigned skilled generals to the missions, given them adequate resources and set reasonable goals.


At the same time, he has restored a balance between security and liberty in his handling of terrorists and alleged terrorists. He was right to end abusive treatment of detainees; he was right also to reject an ACLU mind-set in their handling.

Inevitably, in such a minefield of complex moral questions and simpleminded political demagoguery, he's made choices I disagree with. But he has sent a clear message to other nations that the United States is committed to its values and its self-defense, and he's gone a long way toward backing up both with his actions.

In my book, reasonable success in these two broad areas would be enough to earn more than a passing grade for a first, turbulent year. But -- and even setting aside the now uncertain prospects of health-care reform -- there's been more.

Obama has acted, within budget constraints, on his promises to make college more affordable, and he has taken small but promising steps to bring new thinking and more accountability to the schooling of poor children. He named and won confirmation for a well-qualified Supreme Court justice. He returned climate change to the center of national debate and executive policymaking. And from Cairo to Oslo, and now to Haiti, he has sought to chart a path for America between arrogance and isolationism, neither denying nor boasting about the burdens of global leadership.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 19 Jan 10 - 02:07 PM

Based on the results of recent major polls, the popular view of the Obama Administration is ...it's not very popular.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 10 - 02:41 PM

I think some of his declining favor has been attributable to mismanagement on on e front or another, but a significant part of it has come from the endless spew of distortions from Replugican uglies with hatred on their minds.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 10 - 03:31 PM

Job Approval         Approve         Disapprove         Spread
Obama                49.5%                44.6%                +4.9%

Real Clear Politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 10 - 06:49 PM

WaPo:

What Karl Rove got wrong on the U.S. deficit



Friday, January 15, 2010

For its Topic A feature last Sunday, The Post invited a panel of political operatives to offer their advice to the Democratic Party on strategy for 2010 [Sunday Opinion, Jan. 10]. Improbably, one of the operatives asked was Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's longtime chief strategist.

Rove has some impressive campaign victories to his credit. But given the shape in which the last administration left this country, I'm not sure I would solicit his advice. And given the backhanded advice he offered, I'm not sure he was all that eager to help.

Of all the claims Rove made, one in particular caught my eye for its sheer audacity and shamelessness -- that congressional Democrats "will run up more debt by October than Bush did in eight years."

So, let's review a little history:

The day the Bush administration took over from President Bill Clinton in 2001, America enjoyed a $236 billion budget surplus -- with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. When the Bush administration left office, it handed President Obama a $1.3 trillion deficit -- and projected shortfalls of $8 trillion for the next decade. During eight years in office, the Bush administration passed two major tax cuts skewed to the wealthiest Americans, enacted a costly Medicare prescription-drug benefit and waged two wars, without paying for any of it.

To put the breathtaking scope of this irresponsibility in perspective, the Bush administration's swing from surpluses to deficits added more debt in its eight years than all the previous administrations in the history of our republic combined. And its spending spree is the unwelcome gift that keeps on giving: Going forward, these unpaid-for policies will continue to add trillions to our deficit.



This fiscal irresponsibility -- and a laissez-faire attitude toward the excesses of the financial industry -- helped create the conditions for the deepest economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. Economists across the political spectrum agreed that to deal with this crisis and avoid a second Great Depression, the government had to make significant investments to keep our economy going and shore up our financial system.

That is why President Obama and Congress crafted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Despite Rove's assertion, it is widely accepted that the difficult but necessary steps Obama took have helped save our economy from an even deeper disaster. And while Rove conveniently ignores that it was President Bush -- not Obama -- who signed into law the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program bailout for banks, the Obama administration's rigorous stewardship added transparency and accountability that have cut the expected cost of that program by two-thirds.

At the same time, we also recognize that we need to address the long legacy of overspending in Washington. That is why, shortly after taking office, Obama instructed his agency heads to go through the budget page by page, line by line, to eliminate what we don't need to help pay for what we do.

As a start, the president proposed billions of dollars in cuts, and he'll continue to fight for them and others in the upcoming budget. An analysis by the Washington Times concluded that in this first year, Obama had been more successful in getting his proposed cuts through Congress than his predecessor was in any of his eight years in office. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River
Date: 19 Jan 10 - 06:55 PM

I wood have a way flippin' higher opinyon of Obama if he had not flippin' blown up them 2 big buildings back there in New Yorke, eh? In 2000? I think that is goin' WAY too far! There is no flippin' way I woyld vote for a man that done that sort of thing even if he was not the one flyin' the flippin' airplanes. He otta be charged. Why has no one done nothin' about it? Is he above the flippin' law or WHAT??? Gimme a flippin' break, eh?

If Don Cherry was made president of the USA and Canada then that sorta thing would not happen again. Too bad he has to stay in hockey broadcastin' cos he could turn this hole flippin' thing around. Don Cherry kicks ass!

- Shane

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Jan 10 - 09:52 PM

Earth to Amos: This thread you started was about Obama but now all you can do is bash Karl Rove and others that preceded Obama. You try to blame his poor performance on someone else.

He is in command now. It is time for him to quit whining and take on the responsibility of the job he applied for and said he could do.

A lot of people, including me, said oh well lets give him a chance. He got the chance and he blew it.

All this hope and change bullshit turned into no change and no hope.

But continue on with your goose stepping. It is entertaining.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jan 10 - 10:27 PM

The folks running Obama overstepped their authority. The people of Massachusette have spoken.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 10 - 11:40 PM

Sawz:

You are badly mistaken, sir. I am not blaming anything on Jarl Rove except what he has actually done.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 01:43 AM

BBC:

President Barack Obama's approval poll ratings fall

It has been an extraordinary first year for President Barack Obama, during which unemployment has hit 26-year highs, two of the biggest US carmakers have declared bankruptcy, and the president has pushed his healthcare bill and won a Nobel Peace Prize.

His approval ratings have fallen from highs of about 68% in his first weeks in the job to about 50%.

Look at the graph below to see how his popularity has changed in his first year in charge.

The approval ratings were calculated by Gallup, Pew and ABC/Washington Post and collated by www.pollster.com   where you can find full data from these and other polls.

GALLUP: Asks 1,500 adults whether they approve of the job Barack Obama is doing as president.

PEW RESEARCH CENTER: Asks between 1,000 and 2,000 adults: "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?"

ABC NEWS/WASHINGTON POST: Asks about 1,000 adults: "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 01:58 AM

Did Karl Rovere screw this up too?

BBC Jan 22 2009:

Obama orders Guantanamo closure

President Obama said American values would be maintained

US President Barack Obama has ordered the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison camp as well as all overseas CIA detention centres for terror suspects. Signing the orders, Mr Obama said the US would continue to fight terror, but maintain "our values and our ideals".

He also ordered a review of military trials for terror suspects and a ban on harsh interrogation methods. Continuing a flurry of announcements, he named his envoys to the Middle East, and to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

At Mr Obama's request, military judges have suspended several of the trials of suspects at Guantanamo so that the legal process can be reviewed. Mr Obama signed the three executive orders on Thursday, further distancing his new administration from the policies of his predecessor, George W Bush.

He said the Guantanamo prison "will be closed no later than one year from now." The US would continue to fight terror, he said, but maintain American values while doing so. "The United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism," he said. "We are going to do so vigilantly, we are going to do so effectively, and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals."

Mr Obama believed Americans will be safer with the prison closed, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said in his first media briefing. Mr Obama has repeatedly promised to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, where some 250 inmates accused of having links to terrorism remain and 21 cases are pending.

The legal process for these prisoners has been widely criticised because the US military acts as jailer, judge and jury, the BBC's Jonathan Beale reports from Guantanamo. However, closing the prison will not be easy, he says.

Questions remain over where those charged will be tried and where those freed can be safely sent. Secret CIA "black site" prisons around the world are also to be closed, although the time frame for this is unclear.

The rendition - or transfer - of terror suspects to these prisons was widely criticized after they came to light in the wake of the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Mr Obama has also limited the methods investigators can use to question terrorism suspects.

Threats, coercion, physical abuse and waterboarding are now all banned. Continuing a day focused on national security and diplomacy, Mr Obama said veteran politician and deal-maker George Mitchell would head to the Middle East as soon as possible, in an effort to pursue a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

George Mitchell: 'There is no such thing as a conflict that can't be ended' Mr Mitchell is a former senator who under former president Bill Clinton chaired the talks that led to the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland.

Long-serving diplomat Richard Holbrooke was appointed US envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan and charged with leading "our effort to forge and implement a sustainable approach to this critical region", Mr Obama said. The announcements were made at by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, flanked by Mr Obama and his Vice-President Joe Biden.

Mrs Clinton had earlier arrived at the state department for her first day on the job, where she was welcomed by applause and cheers from staff members. She said it was a new era for America.

"President Obama set the tone with his inaugural address, and the work of the Obama-Biden administration is committed to advancing America's national security, furthering America's interests, and respecting and exemplifying America's values around the world." Earlier on Thursday, the Senate Finance Committee approved the nomination of Timothy Geithner [a charter member of the diabolical Paulson Gang] as Treasury Secretary, despite questions over his late payment of taxes earlier this decade.

The full Senate next votes on Mr Obama's choice to be the point man in steering America through its sharpest economic downturn in decades.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 06:19 PM

"Brown's victory over Democrat Martha Coakley is expected to go down as one of the biggest upsets in modern political history. Yet the administrations top advisers appeared unfazed.

Gibbs said Obama came into office with an agenda for his entire term, not just for the first-year. Addressing voter anger over the current economic circumstances, he said, is the key to the months ahead.

"I think that's what we saw most of all coming out of Massachusetts is there's a tremendous amount of anger and frustration about where people are economically, and whether this town is fighting for their economic well being, or fighting for the special interests' well being," Gibbs said. "I think that's what ultimately is going to define more about the coming political battles and the upcoming [midterm] election."

Asked how the administration plans to proceed on its faltering healthcare-reform proposals, Axelrod gave no indication that the president plans to jettison the increasingly controversial legislation.

"I'm not going to discuss tactics here," Axelrod said. "He believes we have to deal with that crisis, but we also have to take into account what voters were saying yesterday, what people have been saying around this country. We'll take that into account and then we'll decide how to move forward. But it's not an option to simply walk away from a problem that that's only going to get worse."

After that response, Daily Rundown co-host MSNBC Chuck Todd seemed concerned the administration's top two advisers might not be heeding what most Democratic leaders are now acknowledging was a blatant wake-up call in Massachusetts.

On Tuesday, for example, Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., told ABC News, "There's going to be a tendency on the part of our people to be in denial about all this." Bayh then added: "If you lose Massachusetts and that's not a wake-up call, there's no hope of waking up."

After referencing those remarks, Todd asked Axelrod and Gibbs: "Do you guys hear this wake up call? Do you believe this was a wake up call, whether it's to retool your message, whether it's to get your message out there better, do you hear a wake up call in what happened yesterday."

While open to tweaking the administration's message and focusing more attention on the economy, Gibbs' response appeared to push back against Bayh's remarks.

"I don't think what Sen. Bayh would argue is that we somehow abandon our pursuit on things that are important to the middle class: How to make college more affordable, how to make retirement more secure, how to create an environment for good paying jobs in this country," Gibbs said.

Then he appeared to remind Bayh how popular the president is in his home state of Indiana.

"Look, we won Indiana for the first time since 1964 because we understood the frustration, the anger that was out there, particularly about economics, and economic isolation," Gibbs said.

"We were with Sen. Bayh at a lot of those events. I think we all agree we need to work even harder on that, and have the American people understand that the focus of the president's day from the very beginning to the very end is on their economic situation.

President Obama "wakes up in the morning and he goes to bed at night thinking about how to make people's lives better, how to create that environment for creating jobs, how to get this economy moving again for real working people," Gibbs said".

You hotheads need to take a lesson from Mister Obama and try to see the course ahead, not the spray hitting your ass.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 06:41 PM

"Bayh then added: "If you lose Massachusetts and that's not a wake-up call, there's no hope of waking up." "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 10:32 PM

New York Times:

Even in the best of economic times, it would be hard to accept a Treasury secretary â€" who, after all, is in charge of the Internal Revenue Service â€" with a cavalier attitude toward paying his taxes. Today, in a time of economic peril, the nation cannot afford a Treasury secretary with a tainted ability to command respect and instill confidence.

According to the report, when Mr. Geithner’s tax returns for 2003 and 2004 were audited by the I.R.S. in 2006, the auditors found that he had failed to pay self-employment tax in those years. To make good, he paid the back taxes, plus interest â€" $16,732.

Obama officials say Mr. Geithner, who worked for the International Monetary Fund, had made a common error among international employees in Washington. But as The Journal reported on Wednesday, failing to pay the self-employment tax is not necessarily common among sophisticated I.M.F employees. Rather, one of the reasons such noncompliance is widespread is that it includes household embassy workers and other lower- level contractors. And regardless, the Finance Committee found that Mr. Geithner had signed paperwork at the I.M.F. that acknowledged his self-employment tax obligation.

The story does not stop there. Mr. Geithner also failed to pay the self-employment tax in 2001 and 2002. Those returns, which the report says Mr. Geithner prepared himself, were not audited and so the I.R.S. did not order him to pay up â€" which raises the question of why he did not voluntarily amend those returns and pay the taxes and interest at the time of the 2006 audit. Instead, he waited until after vetting by the Obama team late last year revealed the shortfall â€" $19,176 in taxes and $6,794 in interest.

A similar lapse occurred on another tax issue. On returns for 2001, 2004 and 2005, Mr. Geithner wrongly claimed expenses for sleep-away camps in calculating his dependent care tax credit. The accountant who prepared his 2006 return informed him that payments to overnight camps were not allowable expenses, but again, he did not file amended returns for the previous years at that time. The report does not break out the taxes and interest on that item alone, but along with other adjustments, Mr. Geithner owed an additional tax of $4,334 and interest of $1,232.

Many people find taxes baffling, but before his job at the I.M.F, Mr. Geithner was a senior official in the Treasury Department under President Clinton, and for the past five years he has been the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. With that professional profile, tax transgressions are tough to excuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 10:34 PM

Geithner's 'Dirty Little Secret'

US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has unveiled his long-awaited plan to put the US banking system back in order. In doing so, he has refused to tell the 'dirty little secret' of the present financial crisis. By refusing to do so, he is trying to save de facto bankrupt US banks that threaten to bring the entire global system down in a new more devastating phase of wealth destruction.

The Geithner Plan, his so-called Public-Private Partnership Investment Program or PPPIP, as we have noted previously is designed not to restore a healthy lending system which would funnel credit to business and consumers. Rather it is yet another intricate scheme to pour even more hundreds of billions directly to the leading banks and Wall Street firms responsible for the current mess in world credit markets without demanding they change their business model. Yet, one might say, won't this eventually help the problem by getting the banks back to health?

Not the way the Obama Administration is proceeding. In defending his plan on US TV recently, Geithner, a protégé of Henry Kissinger who previously was CEO of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, argued that his intent was 'not to sustain weak banks at the expense of strong.' Yet this is precisely what the PPPIP does. The weak banks are the five largest banks in the system.

The 'dirty little secret' which Geithner is going to great degrees to obscure from the public is very simple. There are only at most perhaps five US banks which are the source of the toxic poison that is causing such dislocation in the world financial system. What Geithner is desperately trying to protect is that reality. The heart of the present problem and the reason ordinary loan losses as in prior bank crises are not the problem, is a variety of exotic financial derivatives, most especially so-called Credit Default Swaps.

In 2000 the Clinton Administration then-Treasury Secretary was a man named Larry Summers. Summers had just been promoted from No. 2 under Wall Street Goldman Sachs banker Robert Rubin to be No. 1 when Rubin left Washington to take up the post of Vice Chairman of Citigroup. As I describe in detail in my new book, Power of Money: The Rise and Fall of the American Century, to be released this summer, Summers convinced President Bill Clinton to sign several Republican bills into law which opened the floodgates for banks to abuse their powers. The fact that the Wall Street big banks spent some $5 billion in lobbying for these changes after 1998 was likely not lost on Clinton.

One significant law was the repeal of the 1933 Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act that prohibited mergers of commercial banks, insurance companies and brokerage firms like Merrill Lynch or Goldman Sachs. A second law backed by Treasury Secretary Summers in 2000 was an obscure but deadly important Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. That law prevented the responsible US Government regulatory agency, Commodity Futures Trading Corporation (CFTC), from having any oversight over the trading of financial derivatives. The new CFMA law stipulated that so-called Over-the-Counter (OTC) derivatives like Credit Default Swaps, such as those involved in the AIG insurance disaster, (which investor Warren Buffett once called 'weapons of mass financial destruction'), be free from Government regulation.

At the time Summers was busy opening the floodgates of financial abuse for the Wall Street Money Trust, his assistant was none other than Tim Geithner, the man who today is US Treasury Secretary. Today, Geithner's old boss, Larry Summers, is President Obama's chief economic adviser, as head of the White House Economic Council. To have Geithner and Summers responsible for cleaning up the financial mess is tantamount to putting the proverbial fox in to guard the henhouse.

The 'Dirty Little Secret'

What Geithner does not want the public to understand, his 'dirty little secret' is that the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act in 2000 allowed the creation of a tiny handful of banks that would virtually monopolize key parts of the global 'off-balance sheet' or Over-The-Counter derivatives issuance.

Today five US banks according to data in the just-released Federal Office of Comptroller of the Currency's Quarterly Report on Bank Trading and Derivatives Activity, hold 96% of all US bank derivatives positions in terms of nominal values, and an eye-popping 81% of the total net credit risk exposure in event of default.

The five are, in declining order of importance: JPMorgan Chase which holds a staggering $88 trillion in derivatives (¤66 trillion!). Morgan Chase is followed by Bank of America with $38 trillion in derivatives, and Citibank with $32 trillion. Number four in the derivatives sweepstakes is Goldman Sachs with a 'mere' $30 trillion in derivatives. Number five, the merged Wells Fargo-Wachovia Bank, drops dramatically in size to $5 trillion. Number six, Britain's HSBC Bank USA has $3.7 trillion.

After that the size of US bank exposure to these explosive off-balance-sheet unregulated derivative obligations falls off dramatically. Just to underscore the magnitude, trillion is written 1,000,000,000,000. Continuing to pour taxpayer money into these five banks without changing their operating system, is tantamount to treating an alcoholic with unlimited free booze.

The Government bailouts of AIG to over $180 billion to date has primarily gone to pay off AIG's Credit Default Swap obligations to counterparty gamblers Goldman Sachs, Citibank, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, the banks who believe they are 'too big to fail.' In effect, these five institutions today believe they are so large that they can dictate the policy of the Federal Government. Some have called it a bankers' coup d'etat. It definitely is not healthy.

This is Geithner's and Wall Street's Dirty Little Secret that they desperately try to hide because it would focus voter attention on real solutions. The Federal Government has long had laws in place to deal with insolvent banks. The FDIC places the bank into receivership, its assets and liabilities are sorted out by independent audit. The irresponsible management is purged, stockholders lose and the purged bank is eventually split into smaller units and when healthy, sold to the public. The power of the five mega banks to blackmail the entire nation would thereby be cut down to size. Ooohh. Uh Huh?

This is what Wall Street and Geithner are frantically trying to prevent. The problem is concentrated in these five large banks. The financial cancer must be isolated and contained by Federal agency in order for the host, the real economy, to return to healthy function.

This is what must be put into bankruptcy receivership, or nationalization. Every hour the Obama Administration delays that, and refuses to demand full independent government audit of the true solvency or insolvency of these five or so banks, inevitably costs to the US and to the world economy will snowball as derivatives losses explode. That is pre-programmed as worsening economic recession mean corporate bankruptcies are rising, home mortgage defaults are exploding, unemployment is shooting up. This is a situation that is deliberately being allowed to run out of (responsible Government) control by Treasury Secretary Geithner, Summers and ultimately the President, whether or not he has taken the time to grasp what is at stake.

Once the five problem banks have been put into isolation by the FDIC and the Treasury, the Administration must introduce legislation to immediately repeal the Larry Summers bank deregulation including restore Glass-Steagall and repeal the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 that allowed the present criminal abuse of the banking trust. Then serious financial reform can begin to be discussed, starting with steps to 'federalize' the Federal Reserve and take the power of money out of the hands of private bankers such as JP Morgan Chase, Citibank or Goldman Sachs.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 10:50 PM

Sawzaw, what's your source?

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 11:24 PM

Mouse:

Are you pissed because I questioned the WGMS?

I suggest you do a little fact checking of the above before you form a conclusion about the accuracy based on me or the author.

And I am willing to discuss anything you find that is nonfactual.

http://www.rense.com/general85/dirrty.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 11:37 PM

Who formed any conclusions? Jay-zoos, you have a guilty conscience.

Nevertheless: If you put forward an argument, it is YOUR job, not mine, to justify your sources. I might do "fact checking" to prove them unreliable. But it's your job to show them reliable. Not mine.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 11:54 PM

Interesting website you've found. Here are some other stories currently on the site:

• MA Voters Reject Obama's Fascism


• 'Defamation' - Astonishing New Film On Anti-Semitism Reviewed


• Russian Mind Control Discoveries Given To US


• Zionist Israeli Thermonuclear Worldwide Blackmail


• Global Warming - Biggest Science Hoax Ever Exposed


• Simon Wiesenthal - Holocaust Fabricator Deluxe


• (by) David Duke - The Matrix Of Zionist Power In America

Okay that's enough. (DAVID DUKE?!?!?!?) This guy is a Holocaust denying anti-Semitic nutjob who believes in mind control! Give me a better source, please.

Going to shower off now.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 01:40 AM

Amos: I think some of his declining favor has been attributable to mismanagement on one front or another, but a significant part of it has come from the endless spew of distortions from Replugican uglies with hatred on their minds."

No, just some of the hype, that played on a lot of the "pie in the sky' optimist's emotions, made up mostly of simpletons, is wearing off.
Meanwhile, while everyone is distracted with 'health care' deform, and the election of Scott Brown, he's asking for another $1.4 TRILLION. Just print it up, we need to make our dollar worthless. We need to get out of debt by borrowing more! We should give junkies more heroin, too!...Jeez, Approaching 14 Trillion in 'stimulus' doublespeak and who got it? Did you? Me? The public? Did you get any to pay off your debts?...Let's do the math, now....umm...how much would every American citizen get, if you divide that number into 12,000,000,000,000?? Well, at least the economy should be back on it's feet, shouldn't it?...hmmm, its not??(scratches chin), gosh I wonder what went wrong???? Gosh, could it possibly be that this was the agenda he had all along? Was he fooled? Nawww, he's too smart for that!!....He isn't?..Shouldn't he be?...No, he knew it all along...he's just too smart. Rest assured! That's what he wants you to think. Gee, he's really brilliant!(*Sigh*)

You better stockpile guitar strings!...picks too!

Sawzaw, you're only revealing the tip, (well, a little more of the tip), of an iceberg! You've done your homework. Wait till they get hip to the rest of it, and why!!!!
GfS

P.S, I wonder if the sheep have any idea where the wolves are leading them.

P.P.S Amos, remember the things I posted during the 'election'?
I also promised a 'Wait and See', as to give him a chance? Is anything coming into focus for you, yet?.. You should re-read that stuff, again.....being a little ahead of the curve, says I.

(of course, that's only for those in 'Sanity-Land') -QQ-
                                                      ^)
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 10:39 AM

Mouse:

I would rather not be so adversarial but facts are facts, David Duke is an asshole but that does not mean anything on the same site as a DD article or a bunch of other propaganda does not invalidate everything on the site.

It says on the site: "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky Does that Mean Noam Chomsky is now discredited?

It also says on the site: "For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to deal with it." - Patrick Henry Does that Mean Patrick Henry is now discredited?

You are welcome to disagreeable but my opinion of Geithner is that he is a doof that is involved in the financial fiasco up to his ears, can't fill out an income tax form correctly and has no business being involved with the recovery.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 11:05 AM

Al Jazzera:

Obama's popularity has fallen dramatically in the streets of Pakistan

When Barack Obama, the US president, closes his eyes and thinks of Pakistan, he might just picture the city of Gujrunwala. It is what everyone expects of a city in this part of the world, busy, loud and colourful. In the markets, people haggle for the best prices for everything.

But it is this place, an hour's drive from Lahore, which ties Obama closer to Pakistan than any other US president. For five years, Ann Dunham, his mother, worked in this area as a consultant to the Asian Development Bank, helping with microfinance projects before they became famous or widespread.

She traveled regularly to the city, walked the streets, met the people and when she talked to her son, she told him what she saw. He came to visit, and that was when he developed what he calls his "personal bond" with Pakistan. When he took the oath of office a year ago, many Pakistanis were convinced that they had a friend in the White House.

In our entirely unscientific poll in one of the city's busy markets, it is hard to find anyone who now thinks that is true. One man told me: "As far as Obama is concerned only the face has changed, the policies are still the same. He just sent 30,000 troops in to Afghanistan. It's just a continuation of what Bush did." Watching us work was a young man who said simply: "I am a Muslim man, and he is against me."

Obama has often promised Pakistan America's lasting friendship. In his speech at the West Point Military Academy on December 1, where he outlined his future policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan, he said: "The Pakistan people must know America will remain as strong supporter of Pakistan's security and prosperity, long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people could be unleashed."   It is a message the Americans are keen to get across.

One of Obama's first appointments was Richard Holbrooke, the veteran diplomat, to act as his coordinator in Afghanistan and Pakistan, or Af-Pak as it has unfortunately become known. Holbrooke repeated his boss' words last week at a news conference in Islamabad. So I asked him if things were different now.

He listed a number of areas where the two were working more closely together but accepted there were tensions. "It is our assessment that we are in a better place in our relations with Pakistan than we were a year ago", he said. The tensions he talks about are the issue of drone attacks which eats away at America's popularity in Pakistan.

There are those who suspect that the military and intelligence services privately back this infringement on Pakistan sovereignty, even though they kill more innocent people than militants. "This is something which is not acceptable to the people of Pakistan," Ahmed Bilal Mehboob, a political analyst, said.

"Part of the anger is directed at their own government too because of this suspicion but of course the bulk of the anger is directed at the US government." Mushahid Hussain, a former information minister and now a senator in the country's parliament, has followed developments in the US closely and wonders if the president can make the changes he believes he needs.

He told me: "I hope that Mr Obama realises that this so-called war on terror is an unwinnable war without end against a nameless, faceless, stateless enemy. And he better reverse the wrong and he should realise that the military option is not the answer to winning this war.

"He should not repeat the mistakes of the Bush administration. If he has to make mistakes I would suggest Mr Obama makes new mistakes." Twelve months in, it is perhaps true that Pakistan's government is closer to Washington.

But it is also true that many people feel let down and disappointed that the hope generated by Obama has not made their lives better, has not made their country safer. His challenge in the year ahead and beyond is to take his "personal bond" with this country into something more than warm thoughts of a remembered past in a distant land.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 12:35 PM

Sure to dominate the media cycle today is the Obama administration's surprise announcement of what some observers are already calling Glass-Steagall II, after the late, oft-lamented law that separated investment and commercial banking activity, whose repeal under President Clinton has been blamed in part for the financial crisis. The New York Times reports, and the Wall Street Journal details, that Paul Volcker, an Obama adviser who was reported as being marginalized in the White House just a week ago, is behind this sudden and unexpected announcement.

"The proposal will put limits on bank size and prohibit commercial banks from trading for their own accounts—known as proprietary trading. ... Only a handful of large banks would be the targets of the proposal, among them Citigroup (C), Bank of America (BAC), JPMorgan Chase (JPM), and Wells Fargo. Goldman Sachs (GS), the Wall Street trading house, became a commercial bank during this latest crisis, and it would presumably have to give up that status," the paper said. "On the one hand, they are commercial banks, taking deposits, making standard loans and managing the nation's payment system.

On the other hand, they trade securities for their own accounts, a hugely profitable endeavor. This proprietary trading, mainly in risky mortgage-backed securities, precipitated the credit crisis in 2008 and the federal bailout."

That's not to mention, of course, that investment banks, with Goldman being the prime example, used prop trading to bet against some of the very securities products they were selling to customers. Despite the focus on Volcker's proposal, the paper makes the curious note that Timothy Geithner will appear with the president during the announcement." (Reuters)

About time someone noticed this glaring hole and took action.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 02:30 AM

Amos: "Despite the focus on Volcker's proposal, the paper makes the curious note that Timothy Geithner will appear with the president during the announcement." (Reuters)

Amos, dear ol' pal, and keyboard sparring partner....Why wouldn't Geithner appear with the President??...As told to you before, Geithner is Kissinger's boy, who represents the puppet masters, of the string pullers, and 'their' boy, making all the shady deals for the financial institutions that have been ripping us all off, and who also has been Obama's right hand crook!~

We've discussed that before, at length. Too bad your political eye sight was blurred....(though I think you're a good cat!).
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 07:39 AM

I think the essential matter here is the way the largest banks have ripped off the entire society...on a world level, not just on a national level...to enrich themselves. And the way they have controlled government agendas through the power of money that THEY create out of nothing. Will Obama take them on and fight them? Can he? If he can and if he will, then we can have genuine and useful change. If the few largest banks just continue in their present role as the puppetmasters of the politicians, then very little will change...but things will keep getting worse for humanity and for the planet.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 06:11 PM

You're right, LH, if things don't change humanity will suffer world wide. The problem is, as I see it, the financial giants are international in scope, and Obama doesn't have any authority outside of the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 06:32 PM

The problem here with the banks (and the wealthy class of which they are entertwined) is the theory that Henry Ford put forth when he opened his assembly plants and paid, for the times, very good wages... Henry said, "If I don't pay my people well then they won't have enough money to buy my cars"...

That seems to make alot of sense...

But what we have now is 5% controlling 80% of the wealth and they are hoarding it???

This is a formula fir disaster for everyone... History is littered with such situations and the rich always end up paying for their wealth... It won't be any different this time either... What Obama is beginning to do is paint the picture and the scarey thing for the rich is that he has another 3 years to use his bully pulpit and that he is saying stuff that the tea-baggers can relate to...

If I were part of the 5% I think I'd be gettin' the boys together and figure out how share peacefully...

But rich people aren't any smarter than anyone else... Most are rich because they picked the right families to to be born into...

Outta be interesting now that Obama has been roughed up a little and ready to fight...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 06:41 PM

Henry Ford also wrote a pamphlet about international banking cartels. He called in "The International Jew."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 08:37 PM

I think Bobert got it right. Obama is a peaceful guy, but he is not one to push around too much; he's a playah.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 08:42 PM

I hope you're right. I want to see those banks taken on.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Jan 10 - 11:59 PM

Amos: Please read again:

Geithner is going to great degrees to obscure from the public is very simple. There are only at most perhaps five US banks which are the source of the toxic poison that is causing such dislocation in the world financial system. What Geithner is desperately trying to protect is that reality. The heart of the present problem and the reason ordinary loan losses as in prior bank crises are not the problem, is a variety of exotic financial derivatives, most especially so-called Credit Default Swaps.

In 2000 the Clinton Administration then-Treasury Secretary was a man named Larry Summers. Summers had just been promoted from No. 2 under Wall Street Goldman Sachs banker Robert Rubin to be No. 1 when Rubin left Washington to take up the post of Vice Chairman of Citigroup. As I describe in detail in my new book, Power of Money: The Rise and Fall of the American Century, to be released this summer, Summers convinced President Bill Clinton to sign several Republican bills into law which opened the floodgates for banks to abuse their powers. The fact that the Wall Street big banks spent some $5 billion in lobbying for these changes after 1998 was likely not lost on Clinton.

One significant law was the repeal of the 1933 Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act that prohibited mergers of commercial banks, insurance companies and brokerage firms like Merrill Lynch or Goldman Sachs. A second law backed by Treasury Secretary Summers in 2000 was an obscure but deadly important Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. That law prevented the responsible US Government regulatory agency, Commodity Futures Trading Corporation (CFTC), from having any oversight over the trading of financial derivatives. The new CFMA law stipulated that so-called Over-the-Counter (OTC) derivatives like Credit Default Swaps, such as those involved in the AIG insurance disaster, (which investor Warren Buffett once called 'weapons of mass financial destruction'), be free from Government regulation.

At the time Summers was busy opening the floodgates of financial abuse for the Wall Street Money Trust, his assistant was none other than Tim Geithner, the man who today is US Treasury Secretary. Today, Geithner's old boss, Larry Summers, is President Obama's chief economic adviser, as head of the White House Economic Council. To have Geithner and Summers responsible for cleaning up the financial mess is tantamount to putting the proverbial fox in to guard the henhouse.

And Mac is guilty too.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 11:18 AM

Bob Herbert in the New York Times January 25, 2010:

..."Mr. Obama may be personally very appealing, but he has positioned himself all over the political map: the anti-Iraq war candidate who escalated the war in Afghanistan; the opponent of health insurance mandates who made a mandate to buy insurance the centerpiece of his plan; the president who stocked his administration with Wall Street insiders and went to the mat for the banks and big corporations, but who is now trying to present himself as a born-again populist.

Mr. Obama is in danger of being perceived as someone whose rhetoric, however skillful, cannot always be trusted. He is creating a credibility gap for himself, and if it widens much more he won't be able to close it.

Mr. Obama's campaign mantra was "change" and most of his supporters took that to mean that he would change the way business was done in Washington and that he would reverse the disastrous economic policies that favored mega-corporations and the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class and the poor.

"Tonight, more Americans are out of work, and more are working harder for less," said Mr. Obama in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in August 2008. "More of you have lost your homes and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can't afford to drive, credit card bills you can't afford to pay, and tuition that's beyond your reach."

Voters watching the straight-arrow candidate delivering that speech, in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Depression, would not logically have thought that an obsessive focus on health insurance would trump job creation as the top domestic priority of an Obama administration.

But that's what happened. Moreover, questions were raised about Mr. Obama's candor when he spoke about health care. In his acceptance speech, for example, candidate Obama took a verbal shot at John McCain, sharply criticizing him for offering "a health care plan that would actually tax people's benefits."

Now Mr. Obama favors a plan that would tax at least some people's benefits. Mr. Obama also repeatedly said that policyholders who were pleased with their plans and happy with their doctors would be able to keep both under his reform proposals.

Well, that wasn't necessarily so, as the president eventually acknowledged. There would undoubtedly be changes in some people's coverage as a result of "reform," and some of those changes would be substantial. At a forum sponsored by ABC News last summer, Mr. Obama backed off of his frequent promise that no changes would occur, saying only that "if you are happy with your plan, and if you are happy with your doctor, we don't want you to have to change."

These less-than-candid instances are emblematic of much bigger problems. Mr. Obama promised during the campaign that he would be a different kind of president, one who would preside over a more open, more high-minded administration that would be far more in touch with the economic needs of ordinary working Americans. But no sooner was he elected than he put together an economic team that would protect, above all, the interests of Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, the health insurance companies, and so on. How can you look out for the interests of working people with Tim Geithner whispering in one ear and Larry Summers in the other?

Now with his poll numbers down and the Democrats' filibuster-proof margin in the Senate about to vanish, Mr. Obama is trying again to position himself as a champion of the middle class. Suddenly, with the public appalled at the scandalous way the health care legislation was put together, and with Democrats facing a possible debacle in the fall, Mr. Obama is back in campaign mode. Every other utterance is about "fighting" for the middle class, "fighting" for jobs, "fighting" against the big bad banks.

The president who has been aloof and remote and a pushover for the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries, who has been locked in the troubling embrace of the Geithners and Summers and Ben Bernankes of the world, all of a sudden is a man of the people. But even as he is promising to fight for jobs, a very expensive proposition, he's proposing a spending freeze that can only hurt job-creating efforts.

Mr. Obama will deliver his State of the Union address Wednesday night. The word is that he will offer some small bore assistance to the middle class. But more important than the content of this speech will be whether the president really means what he says. Americans want to know what he stands for, where his line in the sand is, what he'll really fight for, and where he wants to lead this nation.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 11:50 AM

Jonathan Capehart - The Washington Post - January 26, 2010

Still wondering who President Obama is

Something's not right. Back on Oct. 6, I marveled at four opinion pieces on President Obama's character that essentially asked, "Who is this guy?" Four months later -- one year into his presidency and on the eve of his first State of the Union address -- the question is still being asked. Both Gene Robinson and Bob Herbert today make this nettlesome inquiry in their columns today.

Robinson wants the president to resist the calls for him to don the cloak of populism while addressing the mounting national anger. "What's important is that he speak in a clear voice, a definitive voice," he writes. "When he draws a line in the sand -- about health care, jobs, energy, whatever -- he should do everything in his power to defend that line, even if it means bruised feelings and ruffled feathers."

But that's part of the problem. On health care, jobs, energy, whatever, Obama has been consistent in his push to address these issues. Yet he has been irritatingly inconsistent on the details of those policies. That line in the sand seems to move every time the tide changes. And that's why the last lines of Herbert's critical column today resonates."Americans want to know what he stands for, where his line in the sand is, what he’ll really fight for, and where he wants to lead this nation," he writes. "They want to know who their president really is."

That the American people don't feel they have the answer to that question is driving the president's poll numbers down and feeding the smoldering panic in the Democratic Party. If Obama doesn't want it to become an inferno as we head to the November midterm elections, he's got to show the American people who he is.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 12:04 PM

DAVID BROOKS The New York Times January 25, 2010

The populists have an Us versus Them mentality. If they continue their random attacks on enterprise and capital, they will only increase the pervasive feeling of uncertainty, which is now the single biggest factor in holding back investment, job creation and growth. They will end up discrediting good policies (the Obama bank reforms are quite sensible) because they will persuade the country that the government is in the hands of reckless Huey Longs. They will have traded dynamic optimism, which always wins, for combative divisiveness, which always loses.

Politics, some believe, is the organization of hatreds. The people who try to divide society on the basis of ethnicity we call racists. The people who try to divide it on the basis of religion we call sectarians. The people who try to divide it on the basis of social class we call either populists or elitists.

These two attitudes â€" populism and elitism â€" seem different, but they’re really mirror images of one another. They both assume a country fundamentally divided. They both describe politics as a class struggle between the enlightened and the corrupt, the pure and the betrayers.

Both attitudes will always be with us, but these days populism is in vogue. The Republicans have their populists. Sarah Palin has been known to divide the country between the real Americans and the cultural elites. And the Democrats have their populists. Since the defeat in Massachusetts, many Democrats have apparently decided that their party has to mimic the rhetoric of John Edwards’s presidential campaign. They’ve taken to dividing the country into two supposedly separate groups â€" real Americans who live on Main Street and the insidious interests of Wall Street.

It’s easy to see why politicians would be drawn to the populist pose. First, it makes everything so simple. The economic crisis was caused by a complex web of factors, including global imbalances caused by the rise of China. But with the populist narrative, you can just blame Goldman Sachs.

Second, it absolves voters of responsibility for their problems. Over the past few years, many investment bankers behaved like idiots, but so did average Americans, racking up unprecedented levels of personal debt. With the populist narrative, you can accuse the former and absolve the latter.

Third, populism is popular with the ruling class. Ever since I started covering politics, the Democratic ruling class has been driven by one fantasy: that voters will get so furious at people with M.B.A.’s that they will hand power to people with Ph.D.’s. The Republican ruling class has been driven by the fantasy that voters will get so furious at people with Ph.D.’s that they will hand power to people with M.B.A.’s. Members of the ruling class love populism because they think it will help their section of the elite gain power.

So it’s easy to see the seductiveness of populism. Nonetheless, it nearly always fails. The history of populism, going back to William Jennings Bryan, is generally a history of defeat.

That’s because voters aren’t as stupid as the populists imagine. Voters are capable of holding two ideas in their heads at one time: First, that the rich and the powerful do rig the game in their own favor; and second, that simply bashing the rich and the powerful will still not solve the country’s problems.

Political populists never get that second point. They can’t seem to grasp that a politics based on punishing the elites won’t produce a better-educated work force, more investment, more innovation or any of the other things required for progress and growth.

In fact, this country was built by anti-populists. It was built by people like Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln who rejected the idea that the national economy is fundamentally divided along class lines. They rejected the zero-sum mentality that is at the heart of populism, the belief that economics is a struggle over finite spoils. Instead, they believed in a united national economy â€" one interlocking system of labor, trade and investment.

Hamilton championed capital markets and Lincoln championed banks, not because they loved traders and bankers. They did it because they knew a vibrant capitalist economy would maximize opportunity for poor boys like themselves. They were willing to tolerate the excesses of traders because they understood that no institution is more likely to channel opportunity to new groups and new people than vigorous financial markets.

In their view, government’s role was not to side with one faction or to wage class war. It was to rouse the energy and industry of people at all levels. It was to enhance competition and make it fair â€" to make sure that no group, high or low, is able to erect barriers that would deprive Americans of an open field and a fair chance. Theirs was a philosophy that celebrated development, mobility and work, wherever those things might be generated.

The populists have an Us versus Them mentality. If they continue their random attacks on enterprise and capital, they will only increase the pervasive feeling of uncertainty, which is now the single biggest factor in holding back investment, job creation and growth. They will end up discrediting good policies (the Obama bank reforms are quite sensible) because they will persuade the country that the government is in the hands of reckless Huey Longs.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 12:10 PM

No kidding. Look, it's just standard political salesmanship, Sawzaw. It's the outward gyrations and maneuverings of an utterly corrupt system. The Democratic and Republican parties basically work for exactly the same interests, that is they work for the largest financial powers in society which would be the biggest banks, the biggest insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry, the major corporations, the military-industrial complex....the whole giant octopus of major money interests that controls big business, mass media, the flow of commerce, the creation of money, the formation of domestic and foreign policy, etc.

Government decisions are made to satisfy the desires and requirements of that group of people...NOT the desires and requirements of the ordinary public.

Do you think Rome was run on behalf of the ordinary public? No. It was run on behalf of the few rich people at the top. When the ordinary public got restless (as often happened) the rich people at the top would put on some gladiatorial games...or give out some free bread and wine...or fix the public's attention on a foreign war and raise a frenzy of patriotism to distract people...etc.

And that's what is done in the USA. Same basic approach.

Obama had to sell himself effectively to get elected. Selling yourself effectively can best be done by appealing in a passionate way to the hopes and dreams of the ordinary people. So that is what he did. McCain tried to do that too...far less successfully, because he's a dinosaur. Sarah Palin tried to do it too...and she did it fairly well, but to a narrower constituency than Mr Obama, and at a far less fortuitous time, following 8 disastrous years of Republican misrule. It was time for a Democratic phony government to replace a Republican phony government...as happens in a cyclical fashion at various intervals...but it's like changing the curtains on the windows of your jail cell.

Well, get ready now for at least 4 years of Democratic misrule, because those 2 parties are both as phony as a 13 dollar bill, they lie to get elected, they lie after they are elected, and they do NOT serve the ordinary public. They serve a rich oligarchy of established interests.

They will throw a few crumbs to the public now and then, they must do it now and then to maintain some degree of social confidence, but that's all, just a few crumbs. Meanwhile, the big phony game goes on, and the game is run by the owners, and the owners answer to no one but themselves. Their front men (the presidents) come and go. They remain. Their sons (and a few daughters here and there) will continue their rule when they are gone.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 04:15 PM

So each person must be wise enough to filter the truth from the bullshit and not judge the validity of what is said based on the speaker's skin color, social status, education, religion, ethnicity, political party, etc.

Just use logic and common sense.

So many people will agree to something simply because it supports their agenda even if they don't believe it themselves.

Or they are afraid to disagree with what what the majority believes because they might be perceived as stupid. Group think. The bandwagon logic. The Emperors new clothes effect.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 04:44 PM

Count me in the Eugene Robinson...

But let's get real here... What is broken is the government and not the players... Bush was able to exert his will over the broken-ness of the government because he used 9/11 as his ramming rod but had it not been for 9/11 then after the tax cuts Bush wouldn't have had any success with it either...

Now that the Senate Repubs have taken fillibuster to a level unheard of the future is fairly predictable regardless which party controls it... The Minority has never heard so much power and you can take it to the bank that the dems are taking notes here...

Welcome to endless quagmire and a further downward spiril of the country...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 11:24 PM

Quagmire that Obama was going to end. And he had all the power he needed but he blew it on the wrong projects.

What was needed was Jobs Jobs Jobs.

'Ol Bobert is still campaigning against Bush, front wheel drive and unleaded gas. It's too late. ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: number 6
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 07:29 AM

I'm not a big fan of the big guy Michael Moore ... but when he is on to something he does have some very valid points.

Listen to this .... I think it is appropriate for this thread

Continual and Historic Failure of the Democratic Party

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 08:23 AM

How do you go about ending quagmire, Sawz, without both parties wanting to end it??? It's down to the chicken and egg thing... These are Senate rules here... Obama isn't in the Senate and nor can he order the Repubs not to fillibuster anything that resembles the changing of the rules...

This is all on the Repubs... 100%!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 08:43 AM

Correction:

Technically, the Dems in the Seante could end the quaqmire by electing to use the "nuclear option" which both parties are scared to death of doing but Obama has no control over the Senate rules...

So I retract my "100%"... The Repubs are still responsible for 100% of the fillibuster since Obama took office, however...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 11:37 AM

A better balance of power help this quagmire. Looking back at Clinton, he did not do too bad and I think the Impeachment made this power struggle what it is today.

ABC News Jan. 27, 2010:

Candidate Obama pledged that no lobbyists would work in his White House. As a newly-arrived president, he reiterated [others say he broke] that promise.

Announcing "firm rules of the road for my administration and all who serve in it" in January 2009, the president said, "We need to close the revolving door that lets lobbyists come into government freely and lets them use their time in public service as a way to promote their own interests over the interests of the American people when they leave."

Obama's executive order mandated that lobbyists who became members of the administration will not be able to work on matters they lobbied on for two years, or in the agencies they lobbied during the previous two years. Anyone who leaves the Obama administration will not be able to lobby his administration.

But there have been notable exceptions to that rule.

Obama waived it for Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn, who was a registered lobbyist for the defense contractor Raytheon before being appointed in January.

"I have determined that it is in the public interest to grant the waiver given Mr. Lynn's qualifications for his position and the current national security situation," Director of the Office of Management of Budget Peter Orszag said in a statement at the time.

There are several other lobbyists also serving in the Obama administration, including Ron Kirk, U.S. Trade Representative; Cecilia Munoz, Director of Intergovernmental Affairs at the White House; and Jocelyn Frye, who is now director of policy and projects in the Office of the First Lady.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 11:50 AM

Very good commentary by Michael Moore in the video.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: number 6
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 11:55 AM

It's an excellent commentary L.H.

I strongly suggest everyone posting to this thread listen to it .... and listen to the complete interview from start to end.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 11:57 AM

Me too. I think he clearly identifies all the key problems in this first year of the Obama administration...and the likely repercussions of same.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 12:02 PM

Michael Moore: "There is no terrorist threat in this country. This is a lie. This is the biggest lie we've been told."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 12:21 PM

There is virtually no terrorist threat in the USA. Attack by foreign operatives on US soil is and always has been a miniscule threat to the lives of Americans. The main threat to ordinary people's lives in the USA is the internal corruption which exists at the highest levels of the USA itself...in government, in the banking system, in the medical system, and in the corporate community.

As for terrorism, the main terrorist threat to people's lives in the world now is the imperial activities of the USA armed forces in foreign countries where they do not belong...and the vast majority of people killed by that terrorism are NOT Americans, they are Third World people in those occupied countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 03:04 PM

1400!!...and they still can see the obvious!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 10:30 PM

LH if you say there is any terrorist threat are you lying or is MM?

Whom is the Emperor of America? Should the US retreat from Haiti?

Do Canadians belong in Afghanistan? Do they belong in Haiti?

Brig. Gen. Guy Laroche led Canadian troops in Cyprus, Bosnia and Afghanistan.

I can't find any references to the American Empire but the British Empire is quite prominent:

The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates, and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom, that had originated with the overseas colonies and trading posts established by England in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. At its height it was the largest empire in history and, for over a century, was the foremost global power. By 1922, the British Empire held sway over a population of about 458 million people, one-quarter of the world's population,and covered more than 13,000,000 square miles approximately a quarter of the Earth's total land area. As a result, its political, linguistic and cultural legacy is widespread. At the peak of its power, it was often said that "the sun never sets on the British Empire" because its span across the globe ensured that the sun was always shining on at least one of its numerous territories.

Wasn't it the British that left a bad taste in the mouths of these colonists?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 12:51 PM

AP WASHINGTON â€" The Democratic-controlled Senate has muscled through a plan to allow the government to go a whopping $1.9 trillion deeper in debt.

The party-line 60-40 vote was successful only because Republican Sen.-elect Scott Brown has yet to be seated. Sixty votes were required to approve the increase. The measure would lift the debt ceiling to $14.3 trillion. That's about $45,000 for every American.

Democrats had to scramble to approve the plan, which means they won't have to vote on another increase until after the midterm elections this fall. To win the votes of moderate Democrats, President Barack Obama promised to appoint a special task force to come up with a plan to reduce the deficit. The House must still vote on the measure before it's sent to Obama for his signature.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 02:17 PM

I don't follow that first question, Sawzaw. I don't think you worded it right.

What I was saying is that there is very, very little danger to the average American from Islamic terrorism. You are far more likely to die from a traffic accident, being overweight, or through domestic violence, or by getting hit by lightning. On the other hand, there is enormous danger to ordinary Afghans, Pakistanis, Iraqis, and other Third World people from American terrorism, accomplished by the American military and the mercenary contractors like Blackwater.

You quoted Michael Moore out of context. Unless you post the larger context in which he said the few words you quoted, your quote is a waste of time. You cannot discredit everything a human being stands for on the basis of a single fragment of a sentence that you have lifted out of a whole bunch of stuff he said.

I should think you'd be interested in the fact that Micheal Moore is being extremely critical of Obama's first year in office rather than paying so much attention to a few words from him quoted out of context. You can damn anyone on the planet if you cherry pick through everything they've said and quote one tiny bit of it out of context and ignore the rest.

As for your other questions:

"Whom is the Emperor of America?" I don't know. Who do you think? Henry Kissinger? ;-) Why do you even ask me that?

"Should the US retreat from Haiti?" Not if they are there to render humanitarian assistance to earthquake victims. As long as that's what they do there, I have no argument with it.

"Do Canadians belong in Afghanistan?" Hell, no! If it were up to me, Canadian troops would be pulled out at once. A majority of the Canadian public agrees with me on that, but our Prime Minister is a neocon trained poodle in service of the American empire.

"Do they (Canadians) belong in Haiti?" I have no objection to anyone giving Haitians emergency assistance in the wake of the earthquake. Why would I?

Regarding your remarkes on the British Empire...we appear to agree on every point about the British Empire! ;-) So, what is your point? America has taken over where the British (and more recently, the Soviets) left off. America has indeed built itself a huge empire overseas ever since the late 1800s, beginning with the siezure of Cuba, the Phillipines, and other formerly Spanish possessions in 1898. You don't have to have official colonies to have an empire...you just have to have control of foreign places...militarily and financially and politically or by proxy through local puppets who have been bought or terrorized into submission. That control is achieved through a combination of military invasion or threat, coups, assassinations, puppet and client governments, financial takeovers, huge loans that control a poor nation through debt, etc. Recently Iraq and Aghanistan have been added to the unofficial tally of the American empire. It IS an empire, it just isn't called an empire anymore, because that isn't politically acceptable to do that anymore. So it isn't official. It is actual. And everyone outside the USA knows it, even if you Americans are too sold on your own propaganda to recognize it yourselves.

Our Canadian government has been helping you to maintain your empire, and that is shameful. I am disgusted with them for doing it, and I do not support them in any way when they do that.

I do not regard Haitian relief as empire-building nor would any sane person.

****

Now let me ask you as intelligent a question as some of the ones you just wasted my time with:

Are you still buggering your neighbour's basset hound EVERY day...or just on Sundays?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 09:40 PM

So get your own country straight before you jump in America's shit LH.

Mike Moore says there is no terrorist threat. Right or wrong?

Al Gore is the emperor and buggering is another Imperial British term that I am not familiar with.

I think it has to do with nostrils and dried mucus removal but I am not sure. Perhaps you could explain and maybe give a demonstration.

Oh, by the way here is a few more billion$ to support your socialist nanny state government.

Hear how loudly Fidel whines and sucks snot when he doesn't get his?

Good thing Canada has all those natural resources to sell eh? Otherwise socialism might collapse.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 10:32 PM

What a nasty little bitch. And what do you mean, Al Gore is the emperor of the US? What the hell does he do? Fuck-all, near as I can see, except bloviate.

Ake, you never cease to amaze me.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 10:44 PM

A popular view

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 10:59 PM

Mouser: "What a nasty little bitch. And what do you mean, Al Gore is the emperor of the US? What the hell does he do? Fuck-all, near as I can see, except bloviate.
Ake, you never cease to amaze me.

Ake isn't even on this thread. You amaze me, as well. I guess if someone gets your goat, you scream out A-A-A-K-E!
(He just doesn't like straight people)

Wink,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 11:00 PM

I can't keep y'all straight. Mea culpa.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 11:50 PM

Go Sit on a Glacier.

New York Times:

The Obama administration on Friday gave up on its plan to try the Sept. 11 plotters in Lower Manhattan, bowing to almost unanimous pressure from New York officials and business leaders to move the terrorism trial elsewhere.

"I think I can acknowledge the obvious," an administration official said. "We're considering other options."

The reversal on whether to try the alleged 9/11 terrorists blocks from the former World Trade Center site seemed to come suddenly this week, after Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg abandoned his strong support for the plan and said the cost and disruption would be too great.

But behind the brave face that many New Yorkers had put on for weeks, resistance had been gathering steam.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 08:22 AM

It was a bad idea to hold the trial in New York because of the emense security costs ($260M) so hat's off to the Obama administartion for changing the venue to a court where the security costs won't be porhibitive... That, BTW, is smart governement... Bush would have just gone along with it because "The decider" wasn't flexible enough to know when a decision was just plain dumb...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 11:22 AM

Sawzaw, I'd love to ignore the USA and just concentrate on Canada...but I can't because the USA dominates Canada! ;-) In terms of policy and media and economy, I mean. Therefore the USA is an ever present problem for every Canadian, and we must be concerned about the USA.

It's kind of like Ukrainians must be concerned about Russia. Very similar, in fact. I have a Polish friend and she says that now that she's living here she sees how the USA looms over us just like Russia looms over Poland. She didn't get that till she was living here.

I don't expect you to understand that because you have never experienced it. You're used to living in the BIG place that affects everyone else...and you haven't experienced being the one affected BY the superpower.

I also lived in the USA for 10 years, so I have a good basis of comparison. Canada is mostly a capitalist society, not a socialist society. We do have a socialist form of medical coverage here...and it's the single most popular government institution in this country. It is the one thing that even a neocon administration does not dare to dismantle, because the public would be up in arms if they tried it.

You don't get it. You're ignorant of certain things because you have never experienced them. That doesn't mean you're stupid. It just means you don't know, that's all. We are all ignorant of certain things, and it's not a crime to be ignorant, but it happens, okay? I'm ignorant of many things and so are you. You are ignorant of Canadian society when you characterize us as "socialist", because we are mostly capitalist, but EVERY society has SOME socialism...it can't function without some socialism, and that is true of the USA as well. You HAVE a fair bit of socialism in the USA, because you MUST have it in order to even keep functioning as a society.

To call another primariy capitalist society "socialist" because it has socialism in one or two areas where you don't is asinine.

Cut and paste me or provide a link to the entire Michael Moore talk which you have lifted one little fragment out of...I'll read it so I can see in context what he was talking about...and then I'll decide whether he's "lying", which I seriously doubt. I think he's probably making a very useful point about something...one which has eluded you.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 10:24 PM

"Bush would have just gone along with it"

Horseshit. He would never make such a dumbass decision the begin with but just leave it in Guantanamo.

Obama is still bumping is head on demolishing Healthcare for the umpteenth time. Now that is some serious, bone headed, non debatable decision making.

Boss Hogg @ Work

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 11:20 PM

Sorry MR holier than thou that likes to insult other people's countries and get all hurt when they do the same. You are clearly fixated on the USA.

Now if the Imperial mean old US is bad and socio/capitalist AC/DC Canada is so good, Wouldn't it be great if the bad US went away and the good Canada was finally rid of the US?

No? Don't want that to happen? Would you just rather tell others what to do to benefit yourself even more?

Could Canada's Socialist side survive with out the extra $17,108.5 Billion per year to baby sit it's people so they can hoot about what a success they are?

Sorry, this is the only quote from that speech and to me it means what it says:

"There is no terrorist threat in this country. This is a lie. This is the biggest lie we've been told."

---

Britain’s Children

It may be surprising to hear me admit it, but I have quite enjoyed the coverage of Queen Elizabeth’s visit to the United States. The Queen has gotten an overwhelmingly warm reception from the American people and their political leaders, while media the coverage has been excited and respectful.

What I like about this visit is how genuine the support is. When the Queen visits Canada, or some other Commonwealth realm, the visit is always infused with so much political subtext. The republic vs. monarchy debate overshadows all the festivities and everyone is continuously asked for an opinion on the matter. When our politicians show support for Elizabeth they do so with phony, gritted smiles, knowing full well that they are making a controversial constitutional statement by doing so.

The United States has moved beyond all this, however. When the Queen comes to visit the US she does so as a symbol of America’s past, but also as a representative of America’s contemporary, mature relationship with the United Kingdom. There is no irate republican outrage or gushing apologism from monarchists. It is just a nice visit from a special lady.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 11:36 PM

Horseshit. He would never make such a dumbass decision the begin with but just leave it in Guantanamo.

Except that he didn't. When Richard Reid did almost the exact same thing (except he tried to blow up his foot instead of his crotch), Bush had him tried in Boston, and he is now in prison in the United States.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_%28shoe_bomber%29

How soon they forget (or pretend they never knew)...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 11:48 AM

Okay, Sawzaw... ;-) I think you're fixated on me. I will respond to your post.

Sorry MR holier than thou that likes to insult other people's countries and get all hurt when they do the same. You are clearly fixated on the USA.

Yeah, like the Gauls and the Greeks were fixated on imperial Rome. ;-) Why be surprised? The USA is the Superpower of today, so everyone's fixated on the USA for very clear reasons.

Now if the Imperial mean old US is bad and socio/capitalist AC/DC Canada is so good, Wouldn't it be great if the bad US went away and the good Canada was finally rid of the US?

It would be just lovely, you betcha, but it ain't gonna happen. ;-)


No? Don't want that to happen? Would you just rather tell others what to do to benefit yourself even more?

To the contrary. I'd love the USA to "go away" (or at least leave other people alone), but like I said, it ain't gonna happen.

Could Canada's Socialist side survive with out the extra $17,108.5 Billion per year to baby sit it's people so they can hoot about what a success they are?

Yes. Easily. No sweat.

Sorry, this is the only quote from that speech and to me it means what it says:

"There is no terrorist threat in this country. This is a lie. This is the biggest lie we've been told."

You have been told a long series of big lies, Sawzaw. You were told that Muslim people hate democracy. That's a lie. You were told that the Muslims wish to conquer the world. That's a lie. You were told that Saddam had WMDs. That was a lie. You were told that 911 was planned by Osama. That is probably a lie. You were told that Afghanistan was to blame for it. That was a lie. You were told that the current wave of terrorism began when Muslims attacked the USA. That was a lie. The threat of terror attacks on the USA has been so grossly exaggerated by your government because it allows the people in power in the USA to launch illegal wars and to deprive you Americans of your civil rights with things like the Patriot Act. You've been experiencing a gradual fascist takeover for years now. You're living in the incubation chamber of the Fourth Reich and you're too blind and deluded to even know it's happening. That's what Michael Moore was trying to alert you to.

As for the thing about the Queen...sure. Of course there's no controversy when she visits the USA...she doesn't play any jurisdicational role in the USA, so it's not an issue for Americans. She would get the same positive and respectful reception in Japan for the same reason...she's not an issue there. She is an issue anywhere within her own jurisdiction, which is what used to be called the British Commonwealth (the remains of the once British Empire).

If you can't figure out why that is, you ain't even trying.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 01:11 PM

..she doesn't play any jurisdicational role in the USA

Nor does she have much influence on our edumacationalistic program, either...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 03:35 PM

Hey CC. once they reach American soil it is a different story.

When did KSM reach American soil?

LH for the third time. You say there is a small terrorist threat. MM says there is none. Who is right?

You use the lie word a lot. Is that your way of telling other people they are too stupid to figure things out for them selves?

I was not told that "Muslim people hate democracy". If someone said that I to me not believe them. You automatically assume things that you have no way of knowing. Therefore you know why I think the way I do. An arrogant, superior attitude.

"You were told that the Muslims wish to conquer the world." Just where was I at when I was told and who told me.

I have no idea what you were told, by whom or how true it was. Therefore I do not know why you think the way you do and I do not arrogantly assume I know.

Maybe you should prepare a budget for Canada reduced by $17 billion.

The Canadian Empire

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 04:03 PM

That was the old British Empire, Sawzaw. I'm glad it's not around any more. I disapprove of British imperialism too. I don't much care for any form of imperialism.

I still have not seen the context in which Michael Moore says what you say he said. Where is it? And where did you hear about it? How do I know if he really said it or not?

I also don't see why any human being should be wholly judged on the basis of one fragmentary phrase out of the millions of words that have come out of his mouth. Why don't you ask Michael Moore if he really thinks there is NO terrorist threat? That's obviously impossible for anyone to even know, so how could he think it? Send him an email. Call him up. Get that explanation you are longing for instead of spending time trying to make me agree that Michael Moore is as you wish me to see him. Talk to him about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 04:10 PM

An arrogant assumption by Mr X: LH has been lied to. He has been told there is a terrorist threat. Therefore if he believes it, he is stupid. If he does not believe this thing that I have determined to be a lie, he is smart.

Here LH, you can believe this or not and I won't make assumptions about your IQ based on whether you believe it or not: I will add that I think it is wrong for the US to interfere as Chavez and Canada are wrong to interfere.

Canadian imperialism stands back and watches coup unfold in Honduras

Camilo Cahis in Toronto 10 July 2009

Canadian imperialism stands back and watches coup unfold in Honduras. Canada has stood almost alone on the international stage, going so far as to say that Zelaya should not return back to Honduras. This should not come as a huge shock for Canadians as the Canadian state has been pursuing an increasingly interventionist role in Latin American affairs for a while now.

The world is currently witnessing another reactionary coup d'etat in Latin America, unfortunately the latest in a long line of coups that have deposed popularly elected governments in the hemisphere. Honduras' president, Manuel Zelaya, was kidnapped in the dead of the night and exiled by the country's military on 28th June and the reactionary Roberto Micheletti put into power. Governments around the world, including a half-hearted US government, said that they would not recognize Micheletti's regime and called for the return of Mr. Zelaya. Canada, on the other hand, has stood almost alone on the international stage, going so far as to say that Zelaya should not return back to Honduras. This should not come as a huge shock for Canadians as the Canadian state has been pursuing an increasingly interventionist role in Latin American affairs for a while now.

Manuel Zelaya had planned to return to Honduras on Sunday 5th July, a day after the Organization of American States (OAS) had voted to suspend Honduras' membership and issued a resolution stating they had a "deep concern about the worsening of the current political crisis" in Honduras. Most OAS countries had also supported a resolution calling for the immediate return of Zelaya, but this resolution was defeated largely by the arguments presented by the United States and Canada. The US and Canada also opposed any mention of placing sanctions on the illegal government in Honduras, preferring that countries simply "reflect" on their countries' relations with Honduras.

In an article published in the New York Times, the most vocal opponent to re-instating Mr. Zelaya appears to have been Canada's secretary of state for the Americas, Peter Kent. In this article from 5th July, Kent states that he is "emphatically" opposed to Zelaya's return to Honduras because "it is far from clear that the current conditions could guarantee his safety upon return." Kent was also opposed to sanctions or any other harsh measures imposed on the new Honduran dictatorship, stressing that the OAS needed to "maintain diplomatic initiatives" which "directly [engage] the interim government to help end the crisis." Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Hondurans are out on the streets demanding a return of Manuel Zelaya and the end of this military dictatorship. The Micheletti dictatorship has responded with the arrests of hundreds of workers and activists, and even killing some of them. In spite of this, there has not been even a peep from the Canadian government.

Canada's shameful role in Honduras should not be a surprise, though. Too many Canadians have been brought up with the idea that Canada is a peacekeeping nation and that unlike the United States, it does not invade or interfere in other countries' affairs. We would argue that Canada has always been an imperialist country but it is true that in the last decade, we have seen a hardening in Canada's foreign policy, with Canadian imperialism becoming much more naked and overt. Canada's continued occupation of Afghanistan is the most evident example, but Canadian imperialism has played an increasingly important role in Latin America. And, with the election of the Obama administration, the spirit of George Bush's foreign policy seems to have migrated north to Ottawa.

With US imperialism having being bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, there has been an opening for Canadian interests to come to the fore in Latin America in the meantime. Moreover, considering the significant interests that Canadian banks have in the US, it is very much in their interests to defend and represent US interests in the hemisphere, too.

A lot of people do not know, for example, the pernicious role that Canada has been playing in Venezuela. During the 2004 recall referendum where the Venezuelan oligarchy attempted to recall Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez, the Canadian embassy in Caracas was funnelling funds to Sumáte, the opposition group looking to get rid of President Chávez. (It is also important to note that the Liberals were in government then, meaning that this imperialist role in Latin America is not simply a result of the Conservatives currently being in government.) Since then, the Canadian embassy in Caracas, coupled with Focal, a supposedly non-partisan arm of CIDA (the Canadian International Development Agency), have been repeatedly caught giving funds to groups that are tied to various opposition groups in Venezuela. During Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 2006, the Venezuelan government expelled the Israeli ambassador; Israel simply opened up their diplomatic offices from within the Canadian embassy. Peter Munk, the chairman of Barrick Gold, the world's largest gold mining operation, publicly denounced the governments of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela and of Evo Morales in Bolivia, declaring that he would prefer to work with the Taliban than revolutionary governments in Latin America! Numerous Canadian media outlets, including the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail, the National Post, and Maclean's magazine, have launched what can only be described as a vicious smear campaign against the radical governments of Latin America. Tim Harper, the former Americas bureau chief for the Toronto Star, was finally censured by the Ontario Press Council after a campaign by the Bolivarian Circle "Louis Riel" proved that Harper had written a series of maliciously one-sided articles trashing Chávez and the Venezuelan government.

According to noted journalist, Yves Engler, Canada is the second largest investor in Honduras. Canadian mining companies Breakwater Resources, Goldcorp, and Yamana Gold all have significant operations in Honduras. President Zelaya had previously announced a moratorium on new mining concessions, undoubtedly angering these Canadian mining interests. Furthermore, Montreal-based clothing giant Gildan produces over half of all their t-shirts in Honduras, and would not have benefited from Zelaya's policies that attempted to lift millions of Hondurans out of poverty with better wages.

As much as Peter Kent and the Canadian government's response (or lack thereof) to the coup d'etat in Honduras is deplorable and needs to be protested, it isn't simply due to the Conservatives being in power. Canadian interference in Latin America has been going on since before Stephen Harper took power. Canada has strong economic and political interests in Latin America and it will do its utmost to defend them, even if it trumps the democratic will of the people of Central and South America. Canadian imperialist interference will continue as long as Canadian economic interests continue to profit from the exploitation of working people around the world.

Along with protests aimed at Peter Kent and the Conservative government, the Honduran solidarity movement needs to demand an end to Canadian imperialist activity throughout the hemisphere—hands off Latin America! We need to attack the state and corporations at home that make imperialist intervention possible. Canadian workers and students need to be brought into the same struggles as those being fought by their Honduran counterparts. The best way to defend the revolutionary movements of Latin America is to build the conditions for revolution at home.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 04:23 PM

So? Yeah, I pretty much agree with that article. Our present prime minister is nothing but a lapdog for the American neocon business agenda, and yes, he is pursuing an imperial agenda...in concert with the USA and the UK.

What of it? Where did you get the idea that I was defending my government and only attacking yours? Yours happens to be the much bigger problem for the world, that's all. My government is playing a bit part in the imperial order. Yours is in the starring role.

The reason we have these problems, Sawzaw, is that our governments are not serving the people. They are serving huge business and banking interests. The political parties are funded BY those huge business and banking interests, and that's why little changes no matter who we elect.

There is NOTHING we can do about it at the ballot box, Sawzaw. Do you get that? They play this party game all the time to make us think there's a choice, but it's just a surface game. The details change. The rhetoric changes. The faces change. The basic policy rolls on.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 04:57 PM

Canadians, know thyselves. Our record abroad is dirty. By Michael Nenonen

We go to great lengths to obscure self-knowledge of what we're really like in the capitalist world at large

Canada's exploitation of the developing world reminds me of sex in Victorian England. The rigid class structure of Victorian England was maintained, in part, by excesses of sexual exploitation, violence, and perversion, but at the same time, sexual repression was so intense that in well-to-do homes even table legs had to be concealed. It was this division between obscene truth and comforting appearance that Robert Louis Stevenson captured so perfectly in The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde.

In I Don't Believe In Atheists (2008), Chris Hedges addresses the cruelty that marks the human condition: "This cruelty arrives however, in different forms. Stable, industrialized societies, awash in cash and privileges, can better construct systems that mask this cruelty, although it is nakedly displayed in their imperial outposts." Nowhere is this principle better displayed than in Canada. The cruelty sustaining our way of life has become obscene in the way that sexuality was obscene in Victorian England. The more we exclude it from our public consciousness, the more deranged and pervasive it becomes.

The contrast between our national self-image and our country's foreign policy is as stark as the contrast between Victorian prudery and Victorian porn. In The Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy (2009), Yves Engler writes that "Numerous studies have found that Canadians' self-appraisal of their country's foreign policy is more positive than any other country. A March 2007 poll found that 84 percent of Canadians believed that Canada played a positive role on the world stage while 10 percent felt it was negative. According to a survey released in June 2005 . . . 94 percent of Canadians believed their country was well-liked around the world, the highest percentage of 16 nations surveyed." Few Canadians want to know that in many parts of the world our country is reviled for the violence inflicted by our corporations with the full support of successive Canadian governments.

Engler documents the way that Canada's foreign policy has consistently helped Canadian corporations, our "imperial outposts," to savagely exploit the resources and peoples of developing countries. While Engler's book looks at Canada's role in nearly every region of the globe, in this article I'm going to focus solely on the information he provides about Canada's influence in Latin America and, in particular, Colombia.

In 2007, Canadian corporations invested $117.2 billion in Latin America and owned more than 1,300 mineral properties in the region. These corporations have worked closely with the Canadian government to support draconian regimes and steal Latin American resources. Colombia provides a useful case study of Canada's contempt for human rights and the environment in the developing world. Currently, Colombia has Latin America's worst human rights record. Engler writes that between 2002 and 2007, Colombia's civil war claimed the lives of 13,634 people. Most of the human rights abuses were committed by the government, either directly or through its support for paramilitary forces. Regardless of this record, in November 2008 the Harper government signed a free trade deal with Colombia, a step that even the United States has thus far refused to take. Most of Colombia's organized peasantry and labour movements opposed the agreement, which they correctly see as part of an ongoing effort to liberalize their country's economy.

For example, in August 2001 Colombia's Department of Mines and Energy accepted a proposal from the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and a University of Calgary think-tank called the Canadian Energy Resource Institute (CERI) that radically revised Colombia's mining code. The new code contains environmentally and socially ruinous provisions. Previously, corporations paid a 10 percent royalty rate on mineral exports above 3 million tonnes per year and a 5 percent rate for exports below 3 million tonnes. Now, they only pay 0.4 percent. Mining concessions have been lengthened from 25 to 30 years, with possible extensions for up to 90 years. Furthermore, mining companies that cut down timber can now sell that timber for 30 years without paying any taxes on it. These companies care little for the local population: the Canadian resource company Conquistador Mines has been credibly accused of encouraging the murder of local community leaders and widespread displacement of peasant miners and their families.

Mining isn't the only Canadian industry that's fouled its hands with Colombian blood. In 1995, CIDA provided a $4 million dollar grant to liberalize Colombia's telecommunications industry. The Canadian corporation Nortel Networks, supported by a $300 million dollar line of credit from Export Development Canada (EDC), played a crucial role in this liberalization, which cost 10,000 unionized telecommunications workers their jobs. Protests were brutally suppressed: over 70 trade unionists were murdered by paramilitaries for demonstrating against the privatization of Colombia's biggest telecommunications company, TELECOM. This alliance between Canadian corporations and the paramilitaries wasn't an isolated occurrence. With the help of $18.2 million from the EDC, The Canadian corporations BFC Construction and Agra-Moneco built the Urra dam, submerging 7,400 hectares and the homes of 411 indigenous families. 2,800 people were forcibly resettled, and up to 70,000 people were impacted by the development. When the community tried to stop the project, paramilitary and guerilla forces killed six people and disappeared ten others.

The same collusion with the Colombian military was displayed by the Calgary-based Enbridge and the Toronto-based TransCanada Pipelines, which operated the OCENSA pipeline in Colombia in the late 1990s. Until 1997, the OCENSA consortium worked with the British security firm Defense Systems Colombia (DSC). This firm used paid informants to gather information about the local populations affected by the pipeline, and then forwarded this information to the Colombian military. The firm was well aware that the military, alongside its paramilitary allies, regularly committed extra-judicial executions and disappearances. OCENSA and DSC also purchased military equipment for the Colombian army, an act of generosity emulated by the Canadian government, which has supplied Huey helicopters and intelligence gathering equipment to Colombia.

This same basic pattern occurs in every region penetrated by Canadian corporate interests. Of course, Canada isn't unique: every developed country plays the same sadistic game. We live in the "free world" in the same way that whites in the Confederacy lived in a "free world": our freedom is defined in contrast to the people we enslave. This is the obscene truth of global capitalism, a truth so devastating to our collective self-image that we go to absurd lengths to repress it. As in Victorian England, repression exacts a high cost. The more we repress the awareness of our "obscenity," the less prepared we are to take responsibility for it. By denying their desires, Victorians fed their depravity.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 05:54 PM

Thanks for revealing all this stuff, Sawzaw. More people need to know. Would you consider writing for the Toronto Star or the Globe & Mail? It's time Canadians were made more aware of the dark underbelly of Canada's history, and you are clearly the man to do it.

Again, I agree with the article. Big money talks...poor people die.

As the article says: "every developed country plays the same sadistic game. We live in the "free world" in the same way that whites in the Confederacy lived in a "free world": our freedom is defined in contrast to the people we enslave. This is the obscene truth of global capitalism, a truth so devastating to our collective self-image that we go to absurd lengths to repress it. As in Victorian England, repression exacts a high cost. The more we repress the awareness of our "obscenity," the less prepared we are to take responsibility for it. By denying their desires, Victorians fed their depravity."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 12:38 AM

So why single out America as the big bad wolf LH?

Who drew up that line that separates Afghanistan and Pakistan?

You know, the one that that the terrorists keep slithering over to attack and murder and then slither back. Maybe, just maybe it was drawn in the wrong place by some bureaucrat in a selfish Imperialist government that really didn't know what they were doing and didn't give a shit. Didn't consider the desires of the different ethnic groups involved.

Maybe that is a reason for Muslim extremists to hate foreign governments and not only "the imperial activities of the USA armed forces in foreign countries where they do not belong"

Point your finger of scorn elsewhere. There is Plenty of blame to go around.

Mr Moore spoke at a university in Michigan October 2003 and that quote is all that survives in writing.

Also he claims not to be a member of either political party. But.......

In case you are still enthralled with MM:

"You know in my town the small businesses that everyone wanted to protect? They were the people that supported all the right-wing groups. They were the Republicans in the town, they were in the Kiwanas, the Chamber of Commerce - people that kept the town all white. The small hardware salesman, the small clothing store salespersons, Jesse the Barber who signed his name three different times on three different petitions to recall me from the school board. Fuck all these small businesses - fuck 'em all! Bring in the chains. The small businesspeople are the rednecks that run the town and suppress the people. Fuck 'em all. That's how I feel."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 12:42 AM

In publicizing the movie, Moore has been up to his old dishonest tricks. Just before the screening at Cannes, he charged that Disney had told him "officially" the day before that it would not distribute Fahrenheit 9/11. Moore said this was an attempt to kill the film. He indicated a newspaper article had the correct explanation of Disney's decision: "According to today's New York Times, it might 'endanger' millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida because the film will 'anger' the governor of Florida, Jeb Bush."

Later, in a CNN interview, Moore admitted he'd learned nearly a year ago that Disney would not distribute the movie. By pretending he'd just gotten word of this, Moore was involved in a cheap publicity stunt. And it wasn't the New York Times that said, on its own, that Disney feared losing tax breaks. It was Moore's agent who was quoted as saying that in the Times. Disney denied its president Michael Eisner had told the agent of any such fear. "We informed both the agency that represented the film and all of our companies that we just didn't want to be in the middle of a politically oriented film during an election year," Eisner told ABC News.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 12:50 AM

Moore accused of telling tales over tequilas with Chavez

independent.co.uk 28 October 2009

He's crossed swords, over the years, with all the usual right-wing suspects, from car-makers to gun owners to Wall Street executives, health companies, and George W Bush. Now Michael Moore has picked a fight with a hero of the international left.

The documentary-maker has caused outrage among Hugo Chavez's supporters by using a late-night chat show to tell a humorous anecdote about meeting Venezuela's socialist President in a luxury hotel suite during the recent Venice Film Festival.

His two-minute yarn, told to ABC host Jimmy Kimmel earlier this month, seemed harmless enough. Moore alleged that he and his wife had been woken at 2am by a racket coming from Mr Chavez's room and ventured upstairs to ask him to quieten down.
Related articles

"A bottle and a half of tequila later," Moore claimed, he had helped the President to write the speech he recently delivered to the UN. "At the very least, the guy owes me a year's worth of free gasoline!" he joked.

But there was a problem with the story. A big one. The meeting that Moore so confidently described never happened. And tequila certainly wasn't consumed: Mr Chavez is teetotal.

The duo did meet in Venice, but only in the daytime. Moore, in town to launch his new film, Capitalism, sat with Mr Chavez, who was there to promote Oliver Stone's documentary South of the Border, for three hours. The US press were excluded from the meeting.

Supporters of Mr Chavez now suspect that Moore fabricated his anecdote to gloss over the chummy nature of that encounter. They have taken to the airwaves in a Monty Python-style PR offensive, to accuse Moore of betraying a supposed comrade.

"Michael Moore is a most unfortunate coward," declared blogger Eva Golinger. She dubbed him "the worst of yellow journalists, a liar and storyteller on the big screen", and said his yarn was "offensive and insulting" and a clear sign of his "hypocrisy and lack of ethics". Franz JT Lee, a Marxist academic and blogger, claimed that the film-maker's comments were "part of the United States' 'war of ideas'" against Venezuela, and said similar "propaganda" led to the rise of the Nazis in 1930s Germany.

They didn't just spark outrage on the left, though. Critics of Mr Chavez have called the level of invective against Moore – some of which was aired on Venezuelan state television – disproportionate. They believe his anecdote was intended to be a harmless, tongue-in-cheek joke. The socialist movement failed to grasp the nuances of his intended irony, they claim, because they lack a sense of humour.

Quite what the affair says about the integrity of Moore and his documentaries remains to be seen. The film-maker has declined to comment or apologise for misleading TV viewers, save for a brief message posted on his Twitter feed on Monday: "For the record, the President of Venezuela doesn't drink."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 12:30 PM

I think you're doing a great job exposing the misdeeds of Canadian big business, the British Empire, etc, Sawzaw, and I encourage you to keep doing so. Don't let the bastards get away with it scot free any longer!

And I'll take care of the USA's part in the rotten game, so you won't have to waste any of your energy there. Think of the time I'm saving you.

As for Michael Moore, I never thought he was a perfect human being without a single flaw... (grin) But I do agree with about 95% of what he says, and that's good enough for me. That's more than I agree with a great many people in this world, after all.

If it makes you happy to demonize him, however, why should I stand in your way? Enjoy yourself to the max. Maybe he'll hear about it, get deeply depressed about your low opinion of him, and jump off a tall building. You never know. ;-) Good luck, eh?

Think about getting a life, okay? I think about it every day and I swear to myself as I go to bed each night that I will not even OPEN Mudcat Cafe tomorrow...but then tomorrow comes and I weaken. When I finally quit responding to your posts here, you can assume that I have finally managed to get a life.

And that will prove that it really can be done! A beacon of hope to all those who have been sucked into the black hole of daily Internet communications...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 02:03 PM

And we can use some beacons because the Brits are shutting all of theirs off.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 05:42 PM

Hey CC. once they reach American soil it is a different story.

Why is that? Are you saying the US has no jurisdiction over the crime committed by Abdulmutallab?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 01:32 PM

"By every account Rahm Emanuel is a nasty little man with a bad temper and a chip on his shoulder. Your basic Chicago street thug. A little bully in the finest traditions of mobsters like Al Capone. It's no wonder that he fits in so well with his Chicago street thug boss.

You see, Rahm Emanuel, the petite ballerina, is Barack Obama's chief-of-staff. He's the guy that basically run's Obama's agenda. Now granted, even in good times, with a capable president, not an easy job. But most men who have had this job have been able to perform it with a sense of dignity, and even style. But not old Rahm "dead fish" Emanuel.

Emanuel got this nickname, by the way, because he actually mailed a dead fish a pollster who didn't give him the results he wanted. Hmm, didn't the white House just attack pollster Scott Rasmussen? I've got a revolutionary idea for you Rahm: How about instead of attacking the messenger, you figure out a way for Obama not to suck at his job!

To give you a little taste of what Rahm is about Foreign Policy ran a story a while back on "The five most infamous Rahm Emanuel moments."

Today, former Clinton advisor and Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel accepted Barack Obama's offer to be chief of staff for the incoming president.

The pick of Emanuel is our first glimpse into the future Obama White House, and it has already thrown apprehensive Democrats and jaded Republicans alike into a tizzy.

Perhaps for good reason. With the nickname "Rahmbo" and a disposition likened to that of a mobster, Emanuel, though widely respected for his moxy and get-it-done record, isn't exactly Mr. Nice Guy. A dynamic mix of talent and brawn — he was offered a scholarship to the Joffrey Ballet company and volunteered for the Israeli Army during the Gulf War — Emanuel's the real-deal pitbull Democrat (lipstick not included).

What follows is a list of the five most infamous Rahmbo tales. It's the stuff legends are made of:

1. Mailing a Dead Fish

Emanuel is known for his panache for treating donors right. He sends them cheesecakes from Eli's, the famous Chicago bakery. But the one pollster who notoriously ticked off Rahmbo received a 2 1/2 foot decomposing fish in the mail — ripe, stinky, and to the point.

2. Fundraising the Bugsy Siegel Way

His foray into fundraising started in Chicago while campaigning for Mayor Richard Daley's reelection, when Emanuel raised a record number of donations. His sales pitch was simple enough: He'd tell contributors he found their offers so low it was embarrassing and then hang up on them. Mortified, the donors were shamed into calling back and giving more.

3. Nearly Losing His Finger

When he was a senior in high school, he sliced his finger while working at Arby's. But instead of seeking medical attention, he decided to celebrate prom night by swimming in Lake Michigan. The bone and blood infection that resulted was so severe it practically killed him. Scrappy and determined, even at death's door with a fever of 106 degrees, he pulled through, only losing part of his finger.

4. Threatening Tony Blair

Never a mincer of words, Emanuel didn't couch his meaning when he offered Tony Blair counsel just before the then British prime minister appeared with President Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal: "This is important. Don't f@ck it up."

5. Knifing the Dinner Table

The most infamous Rahmbo story of them all is the one that begins with the dinner the night after Bill Clinton was elected in 1992. Among those present at the dinner table was ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos, who watched while an overwrought and clearly exhausted Emanuel began ranting at a long list of Clinton "enemies." As he shouted each name, he stabbed the table with his steak knife: "Nat Landow! Dead! Cliff Jackson! Dead!" Apparently, others joined in.

The bottom line: If Emanuel's appointment is a signal of anything, it is that the genteel, arugula-eating president-elect is coming to play hardball.

This guy reads like a true psychopath. (Of course, so do most of Obama's people) Not sure which is more insane though, the dead fish story or the stabbing the table story.

By the way, psychopathic behavior runs in the family, as Rahm's brother, Ezekiel is none other than the infamous "Dr Death" Obama's "health care advisor" who literally wrote the book on setting up the "death panels" that Sarah Palin made famous last summer. A real sick man. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 04:47 PM

As usual, beardedbruce neglected to provide the source for his copy/paste above. He must not want anyone to see where he gets his copy/pastes from since he seldom provides the source. Here is the source for this latest copy/paste...

US for Palin

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 06:23 PM

How fair and unbiased.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 06:59 PM

Man, that essay was a real work of prestidigitation!! I suggest she should clear up words before she uses them. Psychopathic? This is delusory horse-pucky, BB, and I am sure you know it, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 08:04 PM

Amos,

Compared to your past posts about members of the Bush administration, it was as soft as a baby's...

But then, I can't expect YOU to have any desire to be treated the way you have treated others.

The view I posted was as "popular" as the views Amos had posted- but I have to assume that liberals have no desire for fairness, reason, or truth. At least fromn the comments posted here.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 02:16 AM

"If it makes you happy to demonize him, however, why should I stand in your way"

How have I demonized him LH? I merely paste some things that he said.

If that makes him look like an asshole and a fabricating SOB to you, that is your determination. It is up to you to make those decisions.

If it makes you happy to idolize him, go ahead. Even a poor Canadian is entitled to some happiness.

I haven't even started on his propaganda about the Cuban health care system yet.

I wonder where he gets his health care? Cuba, England, Canada or France?

I wonder if he has health insurance. I wonder where he invests the millions he makes from his movies and books. After all he did say "I'm a millionaire, I'm a multi-millionaire. I'm filthy rich."

I wonder if he owns stock in Halliburton or drug or healthcare companies?

Does he fly in private jets and ride in CO2 belching limousines.

I wonder if he has body guards that carry guns?

I wonder if he is just another wall street fatcat Capitalist pig?

....What of Disney? After repaying itself $11 million for acquisition costs, it booked a $46 million net profit, which Eisner split between two subsidiaries, the Disney Foundation and Miramax. While it was far less than Disney made on children's fare such as Finding Nemo, it was not a bad outcome. The Weinstein brothers also made a multimillion-dollar profit. They had a deal with Disney that contractually entitled them to a bonus of between 30 percent and 40 percent of the net profits on any film that they produced—in this case, that came out to about $8 million per brother. (The Weinsteins are now in the process of leaving Miramax.) But Michael Moore had perhaps the happiest ending of all. Not only had he made $21 million, he already had a sequel in preproduction—Fahrenheit 9/11 1/2

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 10:07 AM

Note this is posted on Yahoo- you want to name a more "popular" site???


http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/1:2694fc39135edbc29e6f46ee3c1a07d5:af7f9fb6a132ffe

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 10:23 AM

TIME opines:

""I am not an ideologue," the President said to the House Republicans, cocooned in their annual policy caucus in Baltimore - and the ideologues among them laughed. The President was explaining, in the midst of an unprecedented, televised "Question Time" session, that he was open to any good ideas they might have. "It doesn't make sense," he continued, that if they told him," 'You could do this cheaper and get increased results,' that I wouldn't say, 'Great.'" But the logic of this seemed to slip past the assembled legislators - and the "I am not an ideologue" bite became a derisive staple on Fox News. And therein lies the crisis of democracy that our country faces: a moderate-liberal President, willing to make judicious compromises, confronted by a Republican Party paralyzed by cynicism and hypocrisy, undergirded by inchoate ideological fervor.
(Italics added)
The President's hour in the lion's den was part of an aggressive week of politics - his first in many moons - that began with his well-received State of the Union address and proceeded through town meetings in Florida and New Hampshire. It was marked by a new willingness to engage the opposition party with cutting humor and offers of compromise. In the State of the Union, he had offered an olive branch to the Republicans - a new commitment to budget balancing (including a bipartisan commission to reduce the deficit that Republicans had been clamoring for), a new emphasis on free trade, a total reversal of his party's traditional positions on nuclear power and offshore drilling. In Baltimore, Obama reminded the Republicans that his $787 billion stimulus package had comprised elements they'd normally support - a $288 billion middle-class tax cut, $275 billion to bail out financially strapped states and an extensive infrastructure plan. "A lot of you," he noted, dryly, "have gone to appear at ribbon cuttings for the same projects you voted against." (See the 10 greatest speeches of all time.)

The Republican response to this barrage was, well, incoherent. But in most cases the need to demonize Obama trumped the party's ideological beliefs. The budget commission - to take one flagrant example - was blocked by a group of Republican Senators who had supported or sponsored it. These included the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, and the formerly virtuous John McCain, a sore loser who has reversed his position on practically everything lately. The Senate Republicans then proceeded to vote unanimously against a provision, attached to a necessary increase in the debt limit, that would force Congress to pay for every new initiative it enacts. This "paygo" provision was the law of the land when Bill Clinton was building budget surpluses (in fairness, he inherited it from the equally responsible George H.W. Bush) - and was abandoned when George W. Bush started building the alpine deficits that plague us today. The hypocrisy of all this was staggering, even for politicians. "

My. Two sides to the story. Hmmmmm.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 10:33 AM

First-time jobless claims rise unexpectedly
         
Christopher S. Rugaber, Ap Economics Writer – 48 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The number of newly laid-off workers filing initial claims for jobless benefits rose unexpectedly last week, evidence that layoffs are continuing and jobs remain scarce.

The rise is the fourth in the past five weeks. Most economists hoped that claims would resume a downward trend that was evident in the fall and early winter.

The Labor Department said Thursday that new claims for unemployment insurance rose by 8,000 to a seasonally adjusted 480,000. Wall Street economists had expected a drop to 460,000, according to Thomson Reuters.

The four-week average, which smooths fluctuations, rose for the third straight week to 468,750.

The figure is the highest in the past two months. Initial claims dropped sharply in late December, raising hopes among economists that layoffs were nearing an end and the economy would soon start generating net gains in jobs.

The figures come a day before the Labor Department is scheduled to report the January employment figures, which are expected to show a tiny gain in jobs. The unemployment rate is forecast to rise to 10.1 percent.

The number of people continuing to claim benefits was unchanged at 4.6 million. That data lags initial claims by a week.

But the so-called continuing claims do not include millions of people who have used up the regular 26 weeks of benefits typically provided by states, and are receiving extended benefits for up to 73 additional weeks, paid for by the federal government.

More than 5.8 million people were receiving extended benefits in the week ended Jan. 16, the latest data available, up from about 5.6 million the previous week. The extended benefit data isn't seasonally adjusted and is volatile from week to week.

Still, the increasing number of people claiming extended unemployment insurance indicates hiring hasn't picked up. That leaves people out of work for longer and longer periods of time.

Some employers are continuing to cut jobs. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said Wednesday that it will eliminate 300 administrative jobs at its headquarters. The company has cut almost 14,000 jobs in the past 13 months, including 11,200 positions at its Sam's Club stores.

Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc., a unit of Japan's Sony Corp., said Tuesday it is laying off 450 people and eliminating 100 open positions.

Among the states, Oregon reported the largest increase in claims, with 4,336. Puerto Rico and Hawaii also reported increases. The state data lags initial claims by one week.

California reported the largest drop in claims, a decline of 22,674. Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia and Missouri also reported decreases.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100204/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_jobless_claims

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 10:37 AM

House faces tough vote on $1.9 trillion more debt
         

Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writer – 52 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Facing a politically excruciating vote, House Democratic leaders are counting on new budget deficit curbs to help smooth the way for a bill allowing the government to go $1.9 trillion deeper into debt over the next year — or about $6,000 more for every U.S. resident.

The debt measure set for a House vote Thursday would raise the cap on federal borrowing to $14.3 trillion. That's enough to keep Congress from having to vote again before the November elections on an issue that is feeding a sense among voters that the government is spending too much and putting future generations under a mountain of debt to do it.

Already, the accumulated debt amounts to $40,000 per person. And the debt is increasingly held by foreign nations such as China.

Passage of the bill would send it to President Barack Obama, who will sign it to avoid a first-ever, market-rattling default on U.S. obligations. Democrats barely passed it through the Senate last week over a unanimous "no" vote from GOP members present.

To ease its passage, Democrats attached tougher budget rules designed to curb a spiraling upward annual deficit — projected by Obama to hit a record $1.56 trillion for the budget year ending Sept. 30. The new rules would require future spending increases or tax cuts to be paid for with either cuts to other programs or equivalent tax increases.

If the rules are broken, the White House budget office would force automatic cuts to programs like Medicare, farm subsidies and veterans' pensions. Current rules lack such teeth and have commonly been waived over the past few years at a cost of almost $1 trillion.

Skeptics say lawmakers also will find ways around the new rules fairly easily. Congress, for example, can declare some spending an "emergency" — a likely scenario for votes later this month to extend jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed.

And, indeed, there already are exceptions to the new rules, such as for extending former President George W. Bush's middle-class tax cuts past their expiration a year from now. That would add $1.4 trillion to the federal debt over the next decade.

In agreement with Obama's budget earlier this week, there is no exception for taxpayers in the two highest tax brackets whose marginal rates are due to rise by 3 percent or 4.6 percent to a pre-Bush maximum 39.6 percent next January.

But some new White House initiatives, such as doubling the child care tax credit for families earning less than $85,000, also would have to live within the rules, as would continuing subsidies for laid-off workers to buy health insurance — unless lawmakers make another exception.

The so-called pay-as-you-go rules have been a mantra with conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats in the House, who insisted they wouldn't vote to raise the debt ceiling without them.

"We don't have a choice," said Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn. "We are on an unsustainable march toward a fiscal Armageddon."

Obama's budget projects the government's debt doubling to $26 trillion over the next decade. It offers few solutions for seriously closing the gap other than promising to appoint a bipartisan commission to come up with a plan to address the problem.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100204/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_debt_limit

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 10:53 AM

"Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 04:35 PM

... and I will express MY hopes that Obama will be held to the same standards that Bush was."






Still waiting...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 03:47 PM

HEre are my standards:

A willingness to communicate honestly.

A real interest in the world and a desire to know more about it.

Demonstrated intelligence in solving problems, including the ability to recognize what the problems are and which ones are more important than others.

An ability to communicate clearly and a willingess to use it.

A decent respect for the rule of law.

A decent respect for the principles of basic humanity and a reluctance to do harm to others.

A compassion for and respect for citizens of any social level.

I could name a few others but you get the idea. By all these standards Bush was a miserable failure. Obama passes some of them with higher grades than others, but he passes all of them.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 04:09 PM

" Obama passes some of them with higher grades than others, but he passes all of them.
"

I have to disagree with you on this. He has several failing grades that I see.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 04:41 PM

You may disagree with his individual choices, BB. But on almost all those criteria Bush was downright subhuman. It is easy to forget how insane things seemed under his administration, and how at risk the Constitution became, and how bruised civil rights and individual freedoms got.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 05:23 PM

The DJIA dropped 268.37 today to 10,002.18

The Labor Department said today that new claims for unemployment insurance rose by 8,000 to a seasonally adjusted 480,000.

A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes than it is spending on benefits.

With no help in sight, more homeowners walk away.

President Obama Unveils 3.8 Trillion Dollar Budget, 1.4 trillion in new taxes over the next decade and increases the deficit to a record 1.6 trillion dollars.

How's your 401K doing Amos?

Do you feel a pit in your stomach?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 08:48 AM

"You may disagree with his individual choices, BB."


THIS is the first time that you have admitted this!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 09:44 AM

The great peasant revolt of 2010

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, February 5, 2010

"I am not an ideologue," protested President Obama at a gathering with Republican House members last week. Perhaps, but he does have a tenacious commitment to a set of political convictions.

Compare his 2010 State of the Union to his first address to Congress a year earlier. The consistency is remarkable. In 2009, after passing a $787 billion (now $862 billion) stimulus package, the largest spending bill in galactic history, he unveiled a manifesto for fundamentally restructuring the commanding heights of American society -- health care, education and energy.

A year later, after stunning Democratic setbacks in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts, Obama gave a stay-the-course State of the Union address (a) pledging not to walk away from health-care reform, (b) seeking to turn college education increasingly into a federal entitlement, and (c) asking again for cap-and-trade energy legislation. Plus, of course, another stimulus package, this time renamed a "jobs bill."

This being a democracy, don't the Democrats see that clinging to this agenda will march them over a cliff? Don't they understand Massachusetts?

Well, they understand it through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly.

Liberal expressions of disdain for the intelligence and emotional maturity of the electorate have been, post-Massachusetts, remarkably unguarded. New York Times columnist Charles Blow chided Obama for not understanding the necessity of speaking "in the plain words of plain folks," because the people are "suspicious of complexity." Counseled Blow: "The next time he gives a speech, someone should tap him on the ankle and say, 'Mr. President, we're down here.' "


A Time magazine blogger was even more blunt about the ankle-dwelling mob, explaining that we are "a nation of dodos" that is "too dumb to thrive."

Obama joined the parade in the State of the Union address when, with supercilious modesty, he chided himself "for not explaining it [health care] more clearly to the American people." The subject, he noted, was "complex." The subject, it might also be noted, was one to which the master of complexity had devoted 29 speeches. Perhaps he did not speak slowly enough.

Then there are the emotional deficiencies of the masses. Nearly every Democratic apologist lamented the people's anger and anxiety, a free-floating agitation that prevented them from appreciating the beneficence of the social agenda the Democrats are so determined to foist upon them.

That brings us to Part 2 of the liberal conceit: Liberals act in the public interest, while conservatives think only of power, elections, self-aggrandizement and self-interest.

It is an old liberal theme that conservative ideas, being red in tooth and claw, cannot possibly emerge from any notion of the public good. A 2002 New York Times obituary for philosopher Robert Nozick explained that the strongly libertarian implications of Nozick's masterwork, "Anarchy, State, and Utopia," "proved comforting to the right, which was grateful for what it embraced as philosophical justification." The right, you see, is grateful when a bright intellectual can graft some philosophical rationalization onto its thoroughly base and self-regarding politics.

This belief in the moral hollowness of conservatism animates the current liberal mantra that Republican opposition to Obama's social democratic agenda -- which couldn't get through even a Democratic Congress and powered major Democratic losses in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts -- is nothing but blind and cynical obstructionism.

By contrast, Democratic opposition to George W. Bush -- from Iraq to Social Security reform -- constituted dissent. And dissent, we were told at the time, including by candidate Obama, is "one of the truest expressions of patriotism."

No more. Today, dissent from the governing orthodoxy is nihilistic malice. "They made a decision," explained David Axelrod, "they were going to sit it out and hope that we failed, that the country failed" -- a perfect expression of liberals' conviction that their aspirations are necessarily the country's, that their idea of the public good is the public's, that their failure is therefore the nation's.

Then comes Massachusetts, an election Obama himself helped nationalize, to shatter this most self-congratulatory of illusions.

For liberals, the observation that "the peasants are revolting" is a pun. For conservatives, it is cause for uncharacteristic optimism. No matter how far the ideological pendulum swings in the short term, in the end the bedrock common sense of the American people will prevail.

The ankle-dwelling populace pushes back. It recenters. It renormalizes. Even in Massachusetts.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 09:53 AM

Bruce, that's horsepucky. I have never said you had to agree with anything. I simply criticized the things you chose to agree with--war mongering, tycoon-pandering, Unary Executive fascism, and the adulteration of the Constitution.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 09:56 AM

"war mongering, tycoon-pandering, Unary Executive fascism, and the adulteration of the Constitution.
"

But I have NEVER supported Obama's actions towards those goals.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 09:59 AM

Nor have I supported Obama's lies to the American people, his administration's lure to act in a timely fashion in the case of a natural disaster (flu), or his continued payoff of political supporters such as unions against the best interests of the citizens of the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 10:05 AM

OBama made no actions toward those goals; they were the pennants of the BUsh administration, chum. How soon we forget.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 10:11 AM

No.


Obama has done ALL those things since he came into office- yet YOU refuse to even look at his actions with anything other than blind approval.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 10:17 AM

Let's talk for a moment about budget reality. Contrary to what you often hear, the large deficit the federal government is running right now isn't the result of runaway spending growth. Instead, well more than half of the deficit was caused by the ongoing economic crisis, which has led to a plunge in tax receipts, required federal bailouts of financial institutions, and been met — appropriately — with temporary measures to stimulate growth and support employment.

The point is that running big deficits in the face of the worst economic slump since the 1930s is actually the right thing to do. If anything, deficits should be bigger than they are because the government should be doing more than it is to create jobs.

True, there is a longer-term budget problem. Even a full economic recovery wouldn't balance the budget, and it probably wouldn't even reduce the deficit to a permanently sustainable level. So once the economic crisis is past, the U.S. government will have to increase its revenue and control its costs. And in the long run there's no way to make the budget math work unless something is done about health care costs.

But there's no reason to panic about budget prospects for the next few years, or even for the next decade. Consider, for example, what the latest budget proposal from the Obama administration says about interest payments on federal debt; according to the projections, a decade from now they'll have risen to 3.5 percent of G.D.P. How scary is that? It's about the same as interest costs under the first President Bush.

Why, then, all the hysteria? The answer is politics.

The main difference between last summer, when we were mostly (and appropriately) taking deficits in stride, and the current sense of panic is that deficit fear-mongering has become a key part of Republican political strategy, doing double duty: it damages President Obama's image even as it cripples his policy agenda. And if the hypocrisy is breathtaking — politicians who voted for budget-busting tax cuts posing as apostles of fiscal rectitude, politicians demonizing attempts to rein in Medicare costs one day (death panels!), then denouncing excessive government spending the next — well, what else is new?

The trouble, however, is that it's apparently hard for many people to tell the difference between cynical posturing and serious economic argument. And that is having tragic consequences.

For the fact is that thanks to deficit hysteria, Washington now has its priorities all wrong: all the talk is about how to shave a few billion dollars off government spending, while there's hardly any willingness to tackle mass unemployment. Policy is headed in the wrong direction — and millions of Americans will pay the price. "

---

Paul Krugman's comments above underscore the one thing that has been a common thread over the last ten years: their use of fear as a manipulative tool, mostly by Republicans. Unlike Fox and other amplifiers of the Great Fear Wave, Obama tends to manage things in a less panicked mode. But even his thoughtful approach and his commitment to civil dialogue can only go so far when hysteria is being promulgated. The reason for supporting Obama is that he is MORE rational, not that he is divinely rational.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 11:14 AM

"more than half of the deficit was caused by the ongoing economic crisis"

Translation: The deficit has gone from $10,627,961,295,930.60 to $12,354,041,054,846.90 since Obama took office.

Up $1,726,079,758,916.30 and now he wants it to run it up another $1.6 trillion. see

To be honest, it went up by $1,417,373,851,868.13 in 2008 but a lot of that was TARP which was loans that were to be returned to the treasury when paid back.

Now where are the paybacks going? They are not going back to the treasury.

The TARP repayments are being spent on other pet projects by the Obama administration so that all of that can be blamed on the wicked bad BBBBBBUUUUUSSSSSHHHHH administration.

Obama took office but he did not take the responsibility of the office. He just whines like a little boy and blames someone else when his programs don't work.

Community organizing is not working for him.

He should go to these people he condemns for making too much money and ask them how to get the unemployment rate down instead of trying to work against them. Is he down on Soros or other fat cat elitists for making too much money?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 02:18 PM

Sawz:

Your arms are probably tired from waving them around so much. Why not give it a rest. Your statements are bigoted. You language is purely polemical and political. Your intent is not to communicate clearly, but to transmit or vent your anger and hatred and the fears which underlie them.

These are hardly suitable styles or messages for a community based on the love of aesthetics and the best attributes of the human spirit as manifested in folk music.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 02:54 PM

Why are liberals so condescending?

By Gerard Alexander
Sunday, February 7, 2010

Every political community includes some members who insist that their side has all the answers and that their adversaries are idiots. But American liberals, to a degree far surpassing conservatives, appear committed to the proposition that their views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while conservative positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration. Indeed, all the appeals to bipartisanship notwithstanding, President Obama and other leading liberal voices have joined in a chorus of intellectual condescension.

It's an odd time for liberals to feel smug. But even with Democratic fortunes on the wane, leading liberals insist that they have almost nothing to learn from conservatives. Many Democrats describe their troubles simply as a PR challenge, a combination of conservative misinformation -- as when Obama charges that critics of health-care reform are peddling fake fears of a "Bolshevik plot" -- and the country's failure to grasp great liberal accomplishments. "We were so busy just getting stuff done . . . that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are," the president told ABC's George Stephanopoulos in a recent interview. The benighted public is either uncomprehending or deliberately misinformed (by conservatives).

This condescension is part of a long liberal tradition that for generations has impoverished American debates over the economy, social issues and the functions of government -- and threatens to do so again today, when dialogue would be more valuable than ever.

Liberals have dismissed conservative thinking for decades, a tendency encapsulated by Lionel Trilling's 1950 remark that conservatives do not "express themselves in ideas but only in action or in irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas." During the 1950s and '60s, liberals trivialized the nascent conservative movement. Prominent studies and journalistic accounts of right-wing politics at the time stressed paranoia, intolerance and insecurity, rendering conservative thought more a psychiatric disorder than a rival. In 1962, Richard Hofstadter referred to "the Manichaean style of thought, the apocalyptic tendencies, the love of mystification, the intolerance of compromise that are observable in the right-wing mind."

This sense of liberal intellectual superiority dropped off during the economic woes of the 1970s and the Reagan boom of the 1980s. (Jimmy Carter's presidency, buffeted by economic and national security challenges, generated perhaps the clearest episode of liberal self-doubt.) But these days, liberal confidence and its companion disdain for conservative thinking are back with a vengeance, finding energetic expression in politicians' speeches, top-selling books, historical works and the blogosphere. This attitude comes in the form of four major narratives about who conservatives are and how they think and function.

The first is the "vast right-wing conspiracy," a narrative made famous by Hillary Rodham Clinton but hardly limited to her. This vision maintains that conservatives win elections and policy debates not because they triumph in the open battle of ideas but because they deploy brilliant and sinister campaign tactics. A dense network of professional political strategists such as Karl Rove, think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and industry groups allegedly manipulate information and mislead the public. Democratic strategist Rob Stein crafted a celebrated PowerPoint presentation during George W. Bush's presidency that traced conservative success to such organizational factors.

This liberal vision emphasizes the dissemination of ideologically driven views from sympathetic media such as the Fox News Channel. For example, Chris Mooney's book "The Republican War on Science" argues that policy debates in the scientific arena are distorted by conservatives who disregard evidence and reflect the biases of industry-backed Republican politicians or of evangelicals aimlessly shielding the world from modernity. In this interpretation, conservative arguments are invariably false and deployed only cynically. Evidence of the costs of cap-and-trade carbon rationing is waved away as corporate propaganda; arguments against health-care reform are written off as hype orchestrated by insurance companies.

This worldview was on display in the popular liberal reaction to the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Rather than engage in a discussion about the complexities of free speech in politics, liberals have largely argued that the decision will "open the floodgates for special interests" to influence American elections, as the president warned in his State of the Union address. In other words, it was all part of the conspiracy to support conservative candidates for their nefarious, self-serving ends.

It follows that the thinkers, politicians and citizens who advance conservative ideas must be dupes, quacks or hired guns selling stories they know to be a sham. In this spirit, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman regularly dismisses conservative arguments not simply as incorrect, but as lies. Writing last summer, Krugman pondered the duplicity he found evident in 35 years' worth of Wall Street Journal editorial writers. "What do these people really believe? I mean, they're not stupid -- life would be a lot easier if they were. So they know they're not telling the truth. But they obviously believe that their dishonesty serves a higher truth. . . . The question is, what is that higher truth? What do these people really believe in?"

In Krugman's condescending world, there is no need to take seriously the arguments of "these people" -- only to plumb the depths of their errors and ponder their hidden motivations.

But, if conservative leaders are crass manipulators, then the rank-and-file Americans who support them must be manipulated at best, or stupid at worst. This is the second variety of liberal condescension, exemplified in Thomas Frank's best-selling 2004 book, "What's the Matter With Kansas?" Frank argued that working-class voters were so distracted by issues such as abortion that they were induced into voting against their own economic interests. Then-Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, later chairman of the Democratic National Committee, echoed that theme in his 2004 presidential run, when he said Republicans had succeeded in getting Southern whites to focus on "guns, God and gays" instead of economic redistribution.

the whole article

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 02:58 PM

Amos,


YOU state:"Your arms are probably tired from waving them around so much. Why not give it a rest. Your statements are bigoted. You language is purely polemical and political. Your intent is not to communicate clearly, but to transmit or vent your anger and hatred and the fears which underlie them.

These are hardly suitable styles or messages for a community based on the love of aesthetics and the best attributes of the human spirit as manifested in folk music."




Have you EVER bothered to read what YOU have posted in ther anti-bush threads? I fail to see any part of your condemnation that does not apply to your own postings. That is why I keep stating you have a double standard.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 03:41 PM

No, Bruce; it is the same standard, being applied to too extremely different cases, one failing 90% of the standard and the other passing 90% of the standard.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 04:20 PM

Don't ya' just love it, Amos???

Sawz becomes a defict hawk!!! I mean, what a joke... Their guy was handed over a surplus and turned it into the largest deficit in history... Not only that, his guy left deficit time-bombs all over the joint ready to explode on the next presdient...

Now, as for "liberals (whatever that means) being "condescending"... What a joke, part B!!!

The conservative (which they aren't) have for years put forth this idea that "liberals" are this elitist bunch of academics... Daddy Bush was the master at this and taught Junior op well... But this is their game... The entire purpose is to divide people and to win votes from folks who are not educated... And it has worked for a long, long time...

The problem with this "us v. liberals" PR game is that it is like the horses in "Animal Farm" that were worked until they dropped in the fields.... The "us v. liberals" is like in the nursing home these days because the "liberals" have figured out that, thanks to Obama, that it's "Your pocketbooks, dummy" and are just now starting to speak in a language that the "consertvatives" ionce thought was their territory... And the problem for the "conservatives" is that the "liberals" using "new 'n improved" talking points that are simple are the new horses...

Yeah, it took the "liberals" long enough but I believe they have turned the corner and are now fully appreciative of just how friggin' dumbed-down alot of folks are... Yeah, it will take for more to get on board but Obama gave them a primer on it just yesterday... So, ya'll... Look for the "liberals" to be using more "ya'lls" in the near future...

Just my observation... Yeah, I know it's farfeteched for intellegent folks to talk plain language but, hey, dumb is in...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 04:21 PM

"one failing 90% of the standard and the other passing 90% of the standard.
"

Actually, BOTH failed 90% of the time, by any objective standard ( ie, if Bush failed, then when Obama did the same thing HE failed as well.)




But it is Obama failing NOW, at least 90%.

THAT is what you are blindly ignoring.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 04:48 PM

I don't think it is something I am blindly ignoring, but something you are blindly projecting and rooting for; or if not you, personally, then a lot of the hard-right clan you have elected to align yourself with. Fortunately Obama has enough game to persist through the fart-storms thrown about by the right-end boo-leaders.

Also, if you look back, you will find that at the beginning of Bush's first term I gave him the benefit of the doubt until he allowed himself to be pawned by the war-mongers.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 11:25 AM

Amos:

"Your statements are bigoted. You language is purely polemical and political." when Bush bashing.

But when someone dares question the effectiveness of your hero, you suddenly swing into the let's just all get along "based on the love of aesthetics and the best attributes of the human spirit" mode.

What you can do besides attack others personally is you can state the concrete things that Obama has actually done to improve things instead of making excuses for him.

Is he any less a war monger that the previous "root of all evil".

Just what the hell has he done different than what was being done at the end of GWB's term besides sending in more troops and escalating the war in Afghanistan? That was Obama's "war of necessity" remember?

Bobert is still campaigning against "Their guy" because he can't find anything to root about for "his guy".

At least this is more logical that the Amos modus operandi of trying to prop up a lame duck that has bombed out already.

Bobert was big deficit hawk until Obama started doing the same at a much accerated pace.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 11:43 AM

"Fortunately Obama has enough game to persist through the fart-storms thrown about by the right-end boo-leaders."

Now will somebody explain to me how this is "suitable styles or messages for a community based on the love of aesthetics and the best attributes of the human spirit as manifested in folk music."

Exactly how does this statement exemplify anything positive and concrete that Obama has done?

I think it is bigoted, purely polemical and political.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 01:58 PM

Examples of Amos's non bigoted, non polemical, non political efforts to communicate clearly and not transmit or vent his anger and hatred and the fears which underlie them, totally suitable styles or messages for a community based on the love of aesthetics and the best attributes of the human spirit as manifested in folk music:

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos - PM
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 03:25 PM

If your Bushwhacker wasn't such a moron, it would be alot harder than you imagine.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos - PM
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 09:12 PM

The Administration continues to double back on itself like a snake biting its own tongue. In "The Bait-and-Switch White House" the Times shines some light on the endless, shuffle-footed tap dancing mealymouthed Janus-faced snake-bellied double-tonguing hypocrisy that seems to be endemic in the W universe. Well, that may be unfair. Maybe its just Cheney's part. With Rove and Rumsfield gone, there's hardly any other explanation left!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos - PM
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 12:31 PM

I spoke to a financial expert yesterday who remarked that the DAILY burden of servicing the United States' debt was FIVE BILLION dollars a day; and that this figure was up from two billion/day at the start of the first Bush administration.

I thought Amos said something about Bush inheriting a surplus.

Deficit spending is -- in my _opinion_ -- ill-considered as a first choice policy. It over-extends the local economy and makes it dependent on the whims of factors in other nations, such as China.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 02:10 PM

Liebenscheiss examines the rationality of the Republican brain.


Sawz, you are a piece o' work. No context, all Manichee.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 05:08 PM

You are no work at all Amos. It is so easy to expose your double standard. And you told me to forget the context. Now you use it as grounds for dismissal.

As usual Amos can't find anything concrete that Obama has done. He can only bloviate and make ad hominem attacks like this: Liebenscheiss examines the rationality of the Republican brain.

If you don't have any facts just use ad hominem attacks.

Here is the wisdom of Amos at work:

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos - PM
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 10:01 AM

    "President [George W.] Bush will be remembered as the most fiscally irresponsible president in our nation's history." --Sen. Kent Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee,

That man really knows his shit. Right Amos?.

Sen. Kent Conrad , the Democratic chairman of the Senate Budget Committee said he is a skeptic of President Barack Obama's long-term budget plan.

Sen. Kent Conrad (N.D.) told White House officials Tuesday that the nation can't accept the budget's projected deficits at the end of this decade, which approach $1 trillion.

"We are on an unsustainable course by any measure," Conrad said during his committee's first hearing on the administration's 2011 budget request.

The budget plan released Monday forecasts a record $1.6 trillion deficit in fiscal 2010 but then sees the red ink falling to $1.3 trillion in fiscal 2011.

But Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said the White House's budget doesn't tackle the deficit in later years.

"I don't see the focus on bringing down that long-term debt," said Conrad, who chairs the Senate Budget Committee.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 05:41 PM

Amos:

I thought you might need another illustration of your patented double standard that you use to support your "logic":

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos - PM
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 10:08 AM

Sigh.

No, I have no animosity. You tried to draw a parallel between WW II and the Iraq war. The illogic of such a parallel is so obvious I was moved to cry out momentarily, because such un-reason is painful.

---

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos - PM
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 05:46 PM

An interesting comparison between the invasion of Sicily by the Athenians (415 BC) and the invasion of Iraq by the US.

Now all I want you to do Amos is to explain to me why it so obviously illogical and causes causes you pain when I compare two American wars 60 years apart but it is perfectly logical for you to compare two wars 3595 years apart and from two different civilizations 5,873 miles apart?

I hope you don't pull out that worn, dogeared context card that you try to play when you are cornered.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 06:06 PM

Ah, Sawz, you try so hard to do so little.

There are some similarities between the Iraq unilateral invasion, and the Athenian unilateral invasion, and the piece to which I was drawing attention discussed them.

Both were very different from the Second World War at least from the US point of view. It is not comparing wars that is illogical. It is drawing parallels on spurious ground, as you had earlier tried to do.

Make sense, boy.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 06:37 PM

Amos: you need to mount a better defense Dad. Remember you said "forget the context"

First of all, where was any Iraq unilateral invasion?

"The 2003 invasion of Iraq, from March 20 to May 1, 2003 was led by the United States, alongside the United Kingdom and smaller contingents from Australia, Denmark and Poland. Four countries participated with troops during the initial invasion phase, which lasted from March 20 to May 1. These were the United States (248,000), United Kingdom (45,000), Australia (2,000), and Poland (194). 36 other countries were involved in its aftermath. The invasion marked the beginning of the current Iraq War."

You are trying to rewrite history in a grasping, desperate defense of your blatant double standard.

Still waiting for those concrete positive things that Obama has done instead of your ad hominem attacks and talking about shit that happened 5000 years ago and dismissing events that happened 60 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 06:43 PM

SAWZ,

WAKE UP, BOY.

The invasion of Iraq was initiated on the command of eorge Bush, directing the US forces to start the invasion.

It was unilateral not because Bush didn't have England on his side, but because Iraq had not committed acts of war or declared war. Clear your definitions up. Oh, and did you get sorted out on the basic logic of comparing things in ways in which they are similar and different? That was pretty flimsy thinking, son.

Your persistence in antagonism despite your own unreason is teee-jous. You have a cut and dried perspective, which was anchored long ago in an adulation of W and all he stood for. I have a different package of perceptions and values. Since it is clear there is no intend to have a discussion, why not just drop your slathering?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 09:05 PM

The government's report on the job market in January offered fresh hope that the economy is at last pulling out of its worst downturn since the Great Depression.

For the estimated 8.4 million people who lost their jobs to the recession, however, the data offered little cause for celebration.

Friday's report left many economists, investors, employers and job seekers scratching their heads. The Bureau of Labor Statistics found in its survey of large employers that some 20,000 jobs were lost overall in January. But the separate survey of households showed a gain of more than a half-million jobs, which pushed the jobless rate down sharply to 9.7 percent from 10 percent.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 11:59 PM

I'm awake Pop. The lower unemployment number is a good sign but how about the million folks who gave up on getting a job?

I am sorry for the difficulty you are havening maintaining your air of superiority old man.

You are the one claiming the 5000 year old war by a different culture similarity, not me. Now I am supposed to defend your position? Here is a clue: Things change in 5000 years.

Now you are claiming UK was not on the same side with the US??

led by the United States, alongside the United Kingdom and smaller contingents

You are the author of that history and this history:

"Iraq had not committed acts of war"

Iraq, however, said it had almost certainly shot down a US or British plane over the no-fly zone. "Our brave air defenses have fired ground- to-air missiles against the formation of hostile planes, forcing them to flee after one of the planes was almost certainly shot down," a military spokesman said.

The Secretary of State for Defense, George Robertson, said the allies would not be "intimidated" from policing the no-fly zones by the Iraqi leader, President Saddam Hussein. "They [the no-fly zones] are humanitarian in purpose and we intend to maintain them," he told BBC Radio 4. "What we are seeing now is a show of defiance, arrogance and essentially of weakness on behalf of Saddam."

The incident was the second this week involving missiles, and follows the attack on US aircraft on Monday in the northern no-fly zone, near Mosul.

When was that Pops? Hint: before 2000.

Who was predident then? Hint: not GWB

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 09:08 AM

Amos:

I have been incorrectly claiming that the Athenian invasion of Sicily was 5000 years ago. It was 2435 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 11:12 PM

NYT:

"...The deficit numbers — a projected $1.3 trillion in fiscal 2011 alone — are breathtaking. What is even more breathtaking is the Republicans' cynical refusal to acknowledge that the country would never have gotten into so deep a hole if President George W. Bush and the Republican-led Congress had not spent years slashing taxes — mainly on the wealthy — and spending with far too little restraint. Unfortunately, the problem does not stop there.

The Republican amnesia and posturing are playing well on the hustings, where Americans are deeply anxious about the economy and fearful of losing their jobs and homes. Far too many Democratic lawmakers are losing their nerve.

Americans should be anxious, for reasons including the huge deficit. But the cold economic truth is this: At a time of high unemployment and fragile growth, the last thing the government should do is to slash spending. That will only drive the economy into deeper trouble.

None of this means that the politicians — from either party — are off the hook. They will soon need to make hard decisions about how to reduce the deficit. But more posturing and sniping is not going to make the economy better or solve the deficit problem. President Obama has called on the Republicans to join a bipartisan commission to help make those tough decisions, but they have been resistant to the proposal.

•

We fear the demagoguing is not going to stop, especially with Congressional elections this November. As the budget debate plays out, here are some basic facts about the deficit that Americans need to consider:

HOW DID WE GET HERE? When President Bush took office in 2001, the federal budget had been in the black for three years, and continued surpluses were projected for a decade to come.

By the time Mr. Bush left office in early 2009, the government had run big deficits for seven straight years, and the economy was on the brink of another Great Depression. On Jan. 7, 2009 — two weeks before Mr. Obama was inaugurated — the Congressional Budget Office issued new budget estimates showing a fiscal year 2009 deficit of well over $1 trillion.

About half of today's huge deficits can be chalked up to Bush-era profligacy: mainly cutting taxes deeply while borrowing to wage two wars and to enact the Medicare prescription drug benefit — all of which Republicans supported, virtually in lockstep.

The other half of recent deficits is due to the recession and the financial crisis.

To avoid a meltdown, the government — under President Bush and President Obama — rightly decided it had no choice but to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out banks and car companies and to stimulate the economy. That prevented a very bad situation from becoming much worse, but as the recession dragged on, hundreds of billions in tax revenues have also dried up.

As for why the financial system and the economy imploded, President Bush and Congress deserve much of the blame for their devotion to debt-driven growth and blind deregulatory zeal — although on deregulation, President Clinton and his team (some of whom are back in the White House) were also complicit.

Were it not for those multiple calamities, budget deficits today would be negligible. That does not mean we would be off the hook. An aging population and relentlessly rising health care costs will hit the country with even deeper deficits as the baby boomers retire. Politicians need to pass health care reform now and start thinking seriously about Social Security and tax reform.

So what are the immediate fiscal lessons here? The first lesson is that spending without taxing is a recipe for huge deficits, and that running big deficits when the economy is expanding only sets the country up for bigger deficits when the economy contracts. The second lesson is that once a deep recession takes hold, slashing government spending is not going to solve the problem. It will only make it worse...."


Sawz:

Scraping up data points divorced from context does not make you persuasive.

Thanks for correcting the Athenian date. Glad you caught it.

What do you think about the idea that Republicans are being hypocritical when they complain about the deficit as a result of Obama's errors?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 01:27 PM

Obama's retreat from the global stage

By Jackson Diehl
Monday, February 8, 2010

Is a wounded Barack Obama withdrawing from the world?

Europeans could be excused for speculating as much. The White House announced last week that the president would not attend a U.S.-European Union summit planned for Madrid in May, forcing its cancellation. The spurned host, Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, also failed to get a meeting with either Obama or Vice President Biden during a two-day visit to Washington.

Zapatero claimed he had "no problem" with the rebuff. But that was not the reaction back home. "Obama Turns His Back on Europe," said Spain's El Pais. "Obama's No-Show Disappoints Europe" said Germany's Der Spiegel.

Israelis and Palestinians also have reason to wonder. Obama's 70-minute State of the Union made no mention of Israel or a Middle East peace process. Shortly before the speech, Obama told an interviewer he had overestimated his administration's ability to renew negotiations between recalcitrant Israelis and Palestinians.

Then there are the leaders of Iraq. Two of them -- Kurdish regional president Massoud Barzani and Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, a leader of the Sunni minority -- have visited Washington in the past two weeks. Both told me they were deeply worried about whether the Obama administration would remain committed to a stable and democratic Iraq. That's partly because Obama's public rhetoric has centered on U.S. troop withdrawals, rather than any vision for the future of the country. "I understand you are totally focused now on withdrawing the troops by 2011," said Hashimi. "But what will come after that?"

So are all these people right to be upset? Is Obama reacting to political trouble at home by turning his back on foreign affairs?

The White House could fairly argue that he is not. Though he skimped on foreign policy in the State of the Union and has been visibly focused on domestic affairs since Scott Brown's election to the Senate, Obama's diplomacy still looks reasonably vigorous. His envoys are busy trying to round up votes for a U.N. Security Council resolution imposing stiff sanctions on Iran. Obama has a visit to Australia and Indonesia scheduled for next month, and a summit meeting on disarmament is being prepared for Washington in April. A new strategic arms treaty with Russia is nearing completion.

In the Middle East, envoy George Mitchell labors on to persuade Israelis and Palestinians to talk to each other, despite the president's stated discouragement. As for Iraq, Biden was there just two weeks ago, when -- for the second time in the past three months -- he worked to avert a crisis that could wreck the upcoming elections.

Still, it's not wrong to detect a presidential step back. Partly it is sensible -- as he did domestically, Obama piled too much on his foreign policy agenda his first year. The prospects are not good for an early Israeli-Palestinian peace, so the president is right to let an envoy manage it. Obama visited Europe six times in 2009, often for meetings that produced few results. His advisers are rightly trying to use his travel time more wisely this year.

Yet there's also a disquieting aspect to Obama's retreat. It's not just Zapatero who has trouble gaining traction in this White House: Unlike most of his predecessors, Obama has not forged close ties with any European leader. Britain's Brown, France's Sarkozy and Germany's Merkel have each, in turn, felt snubbed by him. Relations between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu are tense at best. George W. Bush used to hold regular videoconferences with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Obama has spoken to them on only a handful of occasions.

Obama's personal popularity in many parts of the world remains strong. Zapatero told The Post's editorial board that "in Spain, [Obama's] election was experienced as if it was an election in our own country." But in his first year the new president did not make the same connection with the leaders of America's principal allies. Now he is sending the message that he is cutting back his time for them. Maybe, as Zapatero diplomatically put it, this will be "no problem." But I doubt that's what the Spaniard was really thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 02:23 PM

Amos says:"the Iraq unilateral invasion, and the Athenian unilateral invasion, and the piece to which I was drawing attention discussed them"

In the article it says:

"Of course, the campaign in Iraq was not undertaken solely by the United States. There is an allied force. Athens, too, called in allies far and near. The historian Thucydides lists them all, and notes with awe that never had so many states engaged in a single campaign."

---

"Republicans are being hypocritical when they complain about the deficit as a result of Obama's errors?"

Your question contains an assertion. I haven't seen any evidence that the assertion is true but if it is true and not just an assertion. It is wrong.

Who has held the majority in Congress since 2006? When did this Horrible "Republican" recession begin?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 02:46 PM

"Iraq had not committed acts of war or declared war"

Pakistan has not committed acts of war or declared war but Mr World Peace, Change and Hope is sending troops into Pakistan unilaterally which results in the bombing and killing of innocent citizens.

Whom has he made any progress toward peace with?

Iran?
N Korea?
Chavez?
Cuba?
PLF?
AL Qaeda?
Taliban?
Palestinians?
Hamas?
Somalia?
PLO?
Hezbollah?

Chavez to Obama: Give back Nobel Prize
Fri, 18 Dec 2009

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez says Barack Obama should give his Nobel Peace Prize back as he is sending more soldiers to war-weary Afghanistan.

"He got the Nobel Peace Prize almost the same day as he sent 30,000 soldiers to kill innocent people in Afghanistan," he said during a speech at a climate change conference in Denmark.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 02:53 PM

Sawzaw: Amos is having difficulty coming up with a few positive things Obama has accomplished. I thought I'd lend a hand and name a few:

1. He produced (with help)two darling daughters.
2. Reportedly, he is an excellent father to those two kids.
3. Uh ...
4. Uhh ...
5. Uhhh ...

Well, uh, can I get back to you?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 02:55 PM

Bruce, Sawz:

Your overheated rhetorical suasions are colorful, but they don't add anything to the conversation as far as comparing points of view goes. One reason is that you continuously take things out of context and then blow them up as an unsubtle form of mockery. Why should anyone continue such a conversation? I learned better than that back on the playground.

It is pretty clear that the current deficit is at least 50% the result of Bush intiatives to reduce Fedseral income and increase Federal spending; what is worse the increases in Federal spending were arguably much to the detriment of the nation. Another 45% of it is probably direct6ly attributable to the screaming emergencies left behind by the outgoing Bush genius team. That's a SWAG.

I am not sure what you wild-eyed right-siders believe Obama is trying to do but you sound to me as though you are sitting under a cloud of paranoid delusion fomented forpolitical gain by people who do not actually have your own interests at heart, or the nations. That's MY opinion.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 03:58 PM

"but you sound to me as though you are sitting under a cloud of paranoid delusion fomented forpolitical gain by people who do not actually have your own interests at heart, or the nations. "


Funny. THAT was what I thought about the comments YOU posted about Bush, from your limited array of sources.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 04:55 PM

Funny, that. But different. ALas, you never seem to recognize the differences.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 11:15 PM

What is rhetorical about asking a simple question? Your non-answer ducking of the question is rhetorical.

This is a rhetorical as well as a compound question that I answered anyway:

"Republicans are being hypocritical when they complain about the deficit as a result of Obama's errors?"

Where is any proof of the assertion you made in that question?

I can name one thing Obama did that was positive. He gave the order to shoot some pirates.

Yeah, we need some more positive, decisive decisions like that. It shows leadership.

---

A Democratic controlled Congress was elected in 2006. Congress is supposed to balance the power of the President. They have to pass the bills. Were they in a coma or something? Now they act like they had nothing to do with the spending. Maybe they were against it before they were for it.


The One Hundred Tenth United States Congress was the meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, between January 3, 2007, and January 3, 2009, during the last two years of the second term of President George W. Bush. It was composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The apportionment of seats in the House was based on the 2000 U.S. census.

The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. Although the Democrats held fewer than 50 Senate seats, they had an operational majority because the two independent senators caucused with the Democrats for organizational purposes. No Democratic-held seats had fallen to the Republican Party in the 2006 elections. Democrat Nancy Pelosi became the first woman Speaker of the House. The House also received the first Muslims and Buddhists in Congress.

Enacted

    * February 2, 2007 — House Page Board Revision Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-2, 121 Stat. 4
    * May 25, 2007 — U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub.L. 110-28, 121 Stat. 112, including Title VIII: Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, 121 Stat. 188
    * June 14, 2007 — Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-34, 121 Stat. 224
    * July 26, 2007 — Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-49, 121 Stat. 246
    * August 3, 2007 — Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266
    * August 5, 2007 — Protect America Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-55, 121 Stat. 552
    * September 14, 2007 — Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, Pub.L. 110-81, 121 Stat. 735
    * November 8, 2007 — Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-114, 121 Stat. 1041 - Veto Overridden
    * December 19, 2007 — Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492
    * February 13, 2008 — Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110-185, 122 Stat. 613
    * May 21, 2008 — Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, Pub.L. 110-233, 122 Stat. 881
    * May 22, 2008 — Food and Energy Security Act of 2007 (2007 Farm Bill), Pub.L. 110-234, 122 Stat. 923 - Veto Overridden
    * June 30, 2008 — Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110-252, 122 Stat. 2323, including Title V: Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 ("G.I. Bill 2008")
    * July 10, 2008 — FISA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110-261, 122 Stat. 2436
    * July 29, 2008 — Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE (Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110-286, 122 Stat. 2632
    * July 30, 2008 — Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110-289, 122 Stat. 2654
    * October 3, 2008 — Public Law 110-343 (Pub.L. 110-343), 122 Stat. 3765, including:
          o Div. A: Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, H.R. 1424;
          o Div. B: Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008; and
          o Div. C: Tax Extenders and Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008
    * October 15, 2008 — Pub.L. 110-430: Setting the beginning of the first session of the 111th Congress and the date for counting Electoral College votes, 122 Stat. 4846
    * December 19, 2008 — Pub.L. 110-455: A Saxbe fix, reducing the compensation and other emoluments attached to the office of Secretary of State to that which was in effect on January 1, 2007: allowing Hillary Clinton to serve as Secretary of State despite the Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution.

---

According to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, the President must submit a budget to Congress each year. In its current form, federal budget legislation law (31 U.S.C. 1105(a)) specifies that the President submit a budget between the first Monday in January and the first Monday in February. In recent times, the President's budget submission, entitled Budget of the U.S. Government, has been issued in the first week of February. The President's budget submission, along with supporting documents and historical budget data, can be found at the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) website. The President's budget contains detailed information on spending and revenue proposals, along with policy proposals and initiatives with significant budgetary implications.

Each year in March, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) publishes an analysis of the President's budget proposals. CBO budget report and other publications can be found at the CBO's website. CBO computes a current law baseline projection that is intended to estimate what federal spending and revenues would be in the absence of new legislation for the current fiscal year and for the coming 10 fiscal years.

The House and Senate Budget Committees begin consideration of President's budget proposals in February and March. Other committees with budgetary responsibilities submit requests and estimates to the Budget committees during this time. The Budget committees each submit a budget resolution by April 1. The House and Senate each consider those budget resolutions and are expected to pass them, possibly with amendments, by April 15. Budget resolutions specify funding levels for appropriations committees and subcommittees.

Appropriations committees, starting with allocations in the budget resolution, put together appropriations bills, which may be considered in the House after May 15. Once appropriations committees pass their bills, they are considered by the House and Senate. A conference committee is typically required to resolve differences between House and Senate bills. Once a conference bill has passed both chambers of Congress, it is sent to the President, who may sign the bill or veto. If he signs, the bill becomes law. Otherwise, Congress must pass another bill to avoid a shutdown of at least part of the federal government.

In recent years, Congress has not passed all of the appropriations bills before the start of the fiscal year. Congress has then enacted Continuing Resolutions, that provide for the temporary funding of government operations.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 11:55 PM

Amos refers to: "The historian Thucydides lists them all, and notes with awe that never had so many states engaged in a single campaign."

It is interesting to note that:

"Neocons see Thucydides as a cornerstone for their thoughts on foreign policy.

    Neoconservatives, or "neocons," believe in the use of U.S. military might to foster the spread of democracy around the globe. The notion of employing superior military power to forge sympathetic regimes is hardly new; according to Irving Kristol's account of neoconservatism in the Weekly Standard, the favorite neocon text is Thucydides' Peloponnesian War, in which the Greek historian explains "the strong will do what they will, the weak will do what they must." The notion of spreading democracy is also rooted in history; after World War I, Woodrow Wilson saw the spread of democracy as a means to promote global stability.

Now give me another lecture about context and rhetoric Pop, and when you are all done, tell me some positive concrete things Obama has done.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 12:31 AM

Seems to me that taken a referrred-to article and claiming the referrer was the author is rhetorical device. If you don't know the difference between a pointer and an assertion, get some edification.

Good things? He started reversing the economic collapse handed to him by Bush and Paulson. He started reversing the anti-science policies and the know-nothing policies of the Bush years. He regained the respect of the international community on the climate issue, and began drawing down the Iraq war troop count. That's just a few off the top of my head.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 09:45 AM

"... The surprisingly smooth relationship between the administration's top two officers is part of the broader White House culture. This is a fraught political climate. Liberals are furious. Moderates are running for their lives. Republicans believe, with much evidence, that an unprecedented wave of public rage is breaking across the land, directed at Washington. The uninformed float rumors that Rahm Emanuel is on the outs.

Yet the atmosphere in the White House appears surprisingly tranquil. Emanuel is serving as a lighting rod for the president but remains crisply confident in his role as chief of staff. It's true that several top administration officials did not want to attempt comprehensive health care reform this year. But they are not opening recrimination campaigns. It's no secret that many think the president needs to be more assertive with Congress, yet administration officials still talk about Obama in awestruck tones, even in private.

Some would say the administration is underreacting to the incredible shift in the public mood. Some would say they need more voices from the great unwashed. But no one could accuse them of panicking, or of scrambling about incoherently. In their first winter of discontent, they are offering continuity and comity. Whatever their relations with the country might be, inside they seem unruffled. The bonds of association, from the top down, seem healthy — especially for a bunch of Democrats. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 10:19 AM

From the Washington Post:


Why is Obama killing off D.C.'s voucher program?

The Obama administration said it was going to respect science and respond to evidence -- a contrast, many Democrats said, to the previous regime. So why is President Obama killing off the program that offers the best chance to find out if school vouchers work?

Congress has been paying for the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, which helps more than a thousand District children attend private schools. It gives a chance of a future to children who otherwise would be condemned to attend failing schools. How can that be bad?

Generally, opponents offer two arguments. One is that it won't solve the whole problem. Well, no. That's why everyone should support what Chancellor Michelle Rhee is trying to do to improve all D.C. schools. But even she supports the scholarship program. She testified before the Senate last September that until her reforms have had a few more years to take root, she can't guarantee a quality education to every District child. No wonder that every year there have been many more applicants for the vouchers than vouchers to give out.

The second objection is that if children or families with get-up-and-go actually get up and go, things will be even worse for those left behind. There are a lot of problems with this argument, but the main one is that the people who make it usually aren't willing to condemn their own children to attend terrible high schools in order to improve things for the other kids there. Why should we demand that of families who have high aspirations but can't afford to move?

But even if you're inclined against vouchers, why not embrace a program that has a chance to shed real light on the long-running, fraught and inconclusive argument about their effectiveness? The D.C. program was established to provide such evidence. It enrolled a control group of children who applied for vouchers but didn't get them, and it is following them along with the kids with vouchers. In a couple more years, if funded robustly, it would give us a real sense of what worked and what didn't. That could be helpful to lots of children.

Yet the Obama administration seems to be doing everything it can to wind down the program. Why? Early research results have been positive -- certainly in terms of parental satisfaction, but also for achievement. Maybe the Democratic Party, and the teachers union leaders who support it, would rather not see any more evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 05:19 PM

"Good things? He started Reversing the economic collapse handed to him by Bush and Paulson."

A. He asked for it and said he could fix it.
B. There was no economic collapse.
C. Whatever problems there were form the bailout were handed to him by Paulson, Geithner and Summers.
D. Started is not accomplished. Has he finished?

"He started reversing the anti-science policies and the know-nothing policies of the Bush years."

A. What anti-science policies? What Know-nothing politics? this is your rhetorical opinion like the unilateral invasion of Iraq. No basis in fact.
B. Respect from whom and where on the climate? Name a country, name a person.

"began drawing down the Iraq war troop count."

A. As per the plan put in place by the Bush administration.

"That's just a few off the top of my head."

They are on the top of your head and nowhere else.

If you remember the question was concrete positive things that he has accomplished.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 06:12 PM

Sawz:

Talking to you is like talking to a post.

Your rebuttal is just codwallop, I think.

You should review the Bush threads for examples of their attitude toward science.

The gains on the health reform front alone are historic already despite grim resistance from your lads. The economy is recovering from a collapse started by Bush's policies. Financial regulation is coming back for the general sanity of the market place to a degree not seen since Reagan. The improvements are clear despite the upheavals. As a work in progress, the nation is on the mend even though the sparks fly with every step forward.

If Bush had been half the President Obama has been, Obama's first year would have been even more productive,

But I do not expect you to recognize any of this. You have a different body of data provided from biased or simply fraudulent sources.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 12:09 AM

Mr Amos: Changes in attitude toward something is not a concrete accomplishment unless brings about something concrete.

If this, It would have been. All excuses for did not get the job done. Almost only counts in Horseshoes and hand grenades.

You can use all the pseudo intellectual words you want and make all the ad hominem logical fallacies you want but you cant come up with anything tangible.

There was no financial collapse handed to Obama or anybody. You rhetorically use the word collapse.

There was a financial crisis and a near collapse taken care of before Obama took office. Loans were given to banks to be repaid with interest but the repayments are being squandered by the Obama administration rather than being put back in the treasury thereby jacking up the deficit attributed to the previous administration.

It's getting close.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 12:13 AM

Taken care of before Obama took office? Have you stuck your head out the window recently? Looked at the jobless rate? The problems business are still having getting credit? The number of businesses that are still closing? It's still not "taken care of."

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 03:24 PM

Feds push for tracking cell phones

by Declan McCullagh

Two years ago, when the FBI was stymied by a band of armed robbers known as the "Scarecrow Bandits" that had robbed more than 20 Texas banks, it came up with a novel method of locating the thieves.

FBI agents obtained logs from mobile phone companies corresponding to what their cellular towers had recorded at the time of a dozen different bank robberies in the Dallas area. The voluminous records showed that two phones had made calls around the time of all 12 heists, and that those phones belonged to men named Tony Hewitt and Corey Duffey. A jury eventually convicted the duo of multiple bank robbery and weapons charges.

Even though police are tapping into the locations of mobile phones thousands of times a year, the legal ground rules remain unclear, and federal privacy laws written a generation ago are ambiguous at best. On Friday, the first federal appeals court to consider the topic will hear oral arguments (PDF) in a case that could establish new standards for locating wireless devices.

In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.

Those claims have alarmed the ACLU and other civil liberties groups, which have opposed the Justice Department's request and plan to tell the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that Americans' privacy deserves more protection and judicial oversight than what the administration has proposed.

"This is a critical question for privacy in the 21st century," says Kevin Bankston, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who will be arguing on Friday. "If the courts do side with the government, that means that everywhere we go, in the real world and online, will be an open book to the government unprotected by the Fourth Amendment."

the entire article

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 03:45 PM

President Obama tied in generic 2012 matchup


By ANDY BARR | 2/11/10 12:55 PM EST

President Barack Obama only leads a generic Republican candidate by 2 percentage points in a potential 2012 match up, according to a new Gallup Poll out Thursday that also shows a continued drift of independents from Democrats.

Obama leads 44 percent to 42 percent, a statistical dead heat, against a nameless Republican, according to the survey of 1,025 adults nationwide.

Not surprisingly, the poll shows that Democrats strongly believe the president should be reelected, while Republicans would like to see one of their own in the White House.

But among independent voters, 45 percent would back a Republican and only 31 percent would favor the president. Twenty-four percent of independents are not sure if they would vote for Obama or a Republican candidate.

The gap among independents is similar to what Democrats have experienced in the recent statewide races in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts where Republicans were able to win by piecing together a coalition that included people who voted for the president. Obama won independent voters by 8 percentage points in 2008, by a spread of 52 percent to 44 percent, according to network exit polls.

"American voters are at this point about equally divided as to whether they would reelect Obama or the Republican candidate as president," Gallup pollster Jeffrey Jones wrote in his analysis of the survey. Jones cautioned however that, "the current data updates Obama's reelection prospects, but generally would not hold much predictive value for the actual election outcome more than two years from now."

While independents seem to be tempted with the idea of supporting a Republican over Obama, there is little agreement on which of the many potential candidates should be the GOP nominee.

Just among the self-identified Republicans and GOP leaning candidates, only two candidates polled in the double digits when respondents were asked to name who they would like to see as the party's nominee against Obama.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney led the field with 14 percent, followed by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin at 11 percent.

The GOP's 2008 nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain, came in third with 7 percent, followed by newly minted Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown with 4 percent.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal were all picked by 3 percentage points or less of those surveyed.


The poll was conducted Feb. 1-3 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32837.html#ixzz0fGJyegcs

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 04:05 PM

Looks like your red-headed friends Black PR campaign is bearing fruit, there, Brucie. It really saddens me to see so much high-level energy being invested in making big lie campaigns.

Anyway, steady on; the man is holding his position and pushing for worthy goals in spite of all the barking of the dogs at the edge of the aisle. LEt's hope he can make some good progress.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 06:12 PM

November 30th, 2009 An Open Letter to President Obama from Michael Moore

Dear President Obama,

Do you really want to be the new "war president"? If you go to West Point tomorrow night (Tuesday, 8pm) and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president. Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do -- destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they've always heard is true -- that all politicians are alike. I simply can't believe you're about to do what they say you are going to do. Please say it isn't so.
     It is not your job to do what the generals tell you to do. We are a civilian-run government. WE tell the Joint Chiefs what to do, not the other way around. That's the way General Washington insisted it must be. That's what President Truman told General MacArthur when MacArthur wanted to invade China. "You're fired!," said Truman, and that was that. And you should have fired Gen. McChrystal when he went to the press to preempt you, telling the press what YOU had to do. Let me be blunt: We love our kids in the armed services, but we f*#&in' hate these generals, from Westmoreland in Vietnam to, yes, even Colin Powell for lying to the UN with his made-up drawings of WMD (he has since sought redemption).
      So now you feel backed into a corner. 30 years ago this past Thursday (Thanksgiving) the Soviet generals had a cool idea -- "Let's invade Afghanistan!" Well, that turned out to be the final nail in the USSR coffin. There's a reason they don't call Afghanistan the "Garden State" (though they probably should, seeing how the corrupt President Karzai, whom we back, has his brother in the heroin trade raising poppies). Afghanistan's nickname is the "Graveyard of Empires." If you don't believe it, give the British a call. I'd have you call Genghis Khan but I lost his number. I do have Gorbachev's number though. It's + 41 22 789 1662. I'm sure he could give you an earful about the historic blunder you're about to commit.
     With our economic collapse still in full swing and our precious young men and women being sacrificed on the altar of arrogance and greed, the breakdown of this great civilization we call America will head, full throttle, into oblivion if you become the "war president." Empires never think the end is near, until the end is here. Empires think that more evil will force the heathens to toe the line -- and yet it never works. The heathens usually tear them to shreds.
     Choose carefully, President Obama. You of all people know that it doesn't have to be this way. You still have a few hours to listen to your heart, and your own clear thinking. You know that nothing good can come from sending more troops halfway around the world to a place neither you nor they understand, to achieve an objective that neither you nor they understand, in a country that does not want us there. You can feel it in your bones.
     I know you know that there are LESS than a hundred al-Qaeda left in Afghanistan! A hundred thousand troops trying to crush a hundred guys living in caves? Are you serious? Have you drunk Bush's Kool-Aid? I refuse to believe it. Your potential decision to expand the war (while saying that you're doing it so you can "end the war") will do more to set your legacy in stone than any of the great things you've said and done in your first year. One more throwing a bone from you to the Republicans and the coalition of the hopeful and the hopeless may be gone -- and this nation will be back in the hands of the haters quicker than you can shout "tea bag!"
     Choose carefully, Mr. President. Your corporate backers are going to abandon you as soon as it is clear you are a one-term president and that the nation will be safely back in the hands of the usual idiots who do their bidding. That could be Wednesday morning. We the people still love you. We the people still have a sliver of hope. But we the people can't take it anymore. We can't take your caving in, over and over, when we elected you by a big, wide margin of millions to get in there and get the job done. What part of "landslide victory" don't you understand?
     Don't be deceived into thinking that sending a few more troops into Afghanistan will make a difference, or earn you the respect of the haters. They will not stop until this country is torn asunder and every last dollar is extracted from the poor and soon-to-be poor. You could send a million troops over there and the crazy Right still wouldn't be happy. You would still be the victim of their incessant venom on hate radio and television because no matter what you do, you can't change the one thing about yourself that sends them over the edge. The haters were not the ones who elected you, and they can't be won over by abandoning the rest of us.
     President Obama, it's time to come home. Ask your neighbors in Chicago and the parents of the young men and women doing the fighting and dying if they want more billions and more troops sent to Afghanistan. Do you think they will say, "No, we don't need health care, we don't need jobs, we don't need homes. You go on ahead, Mr. President, and send our wealth and our sons and daughters overseas, 'cause we don't need them, either." What would Martin Luther King, Jr. do? What would your grandmother do? Not send more poor people to kill other poor people who pose no threat to them, that's what they'd do. Not spend billions and trillions to wage war while American children are sleeping on the streets and standing in bread lines.
      All of us that voted and prayed for you and cried the night of your victory have endured an Orwellian hell of eight years of crimes committed in our name: torture, rendition, suspension of the bill of rights, invading nations who had not attacked us, blowing up neighborhoods that Saddam "might" be in (but never was), slaughtering wedding parties in Afghanistan. We watched as hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians were slaughtered and tens of thousands of our brave young men and women were killed, maimed, or endured mental anguish -- the full terror of which we scarcely know.
     When we elected you we didn't expect miracles. We didn't even expect much change. But we expected some. We thought you would stop the madness. Stop the killing. Stop the insane idea that men with guns can reorganize a nation that doesn't even function as a nation and never, ever has. Stop, stop, stop! For the sake of the lives of young Americans and Afghan civilians, stop. For the sake of your presidency, hope, and the future of our nation, stop. For God's sake, stop. Tonight we still have hope. Tomorrow, we shall see. The ball is in your court. You DON'T have to do this. You can be a profile in courage. You can be your mother's son. We're counting on you.

Yours, Michael Moore

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 06:16 PM

Interesting missive, Sawz.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 10:10 PM

Hey, it looks like Obama found a spine. He threatened the senate that if they didn't start working on his appointments, he'd do as many as he could as recess appointments over the President's Day break. The GOP called in their goons, and 27 appointees were confirmed today. The prez needs to do more of this - shove the Repuglicans' dirty tactics right back down their own throats.

And the dems need to grow some balls and GO NUCLEAR. Every single time. Take back the senate from the troglodytes.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 11:58 PM

Here is the Iranian popular view of the peace prize winner

Mouse:

I cant stick my head out of my window. It is covered by snow drifts from the largest recorded seasonal snowfall in history.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 12:49 AM

So the fuck what about your snow? Or what the Iranians think?

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 07:46 AM

Yeah, mouser... I saw Howard Dean on MSNBC last night and that is exactly what he pointed out... We forget how many times Bush used reconciliation.... We forget that the tax xuts for the rich were done this way... Lots of stuff was done this way... Dean pointed out the reality is that the Repubs are just trying to shut down the government by using the fillibister on everything that is now inthe Senate... The Dems are gonna have to do the heavy lifting 'cause the Repubs aren't involved and just snadbagging.... Even on stuff they has not only supported in the past but bills they sponsored...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 02:04 PM

So I should worry about what you think?

You are free to think or say whatever you want. I hope you will allow me the same privilege.

Unless you are the type that is intolerant of people who disagree with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 13 Feb 10 - 10:55 PM

Nobel Peace Prize-winner Barack Obama ups spending on nuclear weapons to even more than George Bush

Timesonline January 2010

   
President Obama is planning to increase spending on America's nuclear weapons stockpile just days after pledging to try to rid the world of them. In his budget to be announced on Monday, Mr Obama has allocated £4.3billion to maintain the U.S. arsenal - £370million more than George Bush spent on nuclear weapons in his final year. The Obama administration also plans to spend a further £3.1billion over the next five years on nuclear security.

Investment: President Barack Obama is to raise the budget to spend on maintaining U.S. nuclear weapons by £370million - more than George Bush The announcement comes despite the American President declaring nuclear weapons were the 'greatest danger' to U.S. people during in his State of the Union address on Wednesday. And it flies in the face of Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, awarded to him in October for 'his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples'.

The Nobel committee was attacked at the time for bestowing the accolade on a new president whose initiatives are yet to bear fruit – which included reducing the world stock of nuclear arms. Even as we prosecute two wars, we are also confronting perhaps the greatest danger to the American people - the threat of nuclear weapons. I have embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons, and seeks a world without them. To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades.

And at April's Nuclear Security Summit, we will bring forty-four nations together behind a clear goal: securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists. These diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of these weapons. That is why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That is why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: they, too, will face growing consequences.

That is the leadership that we are providing -- engagement that advances the common security and prosperity of all people. The budget is higher than that allocated by George Bush – who was seen by many as a warmongering president in the wake of the Iraq invasion in 2003 – during his premiership. During his 70-minute State of the UNion speech on Wednesday, which marked his first year in office, Obama said: 'I have embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons, and seeks a world without them.'

However, Vice President Joe Biden today supported the increase on nuclear weapons maintenance, saying: 'Even in a time of tough budget decisions, these are investments we must make for our security. 'We are committed to working with Congress to ensure these budget increases are approved.' Biden said the Obama administration had inherited a 'steady decline' in support for U.S. nuclear stockpiles and infrastructure. 'For almost a decade, our laboratories and facilities have been underfunded and undervalued,' he said.

'The consequences of this neglect - like the growing shortage of skilled nuclear scientists and engineers and the ageing of critical facilities - have largely escaped public notice. 'The budget we will submit to Congress on Monday both reverses this decline and enables us to implement the president's nuclear-security agenda.'

He added: 'This investment is long overdue. It will strengthen our ability to recruit, train and retain the skilled people we need to maintain our nuclear capabilities.'It will support the work of our nuclear labs, a national treasure that we must and will sustain.' The Obama administration will publish its budget for fiscal year 2011 on Monday. The proposal will include a budget increase for nuclear issues while paring back other areas in an effort to control record deficits.

Biden said those steps along with others to advance non-proliferation were essential to 'holding nations like North Korea and Iran accountable when they break the rules, and deterring others from trying to do so'.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 08:03 PM

A stunning Satire by the Chile Roho of the NYT: Icicles, Inside and Out MAUREEN DOWD February 13, 2010

Barack Obama knew that the snow clogging the capital would melt a lot sooner than Dick Cheney's heart. But when he saw that Cheney was going on ABC's Sunday morning show with Jonathan Karl, he braved the ultimate lion's den. He took Jonathan Alter's advice in Newsweek and called the former vice president to set up a private meeting in the Oval Office, hoping to use any combination of diplomacy and tongue-lashing that would make Cheney quit calling him weak. Obama invited Bob Gates to the Saturday summit. Gates, after all, had originally been brought in as defense secretary by W. to be a common-sense counterbalance to the batty Cheney. The president prides himself on winning over hostile audiences, but this challenge would give a peacock pause.
    The three men sat before the fire in the Oval.

OBAMA: Look, Dick, you've called me out on various particulars. And I have no problem with that. That's politics. You thought Khalid Shaikh Mohammed should not be tried in New York City, and that's fine.

And we both know that any blowhard can call me weak. But you're not just any blowhard, Dick. You were the architect of America's defense against terrorism. And when those folks sitting in a cave in Waziristan hear you chest-thumping, saying our guard is down, they think, "Hey, this might be a good time to attack."
    You believe in the unitary executive. You believe that if the president says something is in the national security interest of the U.S., then it is. So I am the president now, and I'm telling you that you need to put a sock in it.

CHENEY: What are you going to do about it, Hussein? Mirandize me?

GATES: Dick, the president's right. When a former vice president calls a new president weak, it emboldens terrorists.

CHENEY (contemptuously looking at Gates with his one-sided smile): If you take the king's coin, you sing the king's song.

OBAMA: You keep saying there were no terror attacks after 9/11, Dick. That's like saying that blimps were safe after the Hindenburg. I wouldn't have been caught flat-footed reading "The Pet Goat" to second graders.

CHENEY: No, you'd have been teaching a graduate seminar on "The Pet Goat." Don't you Muslims eat pet goats?

OBAMA (shaking head in disgust): You have the audacity to say I'm "pretending" we're not at war. You let the Taliban regroup. I sent 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. I've quadrupled the number of drone attacks in Pakistan. The prisoners who returned to terrorism after being released from Gitmo did so under your watch. You released one of the terrorists behind the foiled Christmas Day plot into an art therapy program in Saudi Arabia. Nice work, Dr. Phil.

CHENEY: You're such a Nervous Nellie you can't even use the words "war," "win," "terrorism," "enemy combatant," "Bomb Iran," "Fire Eric Holder" or "Fire John Brennan."

OBAMA: You and W. liked Brennan well enough to put him in charge of the National Counterterrorism Center. And I didn't want an attorney general who was a rubber stamp on torture.

CHENEY: The tea partiers agree with me about torture, and that's why you're already over, Mr. Charisma. First you lost Teddy Kennedy's seat. Now you've lost his kid. Scott Brown will wipe the floor with you in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

GATES: Speaking of Scott, the new 41, why can't you be classy in retirement like the original 41, Dick?

CHENEY: Scott's an All-American winner â€" Sarah Palin with better legs and less sarcasm. And the hair extensions make her seem even more phony.

OBAMA: Consensus, at last.

CHENEY: You, on the other hand, have about as much hair on your chest as a hairless Chihuahua. Michelle has the biceps in this family.

OBAMA: Michelle is campaigning against obesity. You might listen up on that, Dick. At least the women in my family aren't Mini-Me's trash-talking about the commander in chief.

CHENEY (growling): Liz and I are right! You're on the terrorist team!

GATES: Calm down, Dick. You don't want to end up in the hospital like poor Bill Clinton.

CHENEY: Joe Biden's going to end up in the hospital if he brags again that Iraq will "be one of the greatest achievements" of your administration.

OBAMA: If I don't get re-elected, it will be because you ruined the country beyond even my ability to rescue it. Remember when you said deficits don't matter, Dick?

CHENEY: Stop whining, Mr. Radical Chic. You won't get a second term because you're letting America fall into second place. Put that in your teleprompter.

OBAMA: Why don't you go help W. with Haiti instead of spewing paranoia?

CHENEY (stomping out): Is that your Indonesian birth certificate in the Oval vault?

GATES: So, that went well.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 04:41 PM

AP 2/15/2010

....The departure of Evan Bayh, who was on President Barack Obama's short list of vice presidential candidate prospects in 2008, continues a recent exodus from Congress among both Democrats and Republicans, including veteran Democrats Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island.

The announcements have sprung up in rapid-fire fashion amid polls showing a rising anti-incumbent fervor and voter anger over Washington partisanship, high unemployment, federal deficits and lucrative banking industry bonuses....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 01:14 AM

HARRISBURG - Nearly two-thirds of Americans, or 64 percent, consider the economy and personal finances their most pressing problem while fewer than half approve of the way President Barack Obama is dealing with the nation's economic problems, a poll released Friday shows.

The Franklin & Marshall College poll, co-sponsored by Times-Shamrock Newspapers and other media outlets, finds that just 11 percent of Americans consider health-related issues their most important problem. It underlies a reason for mounting frustration with Obama and the challenge facing his administration as midterm elections loom in November, said G. Terry Madonna, Ph.D., poll director.

"Americans are focused like a laser on the economy," he said. "Reforming health care is important to them, but it doesn't trump the economy. People want the economy taken care of."

While Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress have spent the past year trying to pass comprehensive health care reform legislation without success so far, four of five Americans (78 percent) say the current health care system meets their needs either very well or pretty well.

About one in five adults (21 percent) said they skipped a recommended medical test or treatment because of the costs, while approximately the same number (19 percent) said they were without health insurance coverage at some point during the previous year.

The F&M poll surveyed 920 U.S. adults, of whom 767 are registered to vote. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points for questions posed to all adults and plus or minus 3.5 percentage points for adults who are registered to vote. The poll was conducted between Feb. 2 and Feb. 8.

The poll data underscores how Obama's low approval rating on economic issues is affecting the political climate.

Overall, 45 percent of adults approve of Obama's handling of the economy, but the numbers range widely based on party affiliation. Seventy percent of registered Democrats give the president positive ratings on the economy question, but that drops to 43 percent when independents respond and to 23 percent when Republicans respond.

The disaffection among independents over the economy is shaping the political climate. Independents played a key role in helping GOP candidates win gubernatorial elections in November in New Jersey and Virginia and the election of U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., to succeed the late Edward M. Kennedy in a special election last month.

The future impact of this political shift by independent voters is seen in the poll data that more Americans - 35 percent to 39 percent - would vote for the generic Republican candidate than the generic Democratic candidate if the midterm elections for U.S. House seats were held today.

As recently as September, Democrats led the Republicans, 43 percent to 30 percent, on this generic congressional vote question.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 09:12 AM

Ahmadinejad not taking Clinton comments "seriously"
Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:29am

TEHRAN, Feb 16 (Reuters) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed on Tuesday U.S. accusations that Iran was moving toward a military dictatorship, saying the U.S. military budget was 80 times larger than that of the Islamic Republic.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Monday that the United States believed Iran's Revolutionary Guards were driving the country towards military dictatorship and should be targeted in any new U.N. sanctions.

"We don't take her comments seriously," Ahmadinejad told a televised news conference, adding that the entire Iranian population of more than 70 million were protecting Iran's independence and its Islamic revolution.

He said the United States had some 300,000 troops stationed in the Middle East and was involved in wars in the region.

"These comments she (Clinton) is making are not wise," Ahmadinejad added.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 12:36 PM

Cost cutting?



Audit finds US census preparations wasted millions

Census preparations wasted millions as temps collected checks for excessive travel, training

      
Hope Yen, Associated Press Writer, On Tuesday February 16, 2010, 9:17 am EST

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Census Bureau wasted millions of dollars in preparation for its 2010 population count, including thousands of temporary employees who picked up $300 checks without performing work and others who overbilled for travel costs.

Federal investigators caution the excessive charges could multiply once the $15 billion headcount begins in earnest next month unless the agency imposes tighter spending controls, according to excerpts of a forthcoming audit obtained by The Associated Press.

On a positive note, investigators backed the Census Bureau's decision to spend $133 million on its advertising campaign, saying it was appropriate to boost public awareness. The spending included a $2.5 million Super Bowl spot that some Republicans had criticized as wasteful.

The findings by Todd Zinser, the Commerce Department's inspector general, highlight the difficult balancing act for the Census Bureau as it takes on the Herculean task of manually counting the nation's 300 million residents amid a backdrop of record levels of government debt.

Because the population count, done every 10 years, is used to distribute U.S. House seats and billions in federal aid, many states are pushing for all-out government efforts in outreach since there is little margin for error -- particularly for Democratic-leaning minorities and the poor, who tend to be undercounted. At the same time, the national headcount will employ 1 million temporary workers and is the most expensive ever, making it a visible sign of rising government spending.

The federal hiring has been widely touted by the government as providing a lift to the nation's sagging employment rate -- but investigators found it also had waste.

The audit, scheduled to be released next week, examined the Census Bureau's address-canvassing operation last fall, in which 140,000 temporary workers walked block by block to update the government's mailing lists and maps.

While the project finished ahead of schedule, Census director Robert Groves in October acknowledged the costs had ballooned $88 million higher than the original estimate of $356 million, an overrun of 25 percent. He cited faulty assumptions in the bureau's cost estimates.

Among the waste found by investigators:

--More than 10,000 census employees were paid over $300 apiece to attend training for the massive address-canvassing effort, but they quit or were otherwise let go before they could perform any work. Cost: $3 million.

--Another 5,000 employees collected $300 for the same training, and then worked a single day or less. Cost $1.5 million.

--Twenty-three temporary census employees were paid for car mileage costs at 55 cents a mile, even though the number of miles they reported driving per hour exceeded the total number of hours they actually worked.

--Another 581 employees who spent the majority of their time driving instead of conducting field work also received full mileage reimbursements, which investigators called questionable.

Census regional offices that had mileage costs exceeding their planned budgets included Atlanta; Charlotte, N.C.; Chicago; Dallas; Denver; Detroit; Kansas City and Seattle.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 04:31 PM

Washington Post

Bayh to Obama: take this job and shove it

Millions of Americans long to tell their bosses "take this job and shove it." Hardly any have the power and money to do so, especially in these recessionary times. Sen. Evan Bayh (D) of Indiana, however, is the exception. His stunning retirement from the Senate is essentially a loud and emphatic "screw you" to President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. For months now, Bayh has been screaming at the top of his voice that the party needs to reorient toward a more popular, centrist agenda -- one that emphasizes jobs and fiscal responsibility over health care and cap and trade. Neither the White House nor the Senate leadership has given him the response he wanted. Their bungling of what should have been a routine bipartisan jobs bill last week seems to have been the last straw.

I don't doubt that Bayh could have won re-election -- though he probably did not relish the prospect of a very nasty campaign revolving around GOP attacks on his wife's business activities. Let it never be forgotten that Bayh is a perennial Democratic golden boy, the keynote speaker at the party's 1996 convention, scion of a political dynasty, proven vote-getter in a red state and, in his own mind, prime presidential timber. For him, then, the question was: even if I win, who needs six more years of dealing with these people, after which I might be 60 years old and trying to pick up the pieces of a damaged political party brand?

And don't get him started on the Republicans! I think we have to take Bayh at his word when he quite justifiably expressed disgust not only with the jobs bill fiasco, but also when he lashed out at the Senate Republicans who opportunistically voted down a bipartisan budget-balancing commission they had previously endorsed.

Quitting the Senate was a no-lose move for the presidentially ambitious Bayh, since he can now crawl away from the political wreckage for a couple of years, plausibly alleging that he tried to steer the party in a different direction -- and then be perfectly positioned to mount a centrist primary challenge to Obama in 2012, depending on circumstances.


There will be those Democrats who bid good riddance to Bayh and his coal-burning-state apostasy about cap and trade, etc. If so, they won't need a very big tent to contain the celebration. On a more pragmatic view, Bayh's dramatic vote of no-confidence in his own party's leadership looks like another Massachusetts-sized political earthquake for the Democrats. Not only does it imperil the president's short-term hopes of passing health care and other major legislation this year. It also makes it much more likely that the Republicans can pick up Bayh's Senate seat in normally red Indiana and, with it, control of the Senate itself. If present trends continue, November could turn into a Republican rout.

By Charles Lane | February 15, 2010; 2:49 PM ET

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 04:32 PM

Washington Post

Listen to Bayh's reason for retiring

Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh's decision not to seek reelection will be analyzed ad nauseam for its political implications. Will the Democrats be able to hold the seat? Might they even lose the Senate? Is this bad for me and good for you? Or is it the other way around?

But what everyone in Washington ought to be paying attention to is Bayh's reason for leaving. He probably could have kept his seat if he wanted it, but he decided, basically, that serving in the United States Senate was a waste of his time. "For some time, I have had a growing conviction that Congress is not operating as it should," he said, putting it mildly.

The fundamental message that the country has been sending to Washington for years now is: You people never get anything worthwhile done. That accusation is not literally true, as anyone who pays close attention is well aware. But the big unsolved problems that we've known about for ages -- soaring debt, crumbling infrastructure, a crazy health-care system, you know the rest -- remain unsolved.


Bayh said that one of his final straws was the recent Senate vote to kill a bipartisan commission to come up with solutions for the federal deficit and our long-term debt. "The measure would have passed, but seven members who had endorsed the idea instead voted 'no' for short-term political reasons," Bayh said, in an accurate recounting.

It is incredible that a U.S. senator believes he can be of more service to his state and his nation in some other role -- running a business, leading a university. Wow.

Anyone who wonders why there is such anti-incumbent fervor in the land ought to have a chat with Evan Bayh. I didn't agree with him on every issue, but on the dysfunction in Washington he's absolutely right. This city is broken because too many of our leaders confuse politics with service. Americans know the difference.

By Eugene Robinson | February 15, 2010; 3:20 PM ET

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 07:39 PM

Interesting question as to what has prevented Congress from operating as it should. Undue influence by lobbyits? Obstreperous nabobbery from Republicans? Deep ennui? Corruption?

Oh, by the way, an interesting graph:

The road to Recovery--2008-2010

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 07:53 PM

Very interesting times we have goin' on here... On the right we have a bunch of hypocritical Tea baggers who say they are mad at big governemtn but the first to complain if their mama's Medicare or Social Security is cut... On the left you have folks who have purdy much thrown up their hands with Obama and his moderate to conservative policies and in the middle are one heck of alot of folks who are just plained scared that they are gonna lose their jobs, houses or whatever it is that they have worked all their lives to have...

Meanwhile, no one is focusin' on the problem here and that is that the rich and China have corraled all the money and there really isn't enough left in circulation for the bottom 95% of wage earners...

Yes, very interesting... The Tea Partiers sacre me because they are so ignorant that they can't not be turned around with reason... The left, of which I am part, get stuff but have been so disenfranchised over the years that it is madening...

Kinda like the guy who comes to the hospital with a gunshot wound and there are two guys dressed like doctors... One has never so much had one day of medical training and the other has been practicing medicine for 30 years... Who to pick??? Of course the Tea Partier will pick the real doctor but when it comes to policies he's more than likely to pick the guy who makes fun of the real doctor...

Very strange...

Must be the season of the witch???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 06:20 AM

Amos,

"my.barackobama.com"

That alone would, if a Bush site, have caused you to call me all sorts of names and ignore the data.


Care to give the same chart by some reputable source? With real munbers?

Or extend it back to say 1998?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 06:27 AM

CNN poll: 52% say Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012

By Michael O'Brien - 02/16/10 01:35 PM ET

52 percent of Americans said President Barack Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012, according to a new poll.

44 percent of all Americans said they would vote to reelect the president in two and a half years, less than the slight majority who said they would prefer to elect someone else.

Obama faces a 44-52 deficit among both all Americans and registered voters, according to a CNN/Opinion Research poll released Tuesday. Four percent had no opinion.

The reelection numbers are slightly more sour than Obama's approval ratings, which are basically tied. 49 percent of people told CNN that they approve of the way Obama is handling his job, while 50 percent disapprove.

Still, the 2012 election is still a long way's away, with this fall's midterm elections looming large. Republicans are hoping to make inroads into Congress, while Democrats are hoping to hold onto gains won in the 2006 and 2008 cycles.

Respondents to CNN were split at 46 percent as to whether they preferred a generic Republican or Democratic candidate in this fall's elections.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 06:29 AM

Sometimes even Hillary gets it right!


Clinton clings to Bush ideals on Iran

Stephen Kinzer guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 16 February 2010 20.34 GMT

The US policy of engagement with Iran never got off the ground – and now Hillary Clinton has resorted to Bush-era sabre-rattling

Hillary Clinton's sudden volley of shots at Iran marks the end of an engagement policy that never really began. She wants to convince the world that the regime in Tehran is opposed to serious talks with the west. That may be true, but we'll probably never know because in fact, no one has offered such talks.

In laying out the American approach to Iran, Clinton showed how little US foreign policy has changed since the last years of the Bush administration. President Bush famously explained that he would not negotiate with unfriendly regimes because he didn't want to "reward bad behaviour". He wanted states like Iran to change of their own accord, not as a result of negotiation but as a pre-condition for being allowed to negotiate.

Clinton embraces this same idea. She rejects the view that as Iran becomes more threatening and approaches nuclear breakout capacity, diplomatic engagement becomes more urgent. Instead she takes the opposite view. "We don't want to be engaging while they are building their bomb," she said this week.

Whether the increasingly splintered regime in Iran would or could respond to a serious offer of negotiations is highly uncertain. What is clear, though, is that the regime has not been offered this option. The Obama administration, like its predecessor, has made clear that it is interested in negotiating only one thing: curbs on Iran's nuclear programme. No country, however, would agree to negotiate only on the question that an adversary singles out, without the chance to bring up others that it considers equally urgent.

A more promising approach would be to tell Iran what President Nixon told China 35 years ago: if you agree to consider all of our complaints, we will consider all of yours. Clinton has made clear that the US will make no such offer. Instead it clings to the decades-old American policy toward Iran: make demands of the regime, threaten it, pressure it, sanction it, seek to isolate it, and hope for some vaguely defined positive result.

Some of America's most seasoned diplomats are eager for the chance to see what kind of a "grand bargain" they could strike with Iran. An ideal one would curb the nuclear programme, guarantee some measure of protection for brave Iranians who are being brutalised for defending democratic ideals, and give Iran security guarantees that might lure it out of its isolation and lay the groundwork for a new security architecture in the Middle East. Instead the US has fallen back on sabre-rattling. This pleases Israel, war hawks in Washington, so-called American allies like Saudi Arabia – and most of all, President Ahmadinejad and his reactionary comrades in Tehran. They thrive on confrontation, and are doing all they can to bait the US into attacking their country. It is a strategy as effective as it is dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 06:55 AM

Even CHINA is beginning to bail on Obama!


----------------------------------------

Foreign demand falls for Treasuries
By Alan Rappeport in Washington

Published: February 16 2010 18:01 | Last updated: February 16 2010 23:04

Foreign demand for US Treasury securities fell by a record amount in December as China purged some of its holdings of government debt, the US Treasury department said on Tuesday.

China sold $34.2bn in US Treasury securities during the month, the US Treasury said on Tuesday, leaving Japan as the biggest holder of US government debt with $768.8bn. China overtook Japan as the largest holder in September 2008.

The shift in demand comes as countries retreat from the "flight to safety" strategy they embarked on upon during the worst of the global economic crisis and could mean the US will have to pay more to service its debt interest.

For China, the shedding of US debt marks a reversal that it signalled last year when it said it would begin to reduce some of its holdings. Any changes in its behaviour are politically sensitive because it is the biggest US trade partner and has helped to finance US deficits.

Alan Ruskin, a strategist at RBS Securities, said that China's behaviour showed that it felt "saturated" with Treasury paper and that this is the sign of a trend. The change of sentiment could come at the detriment of the US dollar and the Treasury market as the US has to look to other countries for financing. Japan and the UK could pick up some of that slack and last month both added to their Treasury holdings. However, the overall monthly sell-off of $53bn was the biggest on record.

The figures come as the White House grapples with how to cut the US deficit, which is projected to be $1,560bn in 2010, or 10.6 per cent of gross domestic product. However, the move away from the safety of US debt is a sign of growing confidence in the global economy.Net purchases of long-term US securities declined to $63.3bn from $126.4bn in November, according to Treasury figures. Foreigners increased their purchases of US equities, buying $20.1bn in December after buying $9.7bn the previous month.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 07:08 AM

sorry- last post was from HERE

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 08:42 AM

Drowning in Debt: What the Nation's Budget Woes Mean for You

Economists Predict Cutbacks, Tax Increases That 'Aren't Even Imaginable'

By DEVIN DWYER
WASHINGTON, Feb. 17, 2010


American political and economic leaders have sounded the alarm for years about the red ink rising in reports on the federal government's fiscal health.

David Muir looks into how the deficit has become so large.But now the problem of mounting national debt is worse than it ever has been before with -- potentially dire consequences for taxpayers, according to a report by the nonpartisan Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform.

"It keeps me awake at night, looking at all that red ink," said President Obama in Nashua, N.H., on Feb. 2. "Most of it is structural and we inherited it. The only way that we are going to fix it is if both parties come together and start making some tough decisions about our long-term priorities."

Obama will sign an executive order tomorrow that establishes a bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to make recommendations on how to reduce the country's debt.

Over the past year alone, the amount the U.S. government owes its lenders has grown to more than half the country's entire economic output, or gross domestic product.

Even more alarming, experts say, is that those figures will climb to an unprecedented 200 percent of GDP by 2038 without a dramatic shift in course.

"Within 12 years…the largest item in the federal budget will be interest payments on the national debt," said former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker. "[They are] payments for which we get nothing."

Economic forecasters say future generations of Americans could have a substantially lower standard of living than their predecessors' for the first time in the country's history if the debt is not brought under control.

Government debt, which fuels the risk of inflation, could make everyday Americans' savings worth less. Higher interest rates would make it harder for consumers and businesses to borrow. Wages would remain stagnant and fewer jobs would be created. The government's ability to cut taxes or provide a safety net would also be weakened, economists say.

While much attention has been focused on the government's deficit-spending surge during the recession, many economists agree short-term budget overruns -- as ominous as they may seem -- are not particularly problematic.

"What threatens the ship are large, known and growing structural deficits," said Walker, a problem that few politicians seem eager and readily able to fix.

In a recent ABC News poll, 87 percent of Americans said they are concerned about the federal budget deficit and national debt, and most strongly disapprove of how their political leaders are handling the situation.

But public dissatisfaction has not proven enough to compel members of Congress or current and previous Administrations to set aside their partisan differences to achieve a balanced budget.

Most Republicans don't want to raise taxes; most Democrats don't want to cut spending. The result is a stalemate on how to put America back in the black.


the entire article

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 11:42 AM

"In a wild hunt for ratings, CNN embarks on a poll question just one year into the four-year term of President Barack Obama asking if Obama deserves a second term. The fact that the poll was created during a period of high unemployment coupled with a still-new President Obama would tell a politically-aware ten-year-old that President Obama wasn't going to come out looking to good in such a poll: 52 percent said no; 44 percent said yes.

But CNN ran the poll with that predictable outcome anyway. All the better for stupid buzz; CNN got it. That CNN ran such a poll is totally intellectually irresponsible. It is so because they knew what the outcome would be. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that people polled will be unhappy with both President Obama and The Congress given the state of the economy. It also is equally irresponsible to poll just 1,023 Americans, and of that, only 923 registered voters. The poll sample size is too small to be taken seriously.

This blogger could have gotten a bigger sample size himself. Many of the polls ran in this space have drawn over 2,000 responses. For CNN to run a poll of just 1,023 people given their broadcast reach is, again, irresponsible.

CNN's embarked on what appears to be a really bizarre quest to discredit President Obama. Their main man in this effort in front of the camera has been David Gergen, advisor to a number of past Presidents and currently head of the Public Leadership Project at the Harvard John F. Kennedy School of Government.

CNN's Gergen regularly issues baseless evaluations of President Obama that include not-well-veiled political desires. For example, David Gergen mentions dropping the "Public Option" in the Health Care Reform proposal, rather than proving he's a really good student of politics by explaining how Obama could get a Public Option passed by Congress and discussing the problems with pushing a Public Option.

That's just one example. David Gergen's gotten so bad, this blogger changes the TV channel whenever he appears.

And that's often.

Of late, Gergen's on an "anti-Obama" kick that from this view has totally destroyed his credibility. As he's part of what appears to be an overall effort on CNN's part, it's only logical to report that CNN's political credibility is equally low. Not the best place for the self-proclaimed "trusted news source" to be.

President Obama deserves a second term, regardless of what CNN says. Stay tuned."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail??blogid=95&entry_id=57381#ixzz0foOo24Vf

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 11:45 AM

By CNNMoney.com staffFebruary 17, 2010: 9:58 AM ET NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Stocks gained Wednesday morning, as encouraging reports on housing and corporate profits reassured investors about the strength of the burgeoning economic recovery.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 08:53 PM

* For the first time in seven years, the size of the U.S. military presence in Iraq has fallen below 100,000.

* The White House named a new U.S. ambassador to Syria yesterday, which wouldn't be especially noteworthy except it's the first time we've had an ambassador to Syria since 2005.

* President Obama is moving forward with his bipartisan commission on debt reduction. He's chosen former Wyoming Sen. Alan Simpson (R) and former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles (D) to serve as co-chairmen.

And if you think conservative Republican lawmakers are ridiculous at the federal level, consider how truly insane they can be at the state level. In South Carolina, one GOP lawmaker introduced a bill to prohibit the state from accepting U.S. currency. Seriously.

...NOTHING BUT 'NET'.... It's now impossible for serious observers to claim the stimulus didn't create new jobs. The leading economic research firms -- IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers, and Moody's Economy.com -- estimate that the effort has already created as many as 1.8 million jobs, and will create about 2.5 million jobs when all is said and done. As far as the independent Congressional Budget Office is concerned, those are conservative estimates -- the CBO believes the stimulus is already responsible for as many as 2.4 million jobs....

(Washington Monthly)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 08:57 PM

"It leaves the right looking for alternate rhetorical strategies. Today, House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) tried a new tack in a press release. Notice the addition of one key word to the GOP talking points:

One year [after the stimulus bill became law], not one net job has been created as unemployment rose from 7.6 percent to nearly 10 percent nationwide. [emphasis added]

Matt Finkelstein explained why this rhetorical shift matters: "The distinction here is important. By shifting the focus to 'net jobs,' Pence is effectively conceding that the Recovery Act did create jobs -- that, while unemployment rose more than expected, we would be even worse off if the program hadn't passed."

This also suggests that Republican officials are starting to worry, at least a little, that the economy might be improving far more than they'd like. If job creation starts picking up in a meaningful way in the Spring, as the Obama administration expects, the good news for the country may be bad news for the GOP's midterm election strategy. They'll need something negative to say, and pointing to net job growth may fool a few people.

But probably not many. It's really very foolish -- the recession began in December 2007, and the economy fell off a cliff in September 2008. The month the president took office, thanks to conditions Obama inherited, the economy lost 741,000 jobs. A month later, it was 681,000. A month after that, it was 652,000. Of course there's going to be a net job loss. The net loss will exist for quite a long while. When a nation experiences a downturn of this severity -- easily the worst since the Great Depression -- it takes a very long time to make up the lost ground.

The goal is to see improvements and growth. Maybe Pence understands this, maybe not -- he is a few threads short of a sweater, if you know what I mean -- but either way, this "net job" talk is absurd...."

Ibid

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 09:02 PM

Vice President Biden made a rather bold claim about the administration's counter-terrorism efforts: "There has never been as much emphasis and resources brought against al-Qaeda. The success rate exceeds anything that occurred in the [Bush/Cheney] administration."

Today, David Ignatius considers whether the claim is accurate.

The Karachi raid [that led to the capture of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar] is part of a broad offensive that has sometimes been overlooked in the partisan squabbles over whether the Obama administration should be giving Miranda warnings to terrorist suspects. "The real action has been pounding the hell out of al-Qaeda and its allies around the world," the official argued.

The numbers show a sharp upsurge in operations against al-Qaeda and its allies in Pakistan since Barack Obama took office.... All told, according to U.S. officials, since the beginning of 2009, the drone attacks have killed "several hundred" named militants from al-Qaeda and its allies, more than in all previous years combined. The drones have also shattered the leadership of the Pakistani Taliban, which has been waging a terror campaign across that country. [...]

[S]urely the country can agree, looking at the evidence, that Obama has been no slouch in pursuing what he said in his inaugural address was a "war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred."

It's simply astounding to hear conservative Republicans claim that President Obama has been "weak" on counter-terrorism. Short of having the president air-dropped into mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan with a knife in his teeth and an assault rifle on his back, I'm not sure how more aggressive Obama could be. More to the point, he's far more forceful and successful on the issue than Bush -- who somehow managed to cultivate a bogus reputation of "toughness" -- ever was.

The AP had a similar assessment the other day, emphasizing, among other things, that Obama's decision to reduce the U.S. presence in Iraq has "freed up manpower and resources to hunt terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan." It's an approach that "intelligence officials, lawmakers and analysts" believe is working. Obama has also made regional gains with constructive outreach to Islamic allies, which has bolstered international cooperation.

Those of us who take national security matters seriously can take comfort in the fact that congressional Republicans can't filibuster the Obama administration's counter-terrorism efforts. GOP obstructionism can undermine the economy, the strength of our health care system, and our national energy policy, but fortunately, Obama is the Commander in Chief.

Ibid

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 09:04 PM

he system in Washington is "broken." Every effort does require an inexplicable "supermajority." The entire policymaking process is "dysfunctional."

But what officials need to understand is the importance of taking the next step -- explaining why this is and who is responsible.

As much as I'm sympathetic to the vice president's entirely accurate concerns, his omissions make all the difference. For viewers who don't know what filibusters or cloture votes are, they're thinking, "There's a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress. If the system is broken and dysfunctional, maybe it's Democrats' fault."

Except, for anyone interested in reality, that assumption couldn't be more wrong. If legislation received up-or-down votes in both chambers -- the way Congress operated for the better part of two centuries -- the system would work quite well and the dysfunction that drives everyone crazy would largely disappear.

Biden, in other words, needs to name names -- Republicans broke the American legislative process. They did so deliberately, during a time of crises, because they're desperate to undercut the Democratic majority, regardless of the consequences. The GOP's tactics have no precedent in American history, and violate every democratic norm that keeps our system moving.

It's not enough to share Americans' disgust; Dems need to help the public understand this mess. They can do so by avoiding jargon and legislative terminology, and calling Republicans' obstructionist tactics what they are: a dangerous political scandal.

Don't talk about "filibusters" or "supermajorities"; talk about the Republican "scandal" that has brought the system to a halt. Talk about Republicans "shutting down" the American policymaking process, and ignoring the will of the voters.

ÑSteve Benen, Ibid

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 12:09 AM

With the unemployment rate in the U.S. lingering just below 10% and the midterm elections just nine months away, job creation has become the top priority in Washington. President Obama has called for transferring $30 billion in repaid bank bailout money to a small-business lending fund, saying, "Jobs will be our No. 1 focus in 2010, and we're going to start where most new jobs do: with small business."

WHY? so that $30 billion can be put on Bush's tab, It was supposed to be returned to the treasury by law but now it will show up as a deficit created by the previous administration and Obama can take credit for whatever benefits come from spending an additional $30B we have to borrow from the Chinese.

People with very little knowledge of what is actually happening keep complaining about Bush "giving money to the banks"

It was a loan to be paid back with interest.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 08:16 AM

Amos:

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/ VS CNN



You want to (try to) justify your bias?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 04:00 PM

Jobless Claims in U.S. Rose Last Week to 473,000

Feb. 18 (Bloomberg) -- The number of Americans filing first-time claims for unemployment insurance unexpectedly increased last week, pointing to an uneven recovery in the labor market.

Initial jobless applications rose by 31,000 to 473,000 in the week ended Feb. 13, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The total number of people receiving unemployment insurance was unchanged and those receiving extended benefits increased.

Companies may want evidence of accelerating sales before hiring after making the deepest payroll cuts in the post-World War II era. Federal Reserve policy makers said last month that while consumer spending has picked up, it's partly â€쳌constrained by a weak labor market.â€쳌

â€쳌There is still a lot of labor market weakness out there,â€쳌 said Steven Ricchiuto, chief economist at Mizuho Securities USA Inc. in New York. â€쳌I don't think the weather has had as big an impact on claims as many think it has.â€쳌

The Labor Department said it had to estimate filings for Texas, Hawaii and Alabama because it didn't receive data from employment offices in those states. California provided its own estimates instead of complete figures.

All Recipients

Continuing claims held at 4.56 million in the week ended Feb. 6. The continuing claims figure does not include the number of Americans receiving extended benefits under federal programs.

The number of people who've used up their traditional benefits and are now collecting extended payments rose by about 274,500 to 6 million in the week ended Jan. 30.

The unemployment rate among people eligible for benefits, which tends to track the jobless rate, held at 3.5 percent in the week ended Feb. 6, today's report showed. Twenty-four states and territories had an increase in claims for that same week, while 29 had a decrease.

A separate report today from the Labor Department showed wholesale prices in the U.S. accelerated more than anticipated in January, led by a jump in costs of energy, light trucks and pharmaceuticals. The 1.4 percent rise in prices paid to factories, farmers and other producers followed a 0.4 percent increase in December, the government said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 04:03 PM

After they met, the Dalai Lama indicated to reporters he was not offended that Mr. Obama had decided not to see him before a presidential visit to China last November.

"He always is showing his genuine concern, including his recent visit to Beijing, as he has said, his concerns about Tibet, beside other global issues like that," said the Dalai Lama. "So I expressed my thanks to him."

---

A fine and insightful being, that Dalai Lama....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 04:17 PM

Bruce:

I THINK you are referring to my posting the article at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail??blogid=95&entry_id=57381#ixzz0foOo24Vf .

I see nothing that needs justification. Especially given the light you and Sawz have brought to this thread.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 05:26 PM

Do I detect that Amos has misgivings about the economic future of America?

Come on Amos. Come in out of the cold. You will be treated kindly.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 05:38 PM

CNN = the new Fox...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 06:01 PM

Sawz:

What the F are you referring to? Your instinct for disjoint cognitive leaps defies imagination.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 06:41 PM

Well if It is totally untrue, you can simply state the affirmative cognitively instead of using hostility, profanity, rhetoric, bloviation and ad hominem attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 06:46 PM

bloviate - orate verbosely and windily

To discourse at length in a pompous or boastful manner

Mock-Latinate formation, from the word blow.

orate - talk pompously

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 06:47 PM

Look who is calling the kettle black, Amos...

(Oh, I'll prolly be called a racist for usin' that ol' sayin'... Sho nuff will... Lemme go hide unner the bed...)

Yer right tho, Amos... Sawz is way off his meds an' ain't all that coherant of late... Just lashin' 'n flailin'...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 07:16 PM

OK, I will. Of COURSE I have misgivings about the future of the American economy. AFter the sheer chaos imposed on it by Bush, and Reagan, and their jailbird buddies at Goldman Sachs and AIG, and similar outfits of less note, I am amzed Obama has managed to fend off catastrophe as well as he has. I am dfurther amazed that you and your il insist on continuing to barf on his shoes with every small minded carp you can come up with no matter what. I think that kind of behavior is, to put it simply, demented.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 09:55 PM

Bobert: Are people that seek to find some sort of reference to race in everything, racist?

Thanks again for dropping the ostentatious [oops] wording Amos. ;D

"jailbird buddies at Goldman Sachs"
Does this mean Geithner is a jailbird?

I know he incapable of filling out an income tax form without "accidentally" cheating or "accidentaly" not reporting certain income after he was notified to do so but I wouldn't take it to that extreme.

In March 2008, he arranged the rescue and sale of Bear Stearns. In the same year, he played a supporting role to Henry Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, in the decision to bail out AIG just two days after deciding not to rescue Lehman Brothers from bankruptcy. According to some observers, Geithner severely damaged the U.S. economy.

New York Times 24 November 2008:

.....While Henry M. Paulson Jr., the current Treasury secretary, has taken a drubbing for the changeable nature of the government’s efforts to bolster the financial industry â€" some of which clearly contradicted each other â€" Mr. Geithner has managed, for the most part, to remain unscathed. He’s been widely praised as a bright, articulate out-of-the box thinker who is a bailout expert, to the extent anyone can truly be an expert at fast-changing emergencies.

Behind the scenes, Mr. Geithner was the point person for weeks of sleep-deprived Bailout Weekends. It was Mr. Geithner, not Mr. Paulson, for example, who put together the original rescue plan for the American International Group.

And, of course, Mr. Geithner also helped oversee and regulate an entire industry whose decline has delivered a further blow to an already weakened American economy. Under his watch, some of the biggest institutions that were the responsibility of the New York Fed â€" Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and most recently, Citigroup â€" faltered. While he was one of the first regulators to smartly articulate the potential for an impending disaster, a number of observers question whether he went far enough to stop the calamity....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 10:05 PM

The unemployment rate in the U.S. dropped to 9.7 percent in January, while payrolls declined by 20,000, Labor Department figures showed Feb. 6. Manufacturers added to payrolls for the first time in three years and that may help revive the rest of the labor market.

Some companies continue to cut staff. Humana Inc., the best-performing U.S. health-insurance stock this year, will reduce its workforce by 5 percent as the company faces shrinking private-sector enrollments and cuts in government-backed Medicare payments.

About 2,500 jobs will be eliminated through attrition, outsourcing and shedding positions, the Louisville, Kentucky- based company said Feb. 4 in a statement. The insurer also plans to hire 1,100 people in the growth areas of medical-cost containment, pharmacy management and specialty products, for a net reduction of 1,400 workers.

"This regrettable but necessary reduction in our workforce is a direct result of Humana's need to align the size of our company with that of our membership,"said Michael McCallister, the company's president and chief executive officer, in the statement.

3,000 Cuts

Warren Buffett's [supporter of Obama during his campaign] Berkshire Hathaway Inc. cut about 3,000 jobs since December after customers scaled back orders for building-related materials, the firm said in a regulatory filing last week.

"If you look at our carpet business, our brick business, our insulation business, all of those businesses have had significant reductions in employment," Buffett said in an interview in Omaha, Nebraska, on Jan. 20. "The day the orders come in, we hire back. But there's no reason to hire people if they don't have anything to do."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 10:33 PM

Here's Why Warren Buffett Endorsed Obama Today: McCain Failed to Get 'Lobotomy'

Huffington Post May 19, 2008

Obama supporters, naturally, are excited about word today that one of the world's richest men, Warren Buffett -- the sage of Omaha -- has thrown his support to the Democratic frontrunner, although it's not likely to put Nebraska in the win column for Obama this November.

But why does Buffett like Barack? And why now? The wire service reports only reveal that Buffett announced an endorsement of Obama because he looks like the nominee: "I will be very happy if he is elected president. He is my choice." Not exactly food for thought.

But to find out more, I discovered a May 5, 2008, on-the-fly interview with Buffett carried by CNBC.

The interviewer, Becky Quick, asked Buffett to pretend for a moment that she was John McCain. She then asked, "Is there anything I can do, any economic issue I can get behind, that would actually make you think twice about potentially supporting me?"

Buffett replied: "I would say that if you felt the tax burden should be shifted in a significant way to the super-rich and away from the middle class, I would say that would make me re-evaluate you."

Quick/McCain: "So I could eventually gain your support come November?"

Buffett: "Well, in the end I vote on issues now. I think it's pretty clear in many major areas what all three candidates would do."

Then he said, chuckling, that it was "unlikely" he would back McCain "unless he has a serious change, a lobotomy or something like that."

Buffett explained: "I don't think McCain is going to change his views to be in accord with mine. I admire him a lot. I think he's an absolutely first-class human being, and if the Republicans are going to elect somebody I hope it's John McCain.

"But he has too many ideas that are different than I do, particular in terms of what I would call social justice."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 10:44 PM

Buffet rolls Obama under da bus:

Warren Buffett Blasts Obama's Bank Tax, Compares It To A 'Guilt Tax'

Huffington Post February 18, 2010

Speaking to CNBC at Berkshire Hathaway's special shareholder meeting, billionaire Warren Buffett blasted President Obama's proposed tax on the nation's largest banks, and had some oddly optimistic words on the souring housing market.

Buffett's argument against tax, which is laid out in the below video, is that the levy unfairly punishes banks for the losses forced upon taxpayers during the bailout of the auto industry. The largest banks, Buffett said, have already paid back the government with interest. Separately, Buffett told Bloomberg that he "didn't see any reasons why the banks should have to pay a special tax," and questioned by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had not been asked to pay similar fees.

(Keep in mind, however, that Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway owns an enormous stake in Wells Fargo, and large investments in Bank Of America and Goldman Sachs, all of which would fall under Obama's proposed tax.)

Here's Buffett:

    "If it's some kind of guilt tax or something of that sort because banks were among the [firms] that were saved back in 2008, everybody was taken care of then. And the banks, basically, somebody like Wells [Fargo], it's cost them a lot of money to be in the TARP and it was basically forced upon them. They didn't want to take the money, but really had no choice...The government's made a lot of money off Wells. They've made a lot of money off Goldman. They've made a lot of money off JPMorgan. And where they're at going to lose money, at least where it's possible they'll lose money, is in the auto companies."

Responding to the news that new housing starts in 2009 were the worst since WWII, Buffett said, "You want to have a bad number for a while."

He added, "We had more supply than demand for three of four years in housing. Buffett's not alone in his contention that the housing market is badly weighed down by an inventory overhang, which basically means far too many houses were built during the boom years.

Buffett's solution? Let the housing market continue to languish and build fewer houses. Or, he joked: "You could get 13-year-olds to start cohabitating and create more households that way -- and I think we'd get a lot of volunteers among 13-year-olds."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 08:26 AM

"Miss Me Yet?" Bush Merchandise a Hit Online

Posted by Stephanie Condon

(Bob Collins/Minnesota Public Radio)The cheery image of former President George W. Bush appeared on a billboard in Minnesota earlier this month, next to the words, "Miss me yet?" It appears a lot of people think it's a fair question.

The online store CafePress saw a spike in demand for items featuring the same image as the billboard, the New York Daily News reports. Ten "Miss Me Yet?" items were on the company's list of its top-selling designs, CafePress spokeswoman Jenna Martin told the Daily News.

"There were no Obama-themed designs on the list," she said. "Bush has stolen the political spotlight, just like Sarah Palin did the week before when she re-surfaced with crib notes written in her palm."

Obama-themed merchandise saturated the Washington area around the time of the president's inauguration last year, but by the fall, the enthusiasm for Obama caps, t-shirts, commemorative plates and so forth, seemed to fizzle. U.S. News and World Report noted earlier this month that even the Obama Store, located in tourist-filled Union Station, has closed, in what "may be the most tangible sign yet that the [Obama] honeymoon is over."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 08:58 AM

Jitters over China's waning taste for T-bills
By Robert Cookson and Michael Mackenzie

Published: February 18 2010 18:16 | Last updated: February 18 2010 19:02

If there is one thing that gets investors twitchy, it is the fear that China is losing its appetite for US government bonds.

As the biggest and most liquid pool of assets in the world, the US Treasury market lies at the heart of the global financial system and allows the American government to finance its trillion-dollar budget deficits. Until recently, China has been the largest foreign official holder of US debt.

That is why the latest release of Treasury International Capital (Tic) data, showing that China's holdings of Treasuries fell by a record amount in December, has caused something of a stir.

China's holdings fell by $34.2bn to $755.4bn from the previous month, prompting renewed jitters that the country was diversifying from Treasuries over fears about their future value.

China's holdings have fallen from a peak of $801.5bn in May 2009, and the data come at a time of heightened political friction between Beijing and Washington over issues such as Barack Obama's meeting with the Dalai Lama, US weapons sales to Taiwan, and pressure on China to revalue the renminbi.

"These developments require monitoring because they could cause China to become even less enthusiastic buyers of US Treasuries," says Yasunari Ueno, chief economist at Mizuho Securities in Tokyo. "A key issue now is how China will act in 2010 in light of the deteriorating bilateral relationship with the US."

China may have indeed started to rebalance its foreign reserve portfolio from US Treasuries, he says, having piled into the asset class after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008. But most analysts, including Mr Ueno, believe the December dip in China's holdings of US Treasuries more likely has more mundane explanations. They also caution against reading too much into the Tic data, which is prone to big monthly swings and is subject to so-called transactional bias.

Tic data is further clouded as the true holdings of Asian central banks such as the People's Bank of China are obscured by their use of custodians in big financial centres offshore.

Dealers believe China may have made significant purchases in the past year through Hong Kong and London. Treasury holdings by Hong Kong rose to $152.9bn in December – up from $77.2bn in Dec 2008.

Meanwhile, UK holdings of Treasuries have also surged, reaching $302.5bn in December, from $230.1bn in October.

In terms of China's portfolio of Treasuries in the Tic report, the December data show a further big reduction in holdings of short-dated bills and buying of longer-dated coupon debt. China's T-bill holdings dropped by $38.8bn in December while its holdings of notes rose by $4.6bn.

Rather than selling any of its holdings, China appears to have let the bills mature and then used some of the proceeds to buy longer-dated coupons, analysts say. Extending its purchases along the yield curve is, partly, a sign of China's confidence in the US government's ability to service its debt. The Tic data show that China has not diversified into US equities or corporate bonds.

During the financial crisis, China built up holdings of short-dated T-bills from $14bn in mid-2008 to $210bn by May 2009 and they are now back around $70bn.

"The latest data is consistent with them shrinking the T-bill mountain rapidly, although there is more to come, as the likely underlying desirable holdings of T-bills is probably nearer $20bn," says Alan Ruskin, strategist at RBS Securities.

"China is simply fine tuning its portfolio and as US banks and consumers continue deleveraging, there will be enough domestic demand to buy Treasuries," says John Brady, senior vice-president of global interest rates at MF Global.

Mr Ueno says the most probable cause of China's decline in Treasury purchases, is simply that the country's foreign reserves grew at a slower pace in December. Julian Jessop, economist at Capital Economics, predicts that December's Tic data represent a brief pause before China's purchases of Treasuries resume.

And even if China is shifting out of US Treasuries, it would not necessarily cause trouble in the market as long as other buyers step into the breach. Indeed, US Treasury yields remain well inside last summer's peaks as other countries have stepped up their buying.

Significantly, Japan overtook China as the biggest foreign holder of US Treasuries in December, and its monthly purchases have been consistently rising since May. The country, which is seen as having a more stable relationship with the US, held $768.8bn of Treasuries in December, an increase of $142.8bn from the previous year. Analysts see little rationale for China to reduce its Treasury holdings dramatically, given that such a move would be likely to have severe consequences for Beijing.

If Chinese demand for Treasuries disappeared and it started selling, US interest rates would rise, analysts say. This could throttle a US economic recovery, damage Chinese exports, and also reduce the value of China's existing vast holdings of Treasuries as yields rose and prices fell, damaging a key plank of its currency reserves.

Moreover, China's currency link with the US dollar entails there is a limit to how far they can diversify their foreign reserves.

"So long as China's currency is pegged to the US dollar, they will need to recycle their trade surplus dollars back into US assets," says Gerald Lucas, senior investment adviser at Deutsche Bank.

Which is yet another reason why Tic data is being closely watched. If the latest numbers mark the beginnings of a diversification by China away from US Treasuries and other dollar assets, a widely speculated rise in the value of the renminbi against the dollar is on the cards.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 10:21 AM

And now he's pissing off China by meeting with the Dolly Llama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 11:52 AM

A bit of a conundrum, that. I would love to meet the Dalai Llama. I think most people would be glad of a chance to meet him. Well, most thinking people would, at any rate. The fact that it bothers China is a bit inconvenient, and it's also very ironical, because the Dalai Llama has done all he can to persuade angry Tibetans NOT to undertake any form of violent resistance against the Chinese occupation of their country.

He's the only significant voice in preventing such violent resistance so far.

When he dies, the lid is going to come off the pressure cooker in Tibet, and there will be violent resistance...which the Chinese no doubt will have the strength to crush with even greater violence...but that will be of little comfort to the unfortunate Chinese who must deal with it directly when it comes.

And China doesn't seem to get that. They will miss the Dalai Llama when he's gone...unless they are just too pig-headed and self-absorbed to get the connection when the shit hits the fan.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 12:17 PM

LH,

I have met the Dalai Llama ( at the Smithsonian FAF a few years back).

I think your assesment about Tibet is probably correct. But I think the Chinese ARE aware, and are looking for that violence, in order to "ethnically cleanse" Tibet for their own population. Why should the government care about individuals? They always have more population to move in, after the slaughter.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 01:28 PM

Ah! You may be right, BB. I wouldn't put it past the Chinese government to be cynically pragmatic enough to have just such a plan in mind. If so, it won't be nice, and it will lead to a lengthy guerilla insurgency in that region, because the Tibetans won't all just go away and die quietly.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 01:38 PM

Yes, I think that is China's game as well. As long as the Llama can gad about the globe and keep international attention on the matter, China's government won't move. The minute he's gone it'll be cleansing at its worst.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 01:54 PM

"...For several reasons, Obama can't – or won't – follow suit. It would be out of character for someone more scholar than brawler, more conciliator than demagogue. His decency seems to preclude demagoguery. One of his heroes is Abraham Lincoln, who assembled a "team of rivals" cabinet and who said: "I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends."

Even more salient is the fact that Obama is black and risks being seen as "uppity" and combative in a country still acclimating to its first African-American president. White congressional Republicans can savage him, but a black president can't reciprocate.

There is a grand tradition in Washington of creating enemies for the sake of political expediency.

No one was better at making or finding enemies than Richard Nixon. For decades, he accused opponents of being cozy with communists, a menace he greatly exaggerated. But, when Nixon became president and later pals with the communist leaders of China and the Soviet Union, he had to create new enemies. So he exploited white fears of black street crime and forced busing. It succeeded in wooing white Southern Democrats disaffected by President Johnson's civil rights agenda into the Republican fold, where they remain today.

Harry Truman used the same communist threat to get his way with a miserly Congress. Shortly after World War II, a depleted Britain needed reconstruction loans. Prof. Walter Burdick of Elmhurst College told me: "Senator Arthur Vandenberg [R] of Michigan advised Truman to 'scare the hell out of Congress' to get the money other Republicans wanted to use to balance the budget and pay for the war. Harry did it, and it worked." Fear is not always a negative tactic. Truman used the same ploy to pass the much-needed Marshall Plan.

Truman and every Democrat who ran for the White House for the next half century berated Republican Herbert Hoover for the Depression. Decades after the 1929 crash, I recall Jimmy Carter confiding he "hated" to have to castigate "poor old Herbert Hoover," whom he confessed he really liked. Similarly, even if he doesn't like to do it, Obama seems to be embracing Bush as his No. 1 adversary. For being asleep at the switch while America slid into a great recession, Bush is a ripe target.

This is a crucial moment in Obama's presidency. It requires an element of leadership that he's so far not shown. Obama has read too much law and not enough Shakespeare. In "Henry V," King Henry says, "In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility."

But Obama's political enemies war against him daily, so his only option may be to follow Henry's next words: "But when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger; Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favor'd rage; Then lend the eye a terrible aspect."

Presidential politics is not for the faint of heart. "

Walter Rodgers is a former senior international correspondent for CNN. He writes a biweekly column.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 02:46 PM

Calvin Broadus Jr.: "The KKK gave Obama money"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 03:26 PM

JEsus, Sawz, have you no decency?

One bent rapper says something, to an interviewer, based on no real data or source, and you cite it as an authoritative reference? Are you some kind of histrionic bot?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 03:53 PM

Amos: where did I characterize anything?

I like that shiny new word of yours. It proves ????

It proves Amos has a fetish for words and an aversion to facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 04:10 PM

Amos delights in words the way Blackbeard delighted in slaughter... ;-D   You could call that a fetish.

But as far as facts, Sawzaw, this is what I find: Everyone has an aversion to facts that don't appear to benefit or support an argument they hold dear! On the other hand, they absolutely adore facts that do appear to benefit or support their argument.

There are usually a variety of facts available...millions of them, in fact...and what people normally do is they comb through those facts for the ones that seem to help their argument and they ignore or discount the rest.

This is true of you, me, Amos, and the rest of the 5 billion or so people presently residing on the planet. ;-D They all carefully select the facts they like and try hard to disregard the rest.

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 01:21 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 12:26 AM

Care for some Wagyu?

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: 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 - 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: 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 Search
  
  $25,000 Patriot Majority West Patriot Majority West Washington DC
  $8,259  New Jersey Progress Washington DC 
  $5,000  Patriot Majority Patriot Majority Washington DC 
  $20,635        Alliance for North Carolina Alliance for NC Washington DC 
  $50,000        York Building Products Committee York PA         
  $60,000        Democratic Governors Association  Washington DC
  Expenses
  Top 5 VendorsVendor        
  Jean Johnston                   $18,000
  Independent Strategies          $10,000
  Harmon, Curran, Spielberg        $1,622
  Sandler, Reiff & Young           $1,500
  Peter D Hart Research Assoc     $32,000
  Anzalone Liszt Research         $26,797
  Alliance For North Carolina     $26,797
  VR Research                     $20,000
  Independent Strategies          $17,541 

Domain Name: AMERICANPUBLICPOLICYCOMMITTEE.COM
Administrative Contact:, Technical Contact Varoga, Craig
1613 Marshall Street Houston, TX 77006 Phone: [phone] DC

Domain Name: PATRIOTMAJORITY.US
Administrative Contact , Technical Contact Varoga, Craig
[e-mail] 1613 Marshall Street Houston, TX 77006 Phone: [phone] DC

Patriot Majority "527" Contribution Details
  1199 SEIU - NY Political Action Fund  NY       $200,000 
  1199 SEIU - NYS Political Action Fund NY       $300,000
  AFSCME Washington, DC                        $5,800,000 5.8 mil
  American Affordable Health Care DC              $11,874
  Bluegrass Freedom Fund DC                        $5,000
  Change to Win Political Education  DC          $500,000
  Communications Workers of America  DC          $300,000
  Democratic Governors' Association DC           $230,000
  Democratic Lieutenant Governors Assn DC          $2,500 
  DRIVE Committee  DC                            $250,000 
  Eastern MA Bricklayers People's Com.MA           $2,500
  Heartland PAC Des Moines,                        $5,000        
  Laborers' Political League Edu, Fund  DC        $35,000 
  Local 509 SEIU Watertown, MA                    $10,000         
  Massachusetts Teachers Assn MA                 $250,000 
  NE Regional Council of Carpenters PAC  MA       $50,000 
  Oklahoma Freedom Fund  OK                       $10,469        
  Bauman Foundation DC                            $25,000         
  CEI Enterprises, Inc                            $50,000 
  Patriot Majority Midwest  DC                   $161,000
  Patriot Majority West, DC                      $300,000
  Richardson for Governor NM                      $10,000 
  SEIU   DC                                      $770,000
  The Pennsylvania AFL-CIO  PA                     $6,500         
  United Food&Commercial Workers Union DC        $125,000 




	

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: 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 - 11:49 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). "Liberal Conspiracy Saves Health Care Initiative!!!!"

GAO SAYS DEMOCRATS ARE MAKING THINGS BETTER!!

EMPLOYMENT CONTINUES TO IMPROVE UNDER OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

INTERNATIONAL 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:58 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 05:05 PM

My tower, Amos, has been built upon the accumulated bricks of my own folly in this same regard... ;-)

Can we learn from the past?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 05:06 PM

1600 says we can!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 05:35 PM

Obama is the real obstructionist at his health-care summit
By Marc Thiessen

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) says of this week's bipartisan health-care summit: "Sounds like the Democrats spell summit: S-E-T-U-P." He's right -- the Blair House summit is a trap. If the objective really was to produce bipartisan compromise, Obama would not be using legislation crafted in a backroom that got virtually no Republican votes as the basis for the discussions. Nor would his secretary of health and human services have declared last week that the White House is still willing to fight for a public option, a proposal that died because of bipartisan opposition in the Senate.

The president's real objective is to paint GOP leaders as obstructionists -- so that Democrats have an excuse to ram through their health-care legislation using extraordinary parliamentary procedures. Obstructionism has been Obama's mantra ever since Massachusetts GOP Sen. Scott Brown's election. Just last week in Denver, Obama declared that "for those who don't believe in government, those who don't believe that we have obligations to each other, it's a lot easier task. If you can gum up the works, if you make things broken, if the Senate doesn't get anything done, well, that's consistent with their philosophy." This is dishonest. Republicans have a robust health-care agenda, from health savings accounts, to association health plans, insurance portability, and medical liability reform.

What has gummed up the works over the past year has been the relentless partisanship of the Obama administration. Compare Obama's record to that of his immediate predecessors, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Both reached across the aisle in their first months to forge bipartisan coalitions on major issues. Clinton teamed with Republicans to approve the North American Free Trade Agreement; Bush worked with Ted Kennedy to pass the No Child Left Behind Act. Even the Bush tax cuts were bipartisan -- Bush made substantive concessions that brought one-quarter of Senate Democrats on board with his plan.

By contrast, Obama did not propose, much less secure passage of, a single major bipartisan initiative during his first year. Instead, backed by the largest Democratic majority in decades, he tried to pass a massive government intervention in health care along strict party lines. The last time Obama met with GOP leaders to discuss health-care legislation was in March of 2009 -- almost a year ago. This partisan approach backfired and sparked a popular backlash. But rather than tacking to the center, as Clinton did in similar circumstances, Obama is pressing ahead -- and the Blair House summit is the first step.

Republicans would play right into Obama's plans by refusing to attend -- giving him evidence to back his claim that they don't want to get anything done. GOP leaders have said the basis of the summit should be a clean sheet of paper where both sides can list the areas where they both agree -- and develop legislation enacting those areas of broad agreement. They should come to the summit with such a piece of paper, and this offer: "Mr. President, you say we agree on 80 percent of the issues, so let's pass that 80 percent solution right now."

If Obama refuses, he will make clear who the real obstructionist is.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 05:49 PM

Listen, bruce... Obama met with the Repubs fir several days at the beginnin' of this thing and got what??? Squat, that's what...

The Repubs are bankin'(pun unintended) on the economy stayin' stagnant come elction time so the only thing they want to do is run-out-the-clock... They have no intention of allowin' Obama any legislative success... That is their strategy and even Helen Keller could see it if she were still alive...

So rather than let the Reppubs control everything, Obama is countering their strategy with this summit... Yeah, it's politics-as-usaul... So sue him!!! I'm so sick and tired of Obama thinkin' that bi-partisanship is doable... It ain't... With the fillibuster rule the minority, which BTW trepresents 11% of the US population, is leading the other 89% around like that cow that LH was talkin' about...

Disgusting that 11% trumps 89%... Welcome to the US Senate and the Repubs have done the math correctly....

It's about time that Obama is going to make the Repubs squirm... Tough poo!!! Breaks my heart... Let me got get a hankie... Sniff...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 06:21 PM

GOVERNMENT CAN WORK: The Clinton administration achieved significant gains in government performance. FEMA, for example, earned widespread praise for its management of disaster response. And the veterans health system was transformed into the single best health provider in the country, significantly outperforming the private sector. But performance eroded after eight years of the Bush administration's misguided policies, rampant cronyism, and special interest influence. Inexcusable personnel decisions and general lack of concern at the highest levels of government for FEMA's core mission led toÊan agency that was completely unprepared for Hurricane Katrina.ÊSimilarly, the Bush administration was hardly concerned with ensuring that its prescription drug plan got the best bang for the taxpayer's buck.ÊAccording to one study, drugs purchased by seniors under Medicare Part D can cost 30 percent more than the exact same drugs purchased under Medicaid. Simply put, America cannot afford a government that does not maximize value and results for the American people, because government is too important.ÊSocial Security reduced poverty among American seniors by 75 percent; traditional Medicare provides essential care while controlling costs far better than the private sector, and Americans can trust their food supply because of the FDA.ÊEvery dollar wasted is a dollar that can't advance these and other critical needs, and it is a dollar that plunges us deeper into debt.

GRADING GOVERNMENT: Nevertheless, not every program is a model of efficiency.ÊOne important step towards building a more efficient government is to ensure that the federal government and its agencies set challenging, outcome-driven goals and then evaluate programs according to whether they advance these goals.ÊSadly, the federal government's existing performance evaluation tools are not up to this task.ÊRatings under the Bush administration's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) often had little to do with a program's performance. In the same year as FEMA's botched response to Hurricane Katrina, PART rated that agencyÕs disaster response program as "adequate." Pre-Bush tools devolved into a bureaucratic paperwork-producing exercise, largely ignored by executive branch decision-makers and Congress because they set too many low-priority and low-risk goals that failed to test government in a meaningful way.ÊOne area needing particular attention is tax expenditures.ÊBecause Congress appropriates federal discretionary funds every year, spending programs are annually re-evaluated to determine whether they deserve funding.ÊYet the government gives over $1.2 trillion annually in tax breaks -- twice as much as the entire non-military discretionary budget -- to various industries and individuals, and these tax expenditures are not subject to regular review.ÊBillions of dollars worth of annual tax breaks to oil companies deserve at least as much scrutiny as a multimillion dollar program intended to educate low-income children, yet the budgeting process focuses far more on the latter.

THE BUSINESS OF GOVERNMENT: Government needs to set good policy, but it also needs to order paper and hire staff, and the Bush government was particularly inattentive to these operational needs.ÊBetween 2000 and 2005, the amount of no-bid and single-bid contracts paid by the federal government grew from $67 billion to $145 billion, a 115 percent increase.ÊThe overall annual cost of contracting also skyrocketed under Bush, growing 86 percent to $377 billion during the same five-year period. Obama is reversing this trend.ÊSince taking office, the Obama Administration identified $19 billion in savings from contracting reforms, and it plans to cut $40 billion annually by 2011. Obama's transparency reforms also help keep spending under control. A federal website known as the IT Dashboard, for example, tracks every single dollar the government spends on information technology, empowering the Veterans Administration to identify $200 million in overdue or over budget projects. All of these projects were temporarily halted; many will be killed entirely.ÊAdmittedly, these reforms have not transformed government into a model of efficiency -- the federal hiring process, for example, remains a mess -- but they do prove that government can provide real value to the taxpayer, and they demonstrate that progressive government can deliver such efficiency

(Excerpted from The Progressive newsletter...)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 06:29 PM

Pee in the cup, Amos...

John "Bonehead" Baynor and Bitch McConnell have called off Congress until Obama is gone... They will not allow anything short of an emergency appropraitions bill thru... The only thing they want Obama to sign is a letter of resignation... Nuthin' else...

Looks as if the only way that Obama is going to get anything done is thru executive orders and signing statements... The Bonehead and Bitch will bitch that Obama thinks he's a dictator and the press will make a big thing about it, yet not the Repubs shutting down Congress, and then after awhile all the lies will set in and Obama will be gone... Maybe Bitch and Bonehead will write him a letter of recommendation to run the elevator in the Senate Office Building??? But, then again, maybe not...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 07:17 PM

Bobert:

Not mine, but an intelligent quote from well-informed sources.

Here's a nother which kinda goes right along with what you are saying:

"The breakdown of the Washington policy process has four manifestations. First is a chronic inability to focus beyond the next election. ÒShovel-readyÓ projects squeeze out attention to vital longer-term strategies that may require a decade or more. Second, most key decisions are made in congressional backrooms through negotiations with lobbyists, who simultaneously fund the congressional campaigns. Third, technical expertise is largely ignored or bypassed, while expert communities such as climate scientists are falsely and recklessly derided by the Wall Street Journal as a conspiratorial interest group chasing federal grants. Fourth, there is little way for the public to track and comment on complex policy proposals working their way through Congress or federal agencies.

These failings take a special toll on the challenges of sustainable development because there is no quick fix, for example, for the challenge of large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Instead of getting long-term strategies for adopting low-carbon energy sources, upgrading the power grid, encouraging electric transportation and so on, we are getting cash for clunkers, subsidies for corn-based ethanol, and other ineffective and highly costly nonsolutions delivered by large-scale lobbying.

Some free-market economists say sustainable development should be left to the marketplace, but the marketplace now offers no incentive to reduce carbon emissions. Even putting a levy on carbon emissions, either through a carbon tax or carbon-emission permits, will not be sufficient. The development and deployment of major technologies potentially crucial to more sustainable energyÑsuch as nuclear power, wind and solar power, biomass conversion and transport infrastructureÑare matters of systems design requiring a mix of public and private decision making.

Herein lies the policy challenge today. When we let the private sector enter into public decision making, we end up with relentless lobbying, money-driven politics, suppression of new technologies by incumbent interests and sometimes miserable choices devoid of serious scientific content. How can business and government work together without policies falling prey to special interests?

First, the administration should initiate a more open, transparent and systematic public-private policy process in each major area of sustainable development. Highest priorities would include renewable energy, nuclear power and carbon capture and sequestration. A high-level roundtable would be established in each area, perhaps under the National Academy of Sciences, with representatives of private business, nongovernmental organizations, government officials, scientists and engineers. The proceedings would be open to the public, Web-based, and available for submissions and testimony by interested parties. Each roundtable would prepare a report within six to 12 months containing a technical overview and policy options, prepared for both the president and Congress. Second, the administration would prepare draft legislation, on which the experts on the roundtables and the general public would be invited to comment through Web-based submissions. Third, the congressional processes, too, would become Web-supported. Hearings and testimony would be open to the public, and Web sites would encourage comments and additional evidence."

That one is from Scientific American

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 08:34 PM

Amen...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 01:52 AM

Amos cannot point out any errors but he attacks the format like a rabid dog at an Obama rally. The"screaming 15-point links" They are as they appear in the Whois registration.

The subject was brought into the discussion by Bobert.

Were any of the facts incorrect or do you just have an aversion to real facts?

You are much keener on facts like this that you cut and pasted and claims ss the truth:

From: Amos - PM
Date: 04 Sep 08 - 02:48 PM

September 4, 2008

"George W. Bush has abused the authority that we, the people, entrusted to him as commander-in-chief of our military forces.

Bush has expressed his desire to keep our military forces in Iraq. Consider what has happened to our economy, plus all of the American casualties in this "Bush conflict," which has cut off our crude oil imports from the big oil-producing nations, which has caused the totally unreasonable oil prices to get out of hand.

The Iraqi government and the Iraqi people don't want America in their nation, just as the people from Georgia do not want Russia in their nation. Bush is squealing like a stuck pig at Russia for doing the same thing he did to Iraq.

We American citizens do not want Russia to control Georgia, and we certainly do not want our armed forces or our tax money wasted in Iraq.

The "Bush government" is totally un-American. In my 81 years, Bush is the only president who promoted torture of prisoners. Our economy has gone to pot during this Bush watch.

I would be in favor of having Bush impeached before he leads us into World War III."

Gordon Lukkasson, Salem, MA PS Amos added the MA. It was actually Oregon.

Do the font sizes please you Amos?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 06:49 AM

The Republicans met with Obama fir several days at the beginnin' of this thing and got what??? Squat, that's what...


The Democratic Congress did not even akllow votes on the Republican proposals, then complained that the Rep. did not have a plan ( after preventing it from being voted on) You, Bobert, have bought into the Big KLie by Democrats, and are now reduced to attacking people rather than ideas.


"John "Bonehead" Baynor and Bitch McConnell have called off Congress until Obama is gone... They will not allow anything short of an emergency appropraitions bill thru... The only thing they want Obama to sign is a letter of resignation... Nuthin' else...

Looks as if the only way that Obama is going to get anything done is thru executive orders and signing statements... The Bonehead and Bitch will bitch that Obama thinks he's a dictator and the press will make a big thing about it, yet not the Repubs shutting down Congress, and then after awhile all the lies will set in and Obama will be gone... Maybe Bitch and Bonehead will write him a letter of recommendation to run the elevator in the Senate Office Building??? But, then again, maybe not..."

Uncalled for comments- If I made them about Pelosi and Reid, how long would they be here before I was taken to task?



I see NOTHING in any of your posts that indicate you are willing to apply the standards you demand for YOUR supported ideas to anyone else's.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 07:51 AM

Well, bb, weren't you the one who came up with "Obomba" here in Mudville???

BTW, what exatcly are the proposals that the Repubs put forth other than buy insurance accross state lines which the Dems are fine with???

That's the probolem here, bruce... The progressive movement has waited ***patiently*** for three decades to get the stars aligned just correctly for any serious new problem solving legislation that would make the country a fairer country... We did throw these temper tantrums like the Tea Partiers... We didn't have the massive pools of $$$$ to buy ads to further our causes... What we did was allow the Reagan Revolution to unravel and unravel it has done as if it was all drawn up on paper... Now the country is in serious condition... If it were a hospital patient it woudl be in ICU yet the Reaganites aren't yet squeezing the last little bit out of the working class... This was all designed to kill the New Deal and that has been the goals of the right going back well before the current righties here in Mudburg were even born... This intense hatred of the New Deal is institutionalized...

So here the progressives are sayin, "Hey, time for another mid course correction" while the country hurls itself toward the obyss and there are folks, like Hal in Space Oddessey sayin', "Everything is fine, Hal"... We know better... Tings are not fine and in their desire to hold power the current right is willing to let the country crash and burn... That is not an overstatement... That is exactly what we have here...

And the two men who represent the "Crash & Burn Party" are the two men I made reference to: "B 'n B"... Hey, they are acting like traitors... They are siding with Osama as far as it looks from over here on the pro-human side of the isle... Why should we respect them... They are unAmerican... They are acting like the enemy... They deserve no respect from me or anyone else who isn't part of their/your Crash 'n Burn Party... I mean, if all you want is to see a country that in in serious trouble get worse than exapct no respect from me... This is beyond just a debate of issues... This is the survival of our country...

So until B & B decide that they want to be part of the solution then, as far as I am concerned, they are no better than the Taliban...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 08:24 AM

Well, Bobert, weren't you the one who came up with "McWar" here in Mudville???



So until Reid and Pelosi decide that they want to be part of the solution of bitartisenship talked about by Obama, as far as I am concerned, they are no better than the Taliban...



You seem to think that I agree with your goals of removing all the wealth from those who work and giving it to those who do not. Yes, there are those who have "unearned " wealth: Most of those are rich families who, now that they have theirs, are pushing the Liberal "Don't let anyone profit from working hard" line.

I had invested in some stocks: One was GM. Obama took the assets of GM and gave them to the unions, and gave those of us who invested in the company "Motor Liquidation" stock, consisting of the debts. Had GM gone bankrupt, I would have gotten more than I did.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 08:42 AM

You can 'um whatever you want, bruce...

Until B & B quit being cheerleaders for American failure they are no better than Osama bin Laden to me... Both want the US to fail...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 10:30 AM

Sawz:

Of all the half-witted idiocy...Jaysus T.!!

The post you have been gloating about was a letter from a disgruntled man in Salem (Oregon? Mass? Whatever...). In that letter the disgruntled man voiced his feelings about the Bush administration and also stated, quite wrongly, that Bush's invasion of Iraq had resulted in our oil supplies being cut off. You have the sheer brass hutzpah to then turn this around into "Amos said the oil suppllies were cut off". What absolute abuse of any kind of reason or semantics.

Anyway thanks for revealing what you were actually drooling on about. It is as illogical as I suspected it might be.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 10:55 AM

There would appear not to be much hope...

The Bankruptcy Boys

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: February 21, 2010
"O.K., the beast is starving. Now what? That's the question confronting Republicans. But they're refusing to answer, or even to engage in any serious discussion about what to do."

**************************

"At this point, then, Republicans insist that the deficit must be eliminated, but they're not willing either to raise taxes or to support cuts in any major government programs. And they're not willing to participate in serious bipartisan discussions, either, because that might force them to explain their plan — and there isn't any plan, except to regain power.

"But there is a kind of logic to the current Republican position: in effect, the party is doubling down on starve-the-beast. Depriving the government of revenue, it turns out, wasn't enough to push politicians into dismantling the welfare state. So now the de facto strategy is to oppose any responsible action until we are in the midst of a fiscal catastrophe. You read it here first."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 02:38 PM

Prior to the "which has cut off our crude oil imports" posting from Amos he posted this claiming he was getting "the truth out":

From: Amos - PM
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 11:16 AM

Sawz:

1. Try to write coherent sentences and proofrede foirst. :D

2. I add to this thread because I believe that airing the claims for impeachment is the right thing to do--part of trying to get the truth out about an Administration that has dramatized dark secrecy since its inception and believes in the right of citizens not to know what their government is really doing.

The Articles of Impeachment may gain traction and they may not. The point is that the issue should not be allwoed to be dismissed on the strength of a lot of humphing and ignoral by those invested in the current Administration's pathetic obsessive "rightness".

"Administration's pathetic obsessive "rightness"?

I think that would be Amos.

In Amos's obsessive, frantic effort in making 40 posts a day, he does not read the stuff he cuts and pastes but claims it is the truth.

Then when he can't dispute the facts in what others post, he has to resort to picking them apart for spelling, font sizes, out of context, date, rhetoric, whatever to try to discredit the facts.

But I am not going to call Amos any names or disparage his intelligence like he constantly does to anybody that has the audacity to disagree with him. EG "Of all the half-witted idiocy." "Ass" "Get bent, pal." "it's not the position, it's the dumbness" "abysmal stupidity"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 03:33 PM

Sawz:

If the shoe fits... Just for example, I assert I am posting articles about impeachment of the Bush administration. You find one such piece, written by someone else, which I include, and you ignore its relevance to impeachment, which is the subject, and instead go haring off on the irrelevant error made by the writer about oil supplies.

Well, that's one major departure in logic. THEN you proceed to blame the writer's mis-speech on me. That's another major departure in logic. THEN you try to put words in my mouth defending the truth of what this writer said, when in fact, I was making a different point altogether about the validity of impeachment claims. Yet ANOTHER major departure in logic.

I am glad you are not calling me names, and I do apologize for venting in your direction, but you need to understand how conversations work. If you can't understand context, then nothing will make sense and everyone will look strange to you--which may already be the case, I dunno.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 03:44 PM

Paul Krugman says that you "heard it here first"???

Shoot, I've been saying this for years... Yeah, "starve the beast" has been around for so long that this current crop of Repubs are clueless about what to do once the beast was on life support... That is what I have been saying here... The Repubs are jumpin' up and down on the side-line's cheering the starvation but are clueless (and more than likely scared to death) of what a starved beast will look like... One thing fir sure is that that bigass check that goes to DoD is gonna' disappear... That wil mean less bigass checks from defense contractors to Repub Congresspeople... Horrors!!!

That's what really makes me very angry these days at the Repubs... They are as ignorant of the repercusssions of starve-the-beast as a box of dumbass creek rocks... Yet they continue hoping that the US economy fails??? This is not smart thinkin' if in watching (and hoping fir) the economy to go under it will effect them alot more negatively than just showing a little grace and try to help the country work its way outta this mess...

Starve-the beast = starve every congressman, Repub and Dem...

Very stupid thinking!!!

BTW, Eb... Thanks fir the article... Paul Krugman's fingernail clippings know more aboout economics than the entire Republican Party...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 05:28 PM

"that might force them to explain their plan — and there isn't any plan, except to regain power."

Of course! That is what happens in a partisan system. That's the whole point. The party out of power has no plan except to regain power. The party in power comes up with a plan or sorts now and then...because they are in a position, after all, where they must feel obliged to do something, being in power. So they come up with some kind of half-assed plan that meets the needs and wishes of their major lobbyists and financial players...but certainly not of the public!

But the party out of power doesn't want to see any such plan succeed...because if it did, then that might make the party in power look good............! Did I say "might"? It would make the party in power look good, and that is the last thing the party out of power would ever want to happen!!! So they must defeat and derail the plan of the party in power, whatever the hell the plan is.

This kind of mindless negativism is the poison that ruins governance in a party-based system, because the system is by its very nature built upon division....continuous political war....and "a house divided against itself cannot stand".

The Republicans are guilty of obstructionism when out of power and so are the Democrats. They're both guilty of it up to their eyeballs. So are all the Canadian parties (and we have 5 of them).

It's bullshit. Any partisan system where seated representatives are beholden to a party hierarchy is bullshit. One day in some future society people will look back and wonder how we could possibly have been so deluded as to imagine that a permanently divided partisan system could result in good government.

We won't be alive then, though, so it's a moot point at best.

(at least, not in our present bodies, we won't)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 05:41 PM

The difference here, LH, is that if the current crop of Repubs get their way, yeah, they might get back in power but if they ruin the economy on their way to power then power won't look so good without those big checks comin' in... That's why today's situation is not like anything we have ever seen...

Yes, the Repubs have done an excellent job in "starving-the-beast"... Problem is that once the beast is dead, so are they... Of course, the Dems will be dead, too, but the current Repubs haven't thought of that prospect...

Me thinks this is a case of "be careful what you ask for"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 05:51 PM

I really don't think most of them look that far ahead, Bobert. They should, but I don't think they do.

I agree that the present situation is unlike anything we've ever seen. Meanwhile, the politicans and lobbyists just go on playing the same old games.

Sort of like Nero fiddling while Rome burns... (which is a myth as far as I know, but it is a lot like that)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 06:40 PM

Yup... Good analogy, LH...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 09:19 PM

Amos:

The words were yours.

You said you were "trying to get the truth out"

It is logical to expect everything posted by you to be the truth, regardless of the relevancy.

You copied and pasted an article that contained the following untruth:

"which has cut off our crude oil imports from the big oil-producing nations"

Did you read what you posted? If so you either believe it or you don't care if it is untrue. In other words propaganda from Amos paraded as the truth.

You expect other people to be tolerant of that but you are intolerant of font sizes in something you disagree with.

I have only to conclude that Amos only wants people to post things he agrees with and uses whatever means he can, other than disproving the facts, to discredit anybody that disagrees with him.


A very one way and narcissistic attitude.

"we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us"

"tolerant of just about everything but intolerance."


Amos:

"Recite specifics of this dubious information, if you would be so kind. Or, alternatively, consider shutting the ^&^*&$ up-=- I don't mind which. This endless stream of nullification and negative nabobbery is teeeeejous, man."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 10:43 PM

Sheet fire, Sawz...

If I had the time I'd go thru yer seemingly endless stream of cut & posts and point out all the un-truths in them...

I mean, lets get real here... When one uses blogs and op-eds as sources then there's gonna be alot of bad (untrue) information... Lots of these folks get paid to write this stuff... They are instructed to take a position and work their way back thru everything that is out there to justify it... Has nothin' to do with any love for the truth... Just politics... Happens all the time...

Problem is that with the lies coming in with such volume that by the time that someone takes the time to disprove one ten more grow back...

This is what the Repubs have booked on fir the last year... Just lie, lie and lie some more... Obama not a citizen... Just yell it louder and come up with more lies to cover the last set of lies...

The problem is that with this corporate owned government its the corpoartions and their paid people who have the the money and time to sit in front of their computers and crank these lies out... That's an unfair advantage that the right has... It has all the money.... Folks on the left are out their workin' their brains out trying to keep their heads above water and not loose their homes...

So, yeah, the right will win the volume of lies battle 100 times outta 100... They have hundreds of twisters and bloggers fir every leftist blogger... It's kinda like Mike Tyson in his early career... The left cannot compete... It is almost usless to try...

So the best the left can do is just leave the right-winged twisters and bloggers alone and just keep talkin' about the vision and the policies and not get "blogged" down with rightwing bullshit...

That's the way I see it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 11:02 PM

BTW, this has always been my problem with the cut & posters... I mean, yeah, I read alot of different folks who are all over the board but have never cut & pasted a single thing...

(But, Boberdz... You are such a moron that you don't know how to cut & paste...)

Details... lol...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 11:16 PM

Sawz:

Your post is full of unwarranted assumptions made for uncharitable purposes.

If you won't learn the nature of context in conversation then you really are doomed to have a hard time with these sharp-edged irrelevancies and detours you keep popping up with.

Now, I admit, maybe I was wrong and you aren't stupid; maybe you're just not trained in the kind of dialogue writing requires. But which ever it is, you make yourself LOOK strange by flying off on these tangents.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 07:30 AM

Well, in away, endless cuttin' and pastin's becomes somewhat tangendental (sp)... I mean, they are to me a little like the fillibuster... A few go a long way... But, geeze, with the volume of bloggers out there there are articles on every subject one can imagine and no laws requiring that what people write is fact-checked... Yeah, I read just about every op-ed writer in the Post... Even the righties... But I do it with a sense that each has an agenda and if we just accept one writer as the knower-of-everything-correct then we don't do our own curiousity an good...

I wouldn't mind seein' some kinda rules put in place on cut and pastes... Maybe that the cut and paster has to write as many of his own words in the post as are in the cut and paste... I think that would cut down on them... Or do what some, including Amos, does in just lifting the pertinent paragraph... You know, kinda like using a reference in a college term paper...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 11:19 AM

Bobertz, ya gotta stawp with awle the weeyerd spellin' cos it's drivin' the dawg nuts. I mean, heck, it don't bother me none. I kin take a bushell of bad spellin' in my stride, sho' nuff! But the dawg can't. He's a real pedant and it's just puttin' him in an awful mood, eh?

Anyways...word on the street is that Homeladn Sekyoority are lookin' into keepin' records of peeps who are spellin' all kindsa stuff wrong on the INtenrnetz because they thnik it's code! Yessirree...secrit code fer like passin' on missages and stuff. The way I figger it they are gonna get reel suspishous about yer posts cos of how all them words 'r not spelled in a normle fashun which could mean that yer send'in sectret messiges to someone and tryin' to bring down Boss Hawg's rulin' system...and that just ain't allowed no more!

No sirree.

Oh, and back to my dawg...I gotta tell you he is UPSET with the way you posts, Bobertz. He really is. It has reached the pint where that dawg just won't hunt, if you get my meanin'...

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 12:07 PM

Hell, a squirt dawg like your'n never was much fer hunting anyfink but mebbe prairie dawgs, Hawkster, or maybe roaches. 'T ain't no big thang, as the actress told the bishop.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 11:55 PM

Amos:

No matter how you duck and weave, in your sloppiness and haste and disregard for fact checking, you posted something that was not true after you said you were posting the truth.

A real man would own up to it gain a little humility and try to do better.

Instead you blame everybody but yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 01:25 AM

No, Sawz, you are not going to get away with that drivel.

I said, in regard to posting information about impeachment, that I was trying to get the truth out about popular views on the impeachment issue.

And one such view was expressed by this guy from Salem, in which he made a false statement.

Your effort to twist this shit around into me making a false statement is just childish.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 10:29 AM

barackobama.com

BARACK OBAMA’S COMPREHENSIVE TAX PLAN

I. TAX RELIEF FOR MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES:

Eliminating Income Taxes for Seniors Making Less than $50,000. Barack Obama will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This will eliminate taxes for 7 million seniors saving them an average of $1,400 a year-- and will also mean that 27 million seniors will not need to file an income tax return at all.

The Reality:

Seniors & Social Security Progress:

The Recovery Act provides a one-time payment of $250 to retirees, disabled veterans, and SSI recipients. Over 64 million retirees and other individuals will receive this one-time payment, totaling $16 billion.

---

From PolitiFact.com: "President Obama’s campaign pledge to end taxes for seniors making less than $50,000 has fallen off the radar.

It wasn’t part of the tax cuts in the economic stimulus bill, also known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It wasn’t in Obama’s first budget outline, which was approved by Congress on April 2, 2009. And it’s not part of any proposed legislation that we can find.

On Tax Day, Obama gave a speech in which he talked about his other tax promises and how he wants to reshape the tax code to make it simple and more efficient. But he never mentioned his promise of curtailing the income tax for seniors.

The Obama administration has done other things for seniors. Thanks to the stimulus bill, for example, everyone who gets Social Security benefits will receive a $250 check from the government in May. But the bold promise to end taxes for seniors if they make less than $50,000 seems to be forgotten.

We asked the White House about it, but got no response."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 10:50 AM

Sawz,

That brochure from which you clipped those data was part of the 2008 election campaign and those things were in fact part of the Obama tax plan.

In case you have not noticed, though, the best laid plans of mice and men get screwed when met with serious opposition of a deeply unreasoning sort.

Where do you think the counter-effort that has made it so hard to implement this and other plans has come from, Sawz?

Mebbe from the guys you cheer for?

Don't be two-faced here, pal. We have enough hypocrites in Washington as it is.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 11:23 AM

"serious opposition" What serious opposition Amos?

Obama had a majority in the Senate and House and the majority of the American people behind him. He chose all the people around him. He had people like you cheering him on. How could he possibly fail?

"I want you to hold our government accountable, I want you to hold me accountable"

When are you going to hold him accountable instead of making excuses?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 11:44 AM

If you have to ask, Sawz, you have been in dreamland.

Let's start with the collapse of the economy and the catastrophic end days of the Bush administration. You may have forgotten how Bush's house of economic cards started to collapse.

Let's continue with the rabid adamant refusal of the right side of the house to do anything to support any Obama initiative.

Don't be effing disingenuous. It would be nice if the plan that got elected had to be implemented, but the law does not work that way.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 11:58 AM

Hope and Change

whitehouse.gov

Creating Jobs

President Obama’s first priority in confronting the economic crisis is to put Americans back to work. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan signed by the President will spur job creation while making long-term investments in health care, education, energy, and infrastructure. Among other objectives, the recovery plan will increase production of alternative energy, modernize and weatherize buildings and homes, expand broadband technology across the country, and computerize the health care system. The recovery plan will save or create about 3.5 million jobs while investing in priorities that create sustainable economic growth for the future.

The Reality:

A year later

AWARD OVERVIEW
Total Award Amount         $502,400         Project Location - City         Sacramento
Award Date         04/29/2009         Project Location - State         CA
Project Status         More than 50% Completed         Project Location - Zip         958142951
Jobs Reported         0.00         Congressional District         05 USA                 
Recipient Name         ARTS COUNCIL, CALIFORNIA
Recipient DUNS Number         947395935
Recipient Address         1300 I ST STE 930
Recipient City         SACRAMENTO
Recipient State         California
Recipient Zip         958142951
Congressional District         05
Place of Performance Country         US
Required to Report Top 5 Highly Compensated Officials         No
Projects and Jobs Information
Project Title Arts and the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009
Project Status         More than 50% Completed
Final Project Report Submitted         No
Project Activities Description         Arts, Culture & Humanities, General/Other
Quarterly Activities/Project Description Twenty-nine (29) grants were approved ranging from $5,000 to $20,000. Job loss/reduction verifications are being validated and grant award packets were sent, but not fully executed at the time of this reporting.
Jobs Created         0.00

Total Award Amount $19,500,000 Project Location - City Topeka
Award Date         07/24/2009         Project Location - State         KS
Project Status         Not Started         Project Location - Zip         666121367
Jobs Reported         3.26         Congressional District         02 USA                 
Recipient Information (Grants)
Recipient Name         HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
Recipient DUNS Number         175941483
Recipient Address 1000 SW JACKSON AVE
Recipient City         TOPEKA
Recipient State Kansas
Recipient Zip         666121300
Congressional District         02
Place of Performance Country         US
Required to Report Top 5 Highly Compensated Officials         No
Projects and Jobs Information
Project Title         Kansas Public Water Supply Loan Fund
Final Project Report Submitted         No
Project Activities Description         Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures Construction
Quarterly Activities/Project Description         To invest in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits.
Jobs Created 3.26 Only $6 million per job.

I hope something changes.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 12:00 PM

We tune in on Day 634 of the great Amos vs Sawzaw steel cage politics match!

The Challenger and the Former Champ are rolling about on the mat, battling furiously as the audience goes wild and hurls debris into the ring! Snarling old ladies advance, brandishing chairs and hairpins. Expect more dirty tactics in the ring: rabbit punches, kicks in the shins, hair-pulling, red faces, noogies, ear-biting, eye-gouging....and if we get really lucky...

THE PILEDRIVER!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 12:10 PM

Hawks,

You're the only one driving around with piles here.

Try preparation H.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 12:13 PM

When did the economy collapse Amos? I missed it.

The end days? Obama was right in there. Did he oppose anything?

Why would O need any support from the Republicans?

Tho opposition that kept him form doing anything was from Democrats.

Are the Republicans at fault because they wouldn't cancel out an opposing Democrat? Strange logic there.

Ad hominem attacks, rhetoric, no facts, no logic. Pure Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 12:45 PM

The economy avalanched in September, 2008, Sawz. Maybe a little earlier. Here's an interesting analysis from an International Monetary Fund exec.

IIRC Obama was elected in November 2008 and took office in January 2009.

Being "right in there" is a euphemism for "should be blamed for things before he was elected". That is a really specious assertion on your part.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 01:04 PM

Chongo has been blamed for a number of things prior to being elected. Why not Obama? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 01:35 PM

"...SPIEGEL ONLINE: When the Democrats lost their crucial 60th Senate vote in January, US health care reform stalled in Congress. More Americans than ever are growing frustrated with the political process. Is Washington broken?

Norman Ornstein: Things are getting done in Congress, but the process is not pretty. Everything has become so much more partisan.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Wasn't that always the case?

Ornstein: I haven't seen anything like this in the past 40 years. To pick an example: The conflict over the Vietnam War was unbelievable. We had Democratic Senator George McGovern go on the floor and say: The walls of this chamber reek with blood. And his conservative colleague Bob Dole publicly ripped him apart for that. But there was a very large share of conservative Democrats supporting American involvement in Vietnam -- and the people who opposed the war included a large number of liberal Republicans. So the issue wasn't simply a partisan one. You had a lot of people in the center.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What has happened to the center?

Ornstein: The culture has changed. In the US, you have the expansion of the "permanent campaign" which forces politicians to raise money all-year round. To make matters worse, when it ruled that corporations can now spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigning, the Supreme Court just made sure we will have the Wild West in the campaign system. Also, members of Congress don't spend much time in Washington. They don't bring their families here so they hardly socialize with their fellow members. We also don't have compulsory attendance at the polls -- so loyal voters matter more. And that encourages outlandish appeals to the base, scaring people that the other party is destroying the country.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: In addition, many districts have become extremely homogenous because of partisan gerrymandering to make them a safe bet for one party or another.

Ornstein: Members of Congress can go home now and they don't have to represent different kinds of people. When they are largely safe in general elections, the only thing that matters are the primaries where you are going to be challenged from the right as a Republican or from the left as a Democrat. So, playing to your base is encouraged -- not reaching out to other groups.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Has Obama underestimated how hard it would be to change Washington?

Ornstein: He knew such partisanship was there but believed he could overcome some of it. Not that he would get Republicans to vote for him in most cases -- but that, at least, he could tone down the rhetoric. It matters because if you do significant things to affect people's lives, they will be suspicious of the outcomes. If one side says that what is being implemented is going to destroy the country and its fabric, you are going to have a harder time making those changes work.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Could the President have done things differently in his first year?

Ornstein: It was a good idea to start out having Republicans over at the White House for drinks and conversation, even if it didn't have any immediate impact. That is something he should have continued doing -- just to show the American people that he was trying and that the other side did not react. He pretty much abandoned it for a while and now he has picked it up again. But let's face it: A year ago, you had a new president coming in with a clear public mandate and an economy the worst since the Great Depression -- yet, not a single Republican voted for the stimulus package. So there was not much Obama could build on. ... (Der Spiegel)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 01:35 PM

The Labor Department Thursday said initial claims for jobless benefits rose by 22,000 to 496,000 in the week ended Feb. 20, reaching the highest level since the week of Nov. 14, 2009.

The four-week moving average of new claims rose for the week ending Feb. 20, by 6,000 to 473,750.

"The progress toward an 'improving' labor market climate (initial claims below 400,000) -- as opposed to a 'less-bad' climate- has come to a halt," ClearView Economics analyst Ken Mayland wrote.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 01:40 PM

That's bad news, Sawz. I hope you are not gloating.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 02:34 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos - PM
Date: 19 Jan 10 - 10:47 AM

In Obama's first year, successes outweigh missteps

By Fred Hiatt WaPo
Tuesday, January 19, 2010

On Wednesday one year will have passed since President Obama's inauguration. Much of the tidal wave of assessments has been negative: Falling poll numbers. Unfulfilled promises. Disappointed supporters, disillusioned independents, angry opponents. He's been too cool or too egotistical, too left-wing or not left-wing enough. And if voters repudiate his policies in a special Massachusetts Senate election on Tuesday, as is quite possible, the tidal wave will become a tsunami.

So before that happens, I'd like to interrupt the anniversary-bash-Obama-fest with a simple proposition: Obama has done a good job so far.

I've had my share of complaints. I harbor my share of misgivings. But on the issues that mattered most in his first year, Obama got things right.

Begin with something that didn't happen: financial collapse and great depression.

Gee Amos first you say a collapse didn't happen and then you claim it did. I am cornfused.

Seems like you want to brag about Obama preventing a collapse but that there was still a collapse.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 03:03 PM

The economy, as you know perfectly well, pineapple-brain, avalanched in the last few quarters of Bush's tenure. Stepping into the Oval Office, Barack Obama was hit with an imminent collapse. Thanks to actions taken both just before AND after he was sworn in, that collapse was restrained to a serious recession rather than a complete collapse into chaos. The thing is Sawz, that you cannot continue to be blindly literal-minded with no sense of context and contextual statements. It really makes you sound less intelligent than you actually are.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 04:49 PM

"Pineapple brain"!!!!!!!

Whoa! The ferocity of combative rhetoric is getting really vicious in the wrestling ring now. The raucous fight night audience is momentarily reduced to a stunned silence as Amos "the San Diego Sandstorm" hurls the shockingly offensive and inflammatory term "pineapple brain" at his bloodstained but stalwart opponent, Sawzaw "The Mad Mauler".

Can Sawzaw stand up under this sort of verbal abuse??? Will he just shrug it off or will he be forced to seek post-fight counseling to deal with the emotional scars incurred?

This reporter is agog at the prospects and breathless with anticipation.

- Hector Ballsworthy, the Independent Press

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 05:21 PM

I'm not sure what planet you live on, Sawz, but the economy that George Bush handed over was on life support... There was fear everywhere that it was on the verge of collapse... I remeemeber Obama saying that he hadn't run for president thinkin' that his first job was to save the country from finacial ruin...

No reason to deny that... You can archieve just about any major newspaper in the country and revisit those days for yourself if you like... Personally, it was a nightmare for everyelse but you...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 10:20 PM

Amos said there was a collapse:

"Let's start with the collapse of the economy"

"remedying the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression"

"reversing the economic collapse handed to him"

But earlier he posted something that said there was no collapse.

"Begin with something that didn't happen: financial collapse and great depression."

Then when I point that out to him and ask if there was or was not a collapse, he goes ballistic starts ranting his standard ad hominem attacks, rhetoric and lack of facts to back up anything he says.

Maybe Bobert can say if there was or was not a collapse.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 10:29 PM

Credit where credit is due:

Good Job Obama, Good Job US Military Good Job Canadian Military, Good Job Nato Forces, Keep up the good work:

MARJAH, Afghanistan - The Afghan government took official control of the southern Taliban stronghold of Marjah on Thursday, installing an administrator and raising the national flag while U.S.-led troops worked to root out final pockets of militants.

The ceremony was held in a central market as U.S. Marines and Afghan troops slogged through bomb-laden fields in the north of the town. The Marines and their Afghan partners are trying to secure a 28-square mile area believed to be the last significant pocket of Taliban insurgents in Marjah.

Militants and allied troops are still getting caught up in gunfights in some areas, NATO said.

But the number of residents returning has increased in recent days, shops have opened to sell telephones and computers alongside fresh fruit and vegetables, and officials hailed the installation of Abdul Zahir Aryan as the town's administrator as a key sign of progress.

Some 700 residents gathered to see Aryan formally appointed as the top government official in Marjah, along with government officials and Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson, commander of U.S. Marines in Marjah, according to officials at the event.

Aryan and a team of advisers held their first meeting in the town Monday and have been staying overnight in a building there since Tuesday, said Marlin Hardinger, the senior U.S. government representative for Helmand province, which contains Marjah.

"Today's event was the civilian Afghan government re-establishing itself officially in front of the local residents," Hardinger said. The Afghan army had previously raised the country's green-and-red flag nearby, but that was only a claim of military control over that neighborhood, he said.

'Will work for all'
The ceremony opened with a reading from the Quran, and then Aryan and Helmand Gov. Gulab Mangal pledged to those gathered they were ready to listen to their needs and eager to provide basic services that they didn't have under the Taliban....More Here

But Sawzaw, ain't ya 'fraid the successes in Afghanistan are gonna piss off them peacemongers?

Yeah but they are always pissed off over somethin' anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 11:43 PM

You are so literal minded you talk like a Deering tractor, Sawz.

You figure is one out for yourself. What MIGHT have happened is a lot more catastrophic than what did happen, because of TARP and Obama's Stimuus plan--regardless of your foaming diatribes to the contrary.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 12:45 AM

Amos:

I didn't see anything about might have written in there. Are just now inserting that into what you already stated?

You want it both ways. Bush caused a collapse then Obama prevented a collapse. Does not make sense.

The horse got away but Bill kept him from getting away.

Is that one of your "abstract formulations"?

It is indeed a marvelous thing to have something two ways at once.

Is that Dianetics in action?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 04:23 AM

Amos,

"What MIGHT have happened is a lot more catastrophic than what did happen, because of TARP and Obama's Stimuus plan--"


1. verb should be "could have been" NOT "is"
2. You earlier stated that TARP was a Bush item, and could not be blamed on Obama. WHICH IS IT?


During the Bush administration, we did not have a nuclear war- want to give him credit NOW for saving the human race???? If not, be careful how you attempt to justify your own biases about Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 09:03 AM

TARP funds were "administered" by both Bush and Obama... The operative word here is "administered"... That seems to be where the rub is... I'm not saying that Bush did or didn't do a better job with them, that is not at issue...

What is at issue is that as the economy was spinning out of control toward the end of Bush's term the Obama folks were pushing it to put money into the financial markets to stave off a total collapse... Granted, it wasn't just the Obma folks as just about every non-flat-earth economist was saying the same thing... If ya'll recall, Bush wasn't all that eager to for TARP because it went against his basic instincts (think C- student here) but went along with TARP...

All these things were occuring between the elcetion and when Obama was innagurated... Any disputes so far??? I mean, we were all here watching these thing's unfold...

Now as to "collapse" of "no-collapse"??? Does it really matter... It was like an airplane with a dead engine heading straight down and there are alot of reasons for that, 30 years of supply-side economics being the the largest reason...

So TARP was kinda like the engine restarting just before impact and th stimulis package was like the pilot having in the instincts to pull back on the yoke...

That is what we came thru and I don't think it can be reasonably argued otherwise...

Was this all Bush's fault??? No... It began with Reagan and continued right up until TARP... Tey were all guilty, some more than others...

What Bush will be remembered for, however, is the ill-timed tax cuts that Alan Greenspan initially thought were a bad idea and only after being beaten up in the Oval Office went along with... That was straw that broke the "deregulation camel's" back... It was totally irresponsible in terms of sound fiscal policy but...

...it was like left-hook from hell to the beast that the Repubs have been trying to land to starve the beast going back to FDR...

So, the bottom line was the economy was right where the old Repubs had drawn it up on paper... They have hated the New Deal forever and have periodicaly tried to starve the beast but none as well as George W, who spent like a drunken sailer and started expensive wars for no reason and then put thru a massive tax cut (using reconciliation, BTW- Horrors!!!)... Yup, the boy had accomplished what no Repub had ever accomplished...

Problem is that Repubs didn't rralize that you couldn't just starve the beast without crippling the economy... Not reall long range thinkers, them Repubs...

So "collapse" or "collapsing"... Doesn't much make much difference... The cure was going to have to be the same... Get money into the economy... Ain't rocket surgery here, folks...

Now I *do* have to go to work...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 10:10 AM

When does a mere lapse become a co-llapse? That is the question. ;-)

Sawzaw, I see that you approve of Obama's war policy in Afghanistan! ;-) What a surprise! All a Democrat ever has to do to gain a Republican's approval is go to war somewhere...anywhere...just like a good Republican would. ;-D

I want to remind you of one thing. The USA armed forces NEVER lost a single battle on the ground in Vietnam with the Viet Cong or the NVA. Why? Well, simple. The USA could always bring greater firepower to bear on the battlefield until they eventually won any specific battle on any specific piece of ground. They controlled the air with the world's biggest airforce. They controlled the ground with the world's most heavily armed army. They controlled the sea with the world's biggest navy. The result of any land battle would inevitably be an American victory, no matter how long it took...

So they never lost a single battle in Vietnam.

But they still lost the Vietnam war.

Remember that. All the Vietnamese had to do was never stop fighting until the Americans finally got out of their country and went home.

The British also won the majority of battles that they fought with the American revolutionaries in the American Revolutionary War...but they still lost the war!

That is how insurgents who are fighting for their homeland defeat a more heavily armed occupying force...not by holding ground, but simply by never giving up until the invaders go home.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 11:20 AM

LH:

Sorry to disappoint you but they lost battles on the ground in Vietnam. I wish I could tell you the name, but I read a moment-by-moment vivid reconstruction of one in particular where a whole platoon of US soldiers was completely wiped out by the NV. They were green, and they landed right where the NV general wanted them to be. Anyway, I am sure your sweeping statement is flawed.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 01:00 PM

On's chioce of words matter. Especially when trying to use two standards to define the word in different ways. Obviously two different terms should be used.

#1 the Wall street bailout was engineered by Paulson, Geithner and others associated with the current administration so they can't stand back and claim it was a 100% Bush action.

#2 It was loans to be paid back with interest at a profit to be paid back into the treasury to lower ther national debt.

Where is the money that is being paid back going?

I forgot that I posted something from Michael more that claimed there was a collapse. I should have put a disclaimer on it saying I do not endorse this disingenuous, capitalist, blowtoad.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 01:10 PM

The fact that the collapse of the US economy did not reach terminal conditions, thanks to interventions, does not mean it did not collapse. It is a very good thing to do as you are doing and differentiate among shades of meaning. We'll make a liberal of you yet!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 01:58 PM

"All a Democrat ever has to do to gain a Republican's approval is go to war somewhere"

All a Democrat has to do the justify an ongoingwar is to be able to say a Republican got us into it.

It didn't work for the war in Viet Nam or in Korea did it?

Mr O said the war in Afghanistan was the war of necessity but he can still placate the peace mongers by saying Bush started it.

Nobody is right all the time or wrong all the time and I try to give people credit when they are right.

Washington Examiner:

"This is not a war of choice," Barack Obama told the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Aug. 17. "This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people."

Read more at the Washington Examiner

Time:

In the weeks after president Obama took office, his Administration sought to manage expectations on Afghanistan. Yes, it was the right war, a war of necessity — but winning didn't require turning the country into a "Jeffersonian democracy" (Obama's phrase) or a "Central Asian Valhalla" (as Defense Secretary Robert Gates put it). The implication was that President Bush had become too distracted by secondary, nation-building goals, such as ensuring that Afghan girls went to school. Obama would focus on the main task: defeating al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

But as Afghanistan holds its presidential election, the Obama Administration has arrived at the same conclusion that Bush did: nation-building is essential to defeating extremism in Afghanistan. U.S. security goals in the region cannot be achieved purely by military means; in order for American and NATO troops to someday be able to head home, Afghanistan needs good governance and modern institutions.

Read more

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 02:26 PM

I guess with the magical powers that Liberals have, the way they can use two different standards to judge things by, they can avoid giving straight answers.

Did the economy collapse or did it not collapse?

You said it collapsed. The other guy you posted said it didn't.

One of you is wrong and one is right. Choose one definition and tell us who?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 02:41 PM

A double standard can be described as a sort of biased, morally unfair suspension (toward a certain group) of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms. Such double standards are seen as unjustified because they violate a basic maxim of modern legal jurisprudence: that all parties should stand equal before the law. Double standards also violate the principle of justice known as impartiality, which is based on the assumption that the same standards should be applied to all people, without regard to subjective bias or favoritism based on social class, rank, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation or other distinction. A double standard violates this principle by holding different people accountable according to different standards.

Do you believe in moral fairness Amos?

Do you believe in the principle of justice known as impartiality?

Do you value modern jurisprudence?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 02:46 PM

Why yes, Sawz, I do. But what I certainly do NOT believe in is a certain literal-minded binary-values only Manichean mode of thought with which you try to disrupt the conversation.

A collapse of something as large as the US economy is not a binary event. It occurs over time and occurs on a gradient progression.

Our economic collapse started. It continued. It has been slowed and possibly turned around at this point, before it reached a condition that could fairly be described as completely collapsed.

Your disputation is kind of like saying "You say night fell, but look!! Its light out!! DId it fall or not?" Your question, in other words, is falsified by its own unexamined (or disingenuous) assumptions.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 03:34 PM

I can't speak for every single small, isolated firefight which may have occurred in Vietnam, Amos...but I know that any sustained battle which was fought there by American troops to secure an objective or hold ground or take ground eventually ended with them succeeding in that objective.

That wasn't enough to win the war, because those kind of tactics couldn't win that war.

When I said that the Americans never lost a ground battle in Vietnam, I was merely repeating what I've seen various writers and journalists say in several books and articles I've read about the subject.

Perhaps they were all mistaken?

If so, then my statement about it was also mistaken.

If the NVA did indeed wipe out an entire American platoon somewhere, despite the disadvantage of having massive American airpower on their backs, I hope they got a unit commendation from their high command (the NVA, I mean)...because it can't have been easy. I read that the NVA lost an average of 100,000 men a year fighting the campaign in South Vietnam and along the Ho Chi Minh trail.


****

Sawzaw, I appreciate your giving credit to people you would normally disagree with when credit is due.

I can't applaud Obama's upgrading of the USA war effort in Afghanistan, however, because I never approved of that war being fought in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 04:02 PM

More endless babble from Amos:

"a workable method which we had under Glass-Steagal, but which Reagan eradicated under pressure from adventurous and irresponsible money men."


Stiglitz: Tearing Down the Walls

The deregulation philosophy would pay unwelcome dividends for years to come. In November 1999, Congress repealed the Glass-Steagall Act the culmination of a $300 million lobbying effort by the banking and financial-services industries, and spearheaded in Congress by Senator Phil Gramm.


McCain, Cantwell Battle The Monolith To Reinstate Glass-Steagall

Huffington Post 12-17-09

Yesterday, the decidedly odd couple of Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) teamed up to introduce legislation that would restore the Glass-Steagall Act (aka the Banking Act of 1933), which would force giant banking institutions to choose between operating as a commercial bank or an investment bank. For decades, Glass-Steagall imposed a firewall between the two, until it was repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act.

Give McCain and Cantwell a big round of applause for their effort, because in Washington, this seemingly obvious response to the financial crisis is considered the domain of wild-eyed hippies (and Paul Volcker.) It is, after all, the sort of idea that would bring real pain to the banking industry, who'd much rather we quickly forget about the collapse of the economy last year and return to business as usual. The most cutting remark against McCain and Cantwell's efforts comes courtesy of Unnamed Treasury Official, who, as you might imagine, is some kind of awesome prick:

    "I think going back to Glass-Steagall would be like going back to the Walkman."read more

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 06:26 PM

Collapse v. collapsing???

Like, who gives a rat's ass... Doesn't change anything that I said above... It's a non-starter... Just diversionary debating...

Fact is, that without TARP it is universally accepted by economists that it was not going to pull out of a deep depression... I rmemeber seein' an ad in the Washington Post that was signed by hundreds of leading economists saying that TARP was needed to steer the economy away from a serious depression...

I don't understand the debate here.... Bush used TARP... Obama followed... Who cares??? Nothin to see here...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 07:16 PM

During yesterday's seven-and-a-halfÊhour bipartisan health care reform summit, President Obama urged Republicans to abandon their obstructionist tactics and work with Democrats to pass comprehensive reform. Obama highlighted areas of bipartisan agreement in his health care proposal and suggested that Democrats would move forward with or without Republican support. "I will tell you this, that when I talk to the parents of children who don't have health care because they've got diabetes or they've got some chronic heart disease; when I talk to small business people who are laying people off because they just got their insurance premium, they don't want us to wait. They can't afford another five decades," Obama said. And while it's unclear whether the forum moved the debate forward, it provided Obama with an opportunity to engage "in a spirited and detailed policy debate with Republicans about one of the most compelling and ideologically polarizing issues facing the nation."

The New York Times observed that "Mr. Obama's mastery of the intricacies of health policy was impressive even to some Republicans." "It was sort of his classroom," Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) said. "I was glad we did it, because the president's megaphone is the biggest one and when he shares it with Republicans like he did, that gives us several hours to make our case, and I thought we made it well.'"
,,,

(Progressive Report)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 07:37 PM

Come on, Amos...

Let's get real here... Yeah, I like Obama allright and the Repubs are bordering on treason but...

...geese, son, yesterday was pure ***politics***...

Yeah, it was a good move on Obama's part but it wasn't intended to bridge the divide... It was intended to get health care reform on Page 1 and get then Dems on board for the Shoot-out at the OK Corral... Nothin' more, nothin' less...

Okay, he did kinda ***use*** the Repubs and I'm sure they are a little steamed over it but...

...hey, the Repubs will get over it... I recall Bush drapin' himself in the flag for a couple years after 9/11 on every issue and I'm sure the Dems didn't much like that either but...

...it was politics then and it's politic now...

Hey, it is Washington!!!

Now, back to collapsing v. collapsed... 'Er was it dieing v. dead????
No matter... Neither is condition is something for Sawz to be boasting about...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 10:27 PM

"President Obama urged Republicans to abandon their obstructionist tactics and work with Democrats to pass comprehensive reform."

Get real! ;-D Why would the Republicans do that? They have no desire to work with the Democrats to pass anything. They wish the Democrats to fail, and they want to maintain and aggravate the divisions in your country...with an eye toward gaining ground in the midterm elections.

I can see why Obama would urge them to, though. It's good political theatre.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 12:15 AM

Well Amos, Geuthner said it didn't collapse and Valerie Jarrett said it didn't collapse. Do you know something that they don't?

Presidential Adviser Valerie Jarrett
February 24, 2010

"And so today, the president really said, look, this is about an alignment of interests between business, the business sector, government and the workers. And we should all be working together. We're just pulling ourselves from, really, the brink of an economic collapse in our country."

Our financial system is far stronger than it was a year ago, but it is operating under the same rules that led to its near collapse and a dangerous recession, Geithner said in prepared testimony to the House Budget Committee. These rules must be changed to keep the system from taking unjustifiable risks and so that it can fuel growth.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 02:16 AM

It was kept from total collapse. It sure as hell started to colllapse. You are ignoring my earlier point with the enthusiastic persistance of a carved totem.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 08:02 AM

col-lapse (ke-laps') v. -lapsed, -lapsing, -lapses. -intr. 1. To fall down or inward suddenly; cave in. 2. To cease to function; break down suddenly in strength or health; a monarchy that collapsed. 3, To fold completely; chairs that collapse forc storage. -To cause to collapse. -n 1. The act of falling down or inward, as from loss of supports. 2. An abrupt failure of function, strength, or health; breakdown [Lat. collabi, collaps-, to fall together + labi, to fall] -collapsible, collapsablt adj. -collapsibility n.

("The American Heritage Dictioary, 2nd College Edition)

Hmmmmmmmmm??? And so, Sawz feels comfy arguing that things weren't all that bad when Obama became president becasue of what part of the above definition????

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 12:37 PM

Amos and Bobert want to contradict Obama's hand picked officials?
Get your selves a ticket and fly to Reagan Airport, grab a cab and check in at the Marriott. Then call and make an appointment with Geithner or Jarret. When you get in, ask them if the economy collapsed or not.

I am just reporting what they said. Take up the argument with them. Take your dictionary. Ask them who eradicated Glass-Steagal while you are there.

Do you think you should take a gun Bobert? Just in case you are attacked by one of those teabag terrorists.


What They Told Us: Reviewing Last Week's Key Polls
Rasmussen Reports 2 27, 2010

President Obama and congressional Democrats seem to be doing everything in their power to revive their national health care plan, but the public still isn't buying.

A survey this past week prior to the president's televised bipartisan summit on the topic found that voters still oppose the plan and question many of its details - http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/weekly_updates/what_they_told_us_reviewing_last_week_s_key_polls care plan, while 56% oppose it. Those figures include 45% who strongly oppose the plan versus 23% who strongly favor it.

Supporters are citing a jump in rates by a California health insurer as grounds for getting the national plan back on track, but most voters are still more fearful of the federal government than private insurance companies when it comes to health care decisions. These views are unchanged from early August when many congressmen went home to town hall meetings filled with voters angry about the proposed health care plan.

Voters also remain closely divided on the creation of a government-run health insurance option. But opposition increases dramatically if its creation might force people to change their existing coverage. That's because 59% of voters believe it is more important to guarantee that no one is forced to change their health insurance coverage than to give consumers the choice of a public option.

Despite the president's bipartisan outreach efforts, 50% of voters rate his handling of the health care issue as poor.

Of course, the president's efforts aren't helped by the low opinion voters have of Congress. Seventy-one percent (71%) now say Congress is doing a poor job, the highest level of disapproval ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports. Only nine percent (9%) now believe members of Congress are interested in helping the people they represent; 81% say they're more interested in helping themselves.

This unhappiness, primarily directed at Democrats because of their majority control of the House and Senate, is reflected in numerous state surveys Rasmussen Reports has taken in recent months....Read More Here


Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

Rasmussen Reports 2 27, 2010

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 22% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -21. That matches the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for President Obama.....Read More Here

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 12:53 PM

The polls are all over the place... Ya' see, depending on wording you could prolly find a good percentage of Isrealis who like the PLO... I don't trust polls any further than I can throw them... Heck, you can't even trust elections.... That's just how far the US has come down over the years...

But, never the less, the poll numbers posted above by the Rasmussen polls are so far off the ones that MSNBC has posted that it is utterly rediculous...

But I don't trust that poll either...

I've had at least three different pollin' companies call me over the last several months and based on the wording of the questions I knew excatly what percfentages they were looking for and who they were working for... The last one was one paid for by the health insurance industry and I ended up tellin' the pollster that she was partly responsible for the screwed up health care system in this country for working for such a bogus company... She was polite but you could tell by her response that a lot of folks had allready told her as much and had also refused to answer the questions they way thet were written...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 01:50 PM

Sawz:

You are persisting in your literal-minded approach. I warn you that this path of thought is a direct road to delusion. You have started creating completely deluded assertions because you cannot get it into your head that collapses occur on a gradient slope. Sheeshe, dude!! Get another brain cell.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 03:14 PM

And while you two happy campers are in DC, go by the USDA and ask them where they got that "1 in 5 children go hungry" fact from.

And visit the Haitian Embassy and ask them if it's true that "1% owns all the wealth".

Maybe a visit to NIH can help Amos with his inability to tell the difference between the two terms "did" and "didn't". Bubba had trouble with that too.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 03:39 PM

Yeah, like the Haitian Embassy is going to tell you the truth...

The problem we have here is that there are amny sources of information and many condtridictions... If you take the goevernment of corporate's "facts" they usually don't jive with other sources which are many times the sources alot closer to the situation than either the government or the corporation...

Alot of the stuff that I kearn about comes from listening to NPR while I am working... It's amazing how different the world looks when you take those sources and mix them in with the propaganda that the government puts out... There is no way to be 100% sure of much of anything other than we are all going to die one day... Ohter than that, in the words pof Woodie Allen, "It's a crap-shoot"...

That's part of what Amos is saying...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 06:49 PM

Oh, shut up! All of you. ;-)

Get a Dachshund, take him out for a walk, and start enjoying life for a change.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 07:23 PM

Yer just mad 'cause I ain't postin' to no sumabichin' thread about dogs...

Plus, if I wanta talk about a dog I'm gonna talk about a real dog... You know, one with legs... Not no freek show dog without 'um... Plus, you don't talk one of them dogs fir a walk... You take the sumabich fir "a pull"...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 09:12 PM

Humpf!!! Slander is what that is. Uninformed fiddle faddle. Balderdash. Horse puckey. Why, son, if you ever had the chance to spend time with a REAL hound...meanin' a Dachshund...then, by golly, you'd change yer tune right fast. Yessiree.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Feb 10 - 12:36 AM

Come on, LH. You can't really call something a real dog when it can't even run upstairs with a hard-on.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Feb 10 - 08:42 AM

Run, Amos???

Sheet fire, son... They ain't got no legs... They ain't much more than fat, furry snakes that bark...

Now back to out regularially scheduled debate about Obama...

Hey, Amos... Ya ever heard of the "Coffee Party"??? Google it up... You'll love this one...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Feb 10 - 10:28 AM

A REAL Dachshund with a hardon doesn't run upstairs at all. He serenades his lady love from the foot of the stairs, and she comes down to see him, of course, because she just can't resist that sort of romantic flair.

If you've heard a REAL Dachshund sing, you'd know what I mean.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Feb 10 - 10:41 AM

Pee in the cup. LH...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Feb 10 - 12:36 PM

Amos:

"the brink of an economic collapse" "its near collapse"

Do these two Obama official's terms indicate the economy collapsed or not?

They are quite different from your term "collapsed" which is in the past tense as an event that has occurred.

It's really not that hard to understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Feb 10 - 01:19 PM

Sawz:

OK, so you just won't get it. Not that you couldn't get it, you just won't. The intentionally obdurate approach. Dunno how you expect to get anywhere with it, but whatever creams your coffee. Good luck with it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Feb 10 - 05:28 PM

He learnt it from Teribus, Amos... Don't ever look at the big piccure because that is a losing side to pick... Just find minute details to debate and hope for the best... You know, kinda like arguin' over how many angels can dance on the end of a pin while Rome burns??? It's a run-out-the-clock strategy that, face it, is working better than the big piccure because "they" have more money to craft tons more ads that try to keep people bogged down in the details and away from the big piccure...

I'd give them more credit if the playing field was level but it isn't... Their side has the big bucks and has controled the media very well thru this... Money buys elections and it buys puiblic opinion in this tribalized world in which we live... Sad reality but reality none the less...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Feb 10 - 09:30 PM

PBS Newshour
September 16, 2008

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D), Illinois: This morning, instead of offering up concrete plans to solve these issues, Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book. You pass the buck to a commission to study the problem.

Here's the thing: This isn't 9/11. We know how we got into this mess. What we need now is leadership that gets us out. I'll provide it; John McCain won't. And that's the choice for Americans in this election.


Obama creates fiscal reform commission
UPI Feb. 18, 2010

WASHINGTON, Feb. 18 (UPI) -- A bipartisan commission on fiscal responsibility and reform came into being Thursday when U.S. President Barack Obama signed an executive order.

"I know the issue of deficits has stirred debate. And there's some on the left who believe that this issue can be deferred. There are some on the right who won't enter into serious discussions about deficits without pre-conditions." Obama said during the signing ceremony. "But those who preach fiscal discipline have to be willing to take the hard steps necessary to achieve it."....

If Obama is willing, why is he passing the buck to a commission?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 12:17 AM

They all contradict themselves after a little while, Sawzaw. They all do what they criticized the other guy for doing not very long ago. You just have to wait a little while. That's politics. Politics is all about creating ephemeral appearances and vague impressions in the public mind. It's marketing, man. Marketing.

If McCain was president now, he'd be doing similarly idiotic things, I'm sure, and contradicting himself too. So would Al Gore. So would Hillary. So would Giuliani. Romney. Whover. Just standard Washington bla-bla. Pay it little mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 12:34 AM

WHere did it say he was passing the buck, Sawz? Maybe he's just trying to keep the nation from splitting down the middle.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 01:14 PM

NEWS CONFERENCE BY THE PRESIDENT
East Room July 22,2009

THE PRESIDENT: We were on the verge of a complete financial meltdown. And the reason was because Wall Street took extraordinary risks with other people's money, they were peddling loans that they knew could never be paid back, they were flipping those loans and leveraging those loans and higher and higher mountains of debt were being built on loans that were fundamentally unsound. And all of us now are paying the price.
Now, I believe it was the right thing to do -- as unpopular as it is, it was the right thing for us to do to step in to make sure that the financial system did not collapse, because things would be even worse today had those steps not been taken. It originated under the Bush administration. We continued it because whether you're on the left or the right, if you talk to economists, they said that this could have the kinds of consequences that would drop us into a deep depression and not simply a very severe recession.....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 01:18 PM

You're hopeless, Sawz.

A meltdown began.

A collapse started.

Intercession occurred. The collapse was slowed and perhaps halted before it became complete in the sense of ruining the whole economic system.

What the hell is the matter with you?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 01:41 PM

Amos,

Even Obama says it started under Bush- SO OBAMMA DOES NOT GET CREDIT.


"Now, I believe it was the right thing to do -- as unpopular as it is, it was the right thing for us to do to step in to make sure that the financial system did not collapse, because things would be even worse today had those steps not been taken. It originated under the Bush administration. We continued it ..."

YOU have stated that the problems started under Bush are Bush's fault- so the SOLUTIONS started under Bush are his as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 01:41 PM

The real question is: Why bail out criminals in the banking system and reward the very people who created the problem?

Why not take government action to break up the 5 largest banks (which have become, in effect, a criminal cartel), protect their depositors, the public, from loss of their deposits by government-supported insurance of those deposits during that process, and end the damned banking cartel of the 5 huge banks which brought the economy into a state of disaster to pad their own pockets?

The biggest criminals at Wall Street have been bailed out. The public has not been protected by protecting and rewarding those criminals. There is the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 01:50 PM

What I'm saying is...Bush rewarded the criminals...and Obama agrees with doing that. Obviously, I disagree with both Bush and Obama on this matter.

The biggest banks are a cartel that has become a virtual monopoly. They should be broken up, and their top CEOs should be charged with having committed major financial crimes at the expense of the entire world.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 02:41 PM

AMos:

It is very simple. You said it collapsed, Obama said it didn't.

Who is correct?

Now you want to modify your "collapse" with started and began.

From: Amos - PM
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 12:16 PM

I don't think anyone has said that Obama was not responsible for his administration, Bruce. However, even you will allow that starting with a record surplus, as Bush did, and no wars, is a LOT easier than starting with two wars, a collapsed economy, and the largest deficit in history.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 03:26 PM

Bruce:

No sense waving your arms about; the collapse was Bush's responsibility and so were the initial efforts to prevent it from worsening.

I pointed this out myself, pal. Your stereotype isn't keeping up with reality here.

Sawz, you are being completely thickheaded and I am not going to repeat myself in an effort to get you to understand ordinary English.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 01:48 PM

Nothing could be simpler than did and didn't.

You said it collapsed.

Obama said it didn't collapse.

Are you wrong or is Obama wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 02:40 PM

Nothing could be simpler to the simple-minded, Sawz. It did AND it didn't. Your Manichean worldview just does not work, sorry.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 03:28 PM

Something can begin to collapse without collapsing completely. That would be termed a partial collapse.

The process of any ongoing collapse, physical or financial, can be halted by the application of some external agent which shores up that which is in the process of collapsing.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 04:36 PM

Yeah, I think we can all agree on partial collapse... Thanks, LH... This was getting nowhere and really no more than an academic exercise to avoid the big picture of 30 years of voodoo economics...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 11:00 AM

Right. I mean, heck, any financial collapse I ever heard of was a partial collapse. A complete collapse would mean that money became totally worthless, everyone lost everything they had, the marketing economy ground to a halt, and society disintegrated into total chaos with people fighting in the street for scraps of food...

Neither Obama nor Bush would have been able to find any ready solution to a situation like that.

All this longwinded bitching and bellyaching over whether someone said the economy "collapsed" or someone didn't say the economy collapsed has been a meaningless waste of keystrokes. ;-) An exercise akin to emptying the Atlantic ocean with a spade or peeling off the Earth's crust with a spoon. Useless. Futile. Vain. Not to mention... downright silly.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 03:49 PM

"Something can begin to collapse without collapsing completely. That would be termed a partial collapse."

That is true if you state that but Amos did not. He said it "a collapsed economy".

Did you see any thing about partial or begin there?

Now he tries to backpedal and try to modify what he said while launching ad hominem attacks.

You can say half dead or nearly dead or dying but saying dead is final.

A dying dog, a nearly dead dog, a half dead dog is different from a dead dog.

My personal view is that the economy would have collapsed if nothing was done but something was done before it collapsed and Obama said so.

"it was the right thing for us to do to step in to make sure that the financial system did not collapse"

Amos does not want to acknowledge that the collapse was prevented and did not happen.

Notice the word us. It indicates that he was involved so the claim that it was GWB's bailout does not compute either.

It was not Paulson or GWB that bailed out the banks but all of us and it prevented the collapse.

Also the "bailout" was loans to the banks, to be paid back with interest at a profit, and not money "given" to the banks as is repeated over and over by hysterical people.

However the money being paid back is not going to the treasury to reduce the national debt as was written into the bailout, it is being diverted into more ineffective Obama spending programs

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 04:18 PM

Let's say you're right, Sawzaw, and Amos used slightly incorrect wording on one occasion to express an idea he had about an economic crisis....

So what? ;-)

If your objective is to get him to admit he that used slightly incorrect wording on that one ocassion...well, who here has not done that? ;-) We all do that now and then. We don't express an idea perfectly.

What if he never consents to admit to the specific error in wording that you want him to admit to?

Then what? What shall we DO????????

And will we still be reading about it here in 2015?

Man, I can only hope not! ;-D (rolling my eyes)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 04:22 PM

Sawz:

I'm sorry. I have said OVER and OVER and OVER that the complete collapse was prevented.

Your tin ear is making you look dense, and I know you are not, but show a little semantic flexibility here.

WHen an avalanche starts, you do not wait for it to get to the bottom to say that the snow has collapsed. Please drop this stupid literal-minded shtick of yours. You are made for better things.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 04:28 PM

I've got an idea!

You (Amos) admit that Chinga is not Chongo's sister, but only imagines that she is.

Sawzaw will admit that it doesn't really matter if your wording was less than perfect on one occasion, and that he now understands what you actually meant to say.

Everything will be hunky-dory. ;-D

Deal?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 05:35 PM

Yeah, I think it time to move on... Nuthin' to see here...

But the new assertion that putting money returned from TARP back into the economy as being this evil and wrong thing to do flies in the face of modern day econimic theory... Until there is a greater level of spending by the general public for a quarter then the government, Repub or Dem, would have to keep puttin' logs on the fire...

BTW, this is basic Econ 201 which is taught in both liberal and conservative colleges... It's not some crazy theory... It's bsic...

Now, of course, if it made the righties happier, the money could go back into the treasury and then reborrowed and put back into the economy but that's just accounting and probably wouldn't get quite the bang-for-the-buck since then you'd have alot more tedius work achieving the same thing...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 05:53 PM

I'm not saying money shouldn't have been put into the economy to stimulate it. I'm saying that money mostly went to the wrong people...meaning: the 5 biggest American banks.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 06:02 AM

Amos,

"I'm sorry. I have said OVER and OVER and OVER that the complete collapse was prevented."

Yes, but you have yet to admit it was BUSH that did so, according to what you have stated before (re TARP). IF Bush gets the BLAME, he should also get the PRAISE for the actions during his administration.

Unless you want your normal dual standard.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 08:00 AM

LH,

You are confusing TARP and the Economic Stimulis Plan... BTW, this is exactly what the Repub PR machine wants... They don't want people to seperate them because in doing so then folks would have to realize that TARP, even though supported by the incoming president, was on George Bush... So the Repub PR mixers 'n mashers want to link it the Stimulis becaause it plays better... The fact that is a lioe is of no concern to the Repubs... They have become the Party of the Big Lie...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 08:29 AM

Bobert, You say "You are confusing TARP and the Economic Stimulis Plan... BTW, this is exactly what the Repub PR machine wants."

I am glad you have decided that Amos is a part of the Repub PR machine- he has given more effort to proving Bush right than anyone else here, by his words that make it worse to agree with him than to decide he is wrong.

AMOS is the one who represents the Party of the Big lie, I guess. Or at least the Party of the Personal attack.


"From: Amos
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 11:43 PM

...
You figure is one out for yourself. What MIGHT have happened is a lot more catastrophic than what did happen, because of TARP and Obama's Stimuus plan--regardless of your foaming diatribes to the contrary."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 09:31 AM

You're spewing sewage again, Brucie. Look up the word "and" carefully.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 10:03 AM

Righto, Bobert. Yes, I was confusing the two. Thanks for pointing that out.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 11:51 AM

"the complete collapse was prevented"

No collapse ever began. There was no partial collapse or any kind of collapse at all, just an impending collapse that never happened at all, none what so ever because it was prevented.

What Amos needs to do is say that there was no collapse. The collapse was prevented like Obama said, instead of implying with carefull wording that the collapse was in progress but then reversed by Obama.

This is known as spin. I didn't see Obama put any spin on it.

Of course if a Republican does not state the absolute, literal binary truth, it is called a "Big Lie". Even when they do state the truth thay are called lies because of the double standard employed by Libs to prove their "abstract formulations" which they claim to be the truth.

By the way Amos, Has anyone ever been able to stop an avalanche?

I am not going to call you stupid Amos. I feel that such name calling has no place in a legitimate forum.

Bobert: Why is it so tedious to show who spent what? You would rather have the record say that GWB "gave" the money to the banks rather than loaned it to them. You would rather have it added to the Bush deficit and subtracted from the Obama deficit rather than the other way around.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 12:02 PM

Another Oboondoggle?

Consumer Agency Within Fed Seen as Victory for Banks
March 3 (Bloomberg) -- For consumer advocates, housing a new agency to protect Americans from financial-product abuse within the Federal Reserve would be a defeat after lobbying for an independent body. For banks, it would represent a victory.
      Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, called a Senate plan to house the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency at the Fed "a joke." Shielding consumers from harmful financial products is "the most conspicuous failure by the Fed," Frank said in an interview yesterday.
      The Fed has an "innate conflict of interest" in trying to protect consumers while fulfilling its mission of safeguarding the rest of the financial system, billionaire George Soros said at a conference in New York today. "When Barney Frank called it a joke, I think he's right," Soros said.
      Banks say placing the agency with the Fed alleviates their concern that an independent entity would ignore the health of the financial system. Consumer advocates say it's a mistake because the Fed didn't succeed in curbing abuses during the subprime lending boom that contributed to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
      "We have all sorts of individual agencies that protect Americans, and none of them is subservient to the regulator that is in charge of looking out for the industry," said Lauren Saunders, managing attorney at the National Consumer Law Center in Washington. "This agency has to be independent so that it can fix the problems the banking regulators failed to fix."
      The Obama administration's proposal for a consumer protection agency is part of the biggest overhaul of financial regulation since the 1930s. Putting it inside the Fed, instead of creating a standalone bureau, was a compromise proposed by Senator Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, and Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat.
      Frank, who oversaw legislation passed by the House in December that would create an independent agency, said the chamber wouldn't accept the proposed deal. Senators joined in the criticism yesterday.
      Jeff Merkley of Oregon said the Fed had an "abysmal" record on consumer protection. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Banking Committee, said the entity shouldn't be autonomous within the Fed. "If you have something at the Federal Reserve, the Board of Governors ought to have the control," he said.
      Banking lobbyists say the Fed's knowledge of the banking system makes it well-suited to coordinate rules on credit cards and other consumer financial products.
      "Regulation of the products should be connected to the regulation of the bank," said Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government relations for the Financial Services Roundtable, which represents the largest financial institutions.
      The financial-services industry has lobbied lawmakers to defeat the plan for a consumer agency. JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon called the agency "just a whole new bureaucracy" on a December conference call with analysts.
      The American Bankers Association, the largest trade group representing banks, organized hundreds of meetings with its members and Congressmen and spearheaded a campaign that encouraged almost 300,000 letters to be sent to Capitol Hill, all in opposition to the CFPA. ABA spokesman John Hall said the organization wouldn't comment on the Fed idea until the proposal became official.
      Consumer advocates say the Fed didn't use its authority to put in place stronger protections for home buyers as the subprime mortgage market began to expand earlier this decade. The Fed has the broadest authority of any regulator to write rules on lending practices and disclosure.
      The Fed's specific enforcement authority is limited to 800 state member banks. It wields much more clout as the supervisor of bank holding companies, such as Bank of America Corp., some of which had subprime mortgage lending subsidiaries.
      Some $600 billion in subprime mortgages were originated in 2006, up from $310 billion in 2003, according to Inside Mortgage Finance, a trade publication. The Fed began to hold hearings around the country in 2006, and consumer advocates provided details of abuse, transcripts from the meetings show.
      "We were yelling at them in 2001 and 2002" to use their authority, says Michael Calhoun, president of the Center for Responsible Lending in Durham, North Carolina, and the current chairman of the Fed Board's Consumer Advisory Council. "It wasn't like people didn't know this stuff was going on."
      Edward Gramlich, a Fed Governor from 1997 to 2005, proposed that the Fed use its bank holding company authority to examine subprime lending subsidiaries. The proposal was opposed by then- Chairman Alan Greenspan, he said, and never went to the Board of Governors. Gramlich died in September 2007. Greenspan in the past has declined to comment.
      Among the subprime casualties on Wall Street: Bear Stearns Cos., acquired by JPMorgan Chase & Co. with help from the Fed, Merrill Lynch & Co., taken over by Bank of America, and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., which went bankrupt.
      Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke began to step up restrictions on subprime lending only after Congress threatened to strip the Fed of its authority. In a June 2007 hearing, Frank told then- governor Randall Kroszner: "Use it or lose it."
      "If the Fed doesn't start to use that authority to roll out the rules, then we'll give it to somebody who will," Frank said.
      The Fed drafted tougher mortgage lending rules in 2007 and completed them in 2008. The rules prevented mortgages for borrowers with no documented income, required lenders to write loans borrowers could repay and made escrow accounts mandatory for high-cost mortgages. The Fed also toughened restrictions on prepayment penalties.
      Separately, the Fed has forced credit-card companies to improve disclosure and has increased its scrutiny of possible discrimination in lending. The central bank referred 17 cases to the Justice Department in the three-year period ending 2009, up from nine the prior three years....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 12:05 PM

Sawz:

Definitions can be formed by describing actions (the process of falling apart is called a collapse) or states "When it was finished collapsing the tower was completely collapsed"). Your inability to deal with this facet of language has glued you to a single definition of a word which may only be applied to a terminal state. But that is a narrow view of themeaning of the word. A quick search using the Define: function of Google, for example, brings up:

"# break down, literally or metaphorically; "The wall collapsed"; "The business collapsed"; "The dam broke"; "The roof collapsed"; "The wall gave in"; "The roof finally gave under the weight of the ice"
# break down: collapse due to fatigue, an illness, or a sudden attack
# fold or close up; "fold up your umbrella"; "collapse the music stand"
# crumble: fall apart; "the building crumbled after the explosion"; "Negotiations broke down"
# an abrupt failure of function or complete physical exhaustion; "the commander's prostration demoralized his men"
# cause to burst; "The ice broke the pipe"
# a natural event caused by something suddenly falling down or caving in; "the roof is in danger of collapse"; "the collapse of the old star under its own gravity"
# crack up: suffer a nervous breakdown
# flop: the act of throwing yourself down; "he landed on the bed with a great flop"
# lose significance, effectiveness, or value; "The school system is collapsing"; "The stock market collapsed"
# crash: a sudden large decline of business or the prices of stocks (especially one that causes additional failures) "

I have underlined the ones relevant to this discussion.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 01:11 PM

You two just aren't going to let go of the old bone of contention, are you? ;-) I've seen Dachshunds doing exactly the same sort of thing, but it usually doesn't last nearly this long!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 02:01 PM

LH:

Don't be so judgmental. Be grateful that you are only occasional judged for your own persistent delusions on this forum, eh?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 03:40 PM

And usually by you. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 04:03 PM

Yeah...well, I have no idea why you elected me, but one must serve where one is called, mustn't one?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 04:37 PM

True enough, pard. "A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 06:13 PM

I'm with you, LH... I don't understand why Sawz is so obsessed with whether the economy that Bush turned over to Obma was collapsing or had collapsed... Twiddle dee, twiddle dum... Both strongly imply that it was a very messed up situation... Neither is a ringing endorsement of the Bush administration economic policies...

Me thinks this has become like one of those "hot spots" that dachounds get occasionally on a leg where they just can't stop lickin'... The boy (Sawz) just no longer has any control of himself... He thinks, I guess, that he is amking some kinda point but, for the life of me, I am clueless as to what point that might be???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 06:21 PM

He's trying to humble Amos and get him to admit he made an error.

It takes a lot of hubris to try that! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 07:17 PM

LOL!! Now, c'mon, Hawkster, be fair. I have often admitted errors in various threads, but not until I believe I made them.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 01:54 PM

FOXNews.com: The White House has gone on the offensive this week and it's about time they did. The President has taken on the Republicans on health care. He was conciliatory in his East Room speech this week but it was clear that the time has come to pass health care. History is on his side. Had the Carter plan or Clinton plan been passed health care would not be taking a huge percentage of the GDP right now.

This new get tough tactic is showcasing President Obama at his best. And the tactic is beginning to show up in the polls, too. Although, in truth, the president has just a 46-50 percent approval rating. On Friday, his Real Clear Politics average was 48.7 percent.

In late February the president had an unscheuled press conference in the Press room. He did not use the TelePrompter when he answered questions and he appeared resonable but tough. He said, "Bipartisanship can't be that I agree to all things that they believe in or want, and they agree to none of the things I believe in and want." Quoting the late Senator Pat Moynihan he said of the Republicans, "You're entitled to your own opinion, but not entitled to your own facts." When he touched on the Republicans holding up nominations, including one that was delayed for nine months although the nominee was eventually confirmed 96-0, he said "That's not advise and consent, that's delay and obstruct."

At the Republican House Issues conference in Baltimore, President Obama showed that he sympathizes with GOP concerns. Not only that he was able to explain to them that polls show that the public sides with him on important issues like tax cuts and unemployment assistance.

Mr. Obama was able to answer Republican questions without getting defensive, and in doing so, displayed a depth of knowledge previously doubted by the the GOP, whose members often characterize him as a good speech-giver but not much else. He did the same when he spoke to Democratic Senators, taking questions from Senators feeling the 2010 election heat.

Refusing to be painted as being soft on terrorism, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. sent a letter to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell last week refuting McConnell's accusations that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab should be held as an enemy combatant, and therefore should not have been read his Miranda rights. Holder's letter said that he had stuck with the Bush administration's policy -- which used the criminal justice system to try over 300 individuals on terrorism-related charges.

Holder also pointed out the fact that only two people apprehended in this country have been held under the law of war: Jose Padilla and Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Mari. Holder said that in both cases, transfer to the law of war raised serious statutory and constitutional questions in the courts, and spawned lengthy litigation.

The GOP sent out talking points to radio shows and reporters questioning the reading of Mr. Abdulmutallab's Miranda rights. But again, Holder came out swinging, pointing out that many terror suspects held by the Bush administration had been read their Miranda rights -- in one case 20 minutes after apprehension and several times within a 48-hour period afterwards. The Bush administration found that they got cooperation from apprehended terror suspects, even after the Miranda readings.

On the same topic, Senator Kit Bond said the White House released classified information during a background briefing. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs went straight after Bond, calling on the Republican Senator to apologize to the men and women in our intelligence agency, as they would never give out classified information to the press.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 03:42 PM

Amos,

"When he touched on the Republicans holding up nominations, including one that was delayed for nine months although the nominee was eventually confirmed 96-0, he said "That's not advise and consent, that's delay and obstruct"

Yet you seemed to think it was ok in the case of BUSH appointees. So, you think tyhat Obama needs a different, lower set of standards to apply for what reason? His race? His lack of intelligence? Come on, explain it to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 04:28 PM

He needs a different set of standards because he's on the "good" side...the side Amos likes! ;-) That's how it works in partisan politics. Errors and imperfections are easily forgiven if committed by those we like....but NEVER forgiven when committed by those we dislike! This is the basic principle that drives all partisan dialogue, Bruce. ;-)

(and it's one of the reasons I detest the very idea of having political parties)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 05:16 PM

Bruce:

I have said nothing either way about Bush appointees, and I think you are being disingenuous.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 06:56 PM

Ok Amos. Bullshit your way through this one.

Redefine eradicated so it appears that something that happened 1n 1999 happened in the 1980's.

"Glass-Steagal, but which Reagan eradicated"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 07:00 PM

Another Obama Flip Flop but one I agree with:

AP News Mar 05, 2010

In a potential reversal, White House advisers are close to recommending that President Barack Obama opt for military tribunals for self-professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four of his alleged henchman, senior officials said......

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 07:09 PM

"The economy avalanched"

How do you stop or reverse an avalanche Amos?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 07:14 PM

Avalanche is a noun. An economy can't "avalanche".

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 07:26 PM

Ya' know, it takes a certain amount of wisdom to "flip-flop"... Bush did not have this wisdom... He thought of himself as "The Decider" and once that decision was made it was cast in stone (just like his head)... I respect that Obama has shown an ability to change course where and when required... That is real leadership and that how people are successful...

As fir appointees, I recently heard that the Repubs are holding up 60% of Obama's appointees... Now I have not spent any time Googling up how many of Bush's were held up at a similar point in his presidency but I would be mazed if it was anywhere near 60%... And these aren't even Federal judes... These are just folks who work in various governemnt agencies...

What else??? Oh yeah, the avalamche??? What, are we now debating whether the US economy was collapsing or caught in an avalance when Bush was done with it??? Geeze, Louise!!! Fact is stranger than fiction!!!

How about this one: It sucked!!! That better???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 07:34 PM

Amos 04 Nov 09 - 03:46 PM

"When Obama took office, there were widespread fears that the system was on the verge of collapse"

Didn't you say that the economy collapsed?

Back then you said it was on the verge of collapse meaning it had not collapsed and was not collapsing or partially collapsed.

In other words, there was no collapse at all because it was prevented before it collapsed.

Even then the possibility of a collapse was only a widespread fear meaning it may not have been on the verge of collapse at all but only feared to be on the verge of collapse.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 07:44 PM

Let's say you're in a house, and it partially collapses. But not entirely.

That's still one hell of a big problem, isn't it?

I wouldn't want to live in a partially collapsed house, specially if I was under the part that fell down.

That's the position a lot of people find themselves in when the economy takes a turn for the worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 07:53 PM

Well, Amos... Just throw in the towell here... Admit that George Bush's economic policies musta been not so sucky afterall because the economy that he left Obama had not collapsed but was just in a state of collapsing... That oughtta settle this thing once and for all... Maybe get Bush an award somewhere at some school of economics... Like the Bob Jones University School of Economics... Maybe they give George an honorary PHD for the fine job he did in gettin' outta the way before the total collapse, I donno???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 02:20 AM

As long as the house is partially collapsed. But Amos does not say partially collapsed. He says collapsed.

But Mr Obama says the collapse was avoided.

Further more he says it was the bailout was the right thing to do.

I agree with Obama. It did not collapse because a collapse was avoided and it was the right thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 08:09 AM

Test...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 08:13 AM

Nevermind... I wrote a rather long post which is in another window but it wouldn't post and I gotta go so I'll have to rewrite it later...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 12:28 PM

Sawz:

How about you let it go, and call me out on a more serious misstatement that the tense and state of language? What do you think this is, a grammar contest?

TARP was necessary, according to Paulson and Bush, because the economy was collapsing.

If you think there was no collapse, survey the thousands who lost their homes, their jobs, or both because of your non-collapse.

Sure, it could have collapsed further.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 08:07 PM

The thing that I find rather unbelievable is that anyone would be putting forth a defense of the Bush economic policies by arguing that when Bush turned the country over to Obama that the economy was collapsing??? This is a rediculous argument... Face it, these policies of Bush were a failure... The two tax cuts were irresponsible... They didn't create the jobs that Bush & Co. said that they would...

(But, Boberdz... The unemployement rate was only 5% or less for most of those years...)

Yes, it was... But lets take the wrapper off those figures and see what was really happening... The US was borrowing lots of $$$ from China to build what??? Infastructure??? Factories??? Nah, about all that got built with that borrowed money were houses... And the money that was lent to folks to by them was also borrowed... I reckon that is why the 00s is being called the "lost decade"...

But the US oughtta know all about "lost decades" when it comes to the economy... The 80's was the same... Lots of huffin' 'n puffin' by Repubs about tax and spend Dem but out-of-control spending and not-paying-the-bills by Reagan... And at the end of Reagan's administartion??? A housing bubble and another collapsing economy...

Ya'll see... There is a pattern here... The Repub talk the talk but won't walk the walk when it comes to fiscal responsibility... I saw a chart recently of the deficits during the last 30 or so years and it's amazing how the deficits are much higher under Repub administartions than undewr Dems.... Seems that Dems constantly have to come in an restore fiscal discipline fater yet another drunken-sailor spending spree of yet another Repb... Carter cleaned up after Nixon and Ford... Clinton cleaned up after Reagan and Bush I and
now...

... looks as if Obama is gonna have to clean up after Bush II...

But, hey??? According to Sawz the economy didn't completely collapse under Bush II... I guess that is what he is arguing... I donno, If I were Sawz I'd just pick another issue to debate 'cause this one is a losin' one for his side...

B~
...looks as if Obama is going to

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 03:36 PM

"I guess that is what he is arguing... I donno"

You are completely correct about not knowing Bobert.

Amos:"If you think there was no collapse"

Obama:"the financial system did not collapse".

What part of "did not collapse" do you not understand Amos?

I notice you keep skipping over your Reagan eradicated statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 06:39 PM

Well, yeah, Sawz... I am clueless how you go about forming responsible opiniones with such a limited knowledge of real events, past or present...

(Maybe they aren't responsible opinions, Boberdz???)

Well, that's what I meant...

Case in point is the completelu dumbass defense of George Bush's economic policies by arguing that the economy that Bush left was collapsing??? That is not a logical argument... Or the argument about the Dems being the party of slavery without the historical perspective that the Dems of old ain't the same Dems of today...

I mean, no offense here, pal, but your arguments just aren't too grounded on knowledge...

Yeah, okay, you can call me a pot-head 'er whatever makes you warm and fuzzy but I do have 30 some college credits in history and another 20 or so in poli-sci... Add to that 20 years working in the jail house, a drug treatment facility and as a social worker not to mention that I read alot of current events stuff everyday, I'd say that this pot-head has worked purdy hard at trying to find the real story and not the propaganda that is found in the company fight song...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 10:18 PM

My opinion is the same as Mr Obama's:

NEWS CONFERENCE BY THE PRESIDENT
East Room July 22,2009

"Now, I believe it was the right thing to do -- as unpopular as it is, it was the right thing for us to do to step in to make sure that the financial system did not collapse

It don't sound like rocket science to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 11:08 PM

It's getting awful close Amos. If he sinks below 50/50 will the media turn on him like a pack of wild dogs on a rabbit?

RCP Averages

  Obama job approval                Approve    Disapprove         Spread
  RCP Average        2/17 - 3/9      48.6%        46.1%            +2.5
  
  Health Care Plan                   For      Against
  RCP Average 2/13 - 3/8             41.3%     48.9%  Against/Oppose +7.6
  

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 11:57 PM

Sorry to interject something that doesn't matter at all, but...

Why are there two of these threads?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 12:05 AM

One was started before there even was an Obama administration, when he was but a candidate.

Sawz: Your irresponsible media whangers have demonsrated time and time again they can lead a lot of half-wits into positions of bad judgement.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 11:40 AM

Kansas City had to shut down schools today, 700 people are out of work and kids can't go to school due to lack of money while Obama's deficit spending can find billions of dollars to piss away important things like pig odor research. What is more important than educating kids?

Kansas City to Close Nearly Half Its Schools

Before the Senate resoundingly defeated a McCain amendment on Tuesday that would have shorn 9,000 earmarks worth $7.7 billion from the $410 billion spending bill, the Arizona senator twittered lists of offensive bipartisan pork, including:

$2.1 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in New York.
$1.7 million for a honey bee factory in Weslaco, Tex.
$1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa.
$1 million for Mormon cricket control in Utah.
$819,000 for catfish genetics research in Alabama.
$650,000 for beaver management in North Carolina and Mississippi.
$951,500 for Sustainable Las Vegas.
$2 million "for the promotion of astronomy" in Hawaii
$167,000 for the Autry National Center for the American West in Los Angeles.
$238,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society in Hawaii.
$200,000 for a tattoo removal violence outreach program to help gang members or others shed visible signs of their past.
$209,000 to improve blueberry production and efficiency in Georgia.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 12:06 PM

Hey, man....DON'T underestimate the importance of eliminating pig odor!!! ;-)

I doubt that Obama personally had much to do with thinking up any of that stuff you listed. It's probably been put together by an army of lobbyists, lawyers, special interests, and bureaucratic bean counters of every type imaginable.

Do really think the head of the this giant governmental chicken knows what the rest of the damn chicken is doing or can control it? I don't. I think the head got cut off long ago, and the headless body is just running around the yard, bleeding money and making a bunch of noise.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 12:07 PM

Well Amos, you don't mind hooting what the irresponsible media whangers say if it supports your agenda.

From Amos Nov 2008:

Indeed, recent polls by Gallup and the Pew Research Center find the public exuberant about Mr. Obama and optimistic that he will solve the nation's problems.

The Gallup Poll also showed Mr. Obama getting a higher post-election favorable rating (68 percent) than either George W. Bush in 2000 (56 percent) or Bill Clinton in 1992 (60 percent).

I don't think you are stupid or evil or mean or wrong all the time Amos. I simply believe you get caught up in the irrational exuberance of whomever you believe to be in the majority.

Nobody is right all the time and nobody is wrong all the time, Idolizing or Demonizing people is not using good judgment. That is gang mentality.

You have to make your own judgment of things that people say and do on an item by item basis, not with some sweeping "he is all bad" or "he is all good" mentality.

The media whangers use this to their advantage, for a profit, while the nations problems get worse instead of better.

Wouldn't the world be a better place if we stopped using the "he is all bad" or "he is all good" approach?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 12:07 PM

Sorry. That last sentence should start with the words: "Do you really think..." to read properly.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 12:08 PM

"Wouldn't the world be a better place if we stopped using the "he is all bad" or "he is all good" approach?"

Absolutely!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 03:27 PM

Yeah LH and after he campaigned on no more earmarks, he signed the bill and said "I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government,"

State spends about $140,000 on signs for stimulus projects
Oct. 16--The reflective, green sign stands out among the orange construction cones and miles of freshly paved road eastbound on Interstate 84 in Pike County.

Its white lettering reads "Project Funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act."

The sign, and three others in Northeast Pennsylvania, are supposed to serve as a nice reminder that federal stimulus funds are putting Pennsylvanians to work.

However, the price tag of the signs, about $2,342 each, has created controversy. Pennsylvania has spent nearly $140,000 on 63 signs to mark 33 construction projects paid for with stimulus funds.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 06:53 PM

WASHINGTON Ñ President Barack Obama plans to donate the $1.4 million from his Nobel Peace Prize to helping students, veterans' families and survivors of Haiti's earthquake, among others, drawing attention to organizations he said "do extraordinary work."
Obama is giving a total of $750,000 to six groups that help kids go to college. Fisher's House, which provides housing for families with loved ones at Veterans Administration hospitals, will receive $250,000, the White House said Thursday. And the Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund, for which two former presidents are raising money to rebuild earthquake-ravaged Haiti, will receive $200,000.
"These organizations do extraordinary work in the United States and abroad helping students, veterans and countless others in need," Obama said in a statement. "I'm proud to support their work."
Obama was chosen for the Nobel award more for his aspirations and approach than his accomplishments thus far. The Nobel committee honored him for changing the tenor of international politics and for pursuing goals Obama says will require worldwide effort, such as nuclear disarmament and reversing global warming.
Obama himself was surprised by the award, and aides said at the time he would donate the cash prize to charity.
The Fisher's House donation would help pay for three new homes at Bethesda Naval Hospital and Dover Air Force Base, where the bodies of Americans killed overseas are flown.
"It's work that needs to be done for these men and women who have served this nation so gallantly," Fisher's House Foundation Chairman and CEO Kenneth Fisher said in an interview with The Associated Press. "It's a privilege to serve these men and women and these families because they give so much to this nation."
The funds for Haiti would go to the rebuilding effort led by former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. A Jan. 12 earthquake wrecked Haiti and killed an estimated 200,000 people, and the U.S. is playing an active role in rebuilding the country.
In addition, Obama plans to give $125,000 apiece to groups that help students go to college: College Summit, a national nonprofit that works with elementary and middle school students to boost college enrollment rates; the Posse Foundation, which gives full college scholarships to public school students who might be overlooked by traditional scholarship programs; United Negro College Fund; the Hispanic Scholarship Fund; the Appalachian Leadership and Education Foundation; and the American Indian College Fund.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 10:45 AM

"...The fact is, Obama is as he always has been, a center-left pragmatic reformer. Every time he tries to articulate a grand philosophy — from his book "The Audacity of Hope" to his joint-session health care speech last September — he always describes a moderately activist government restrained by a sense of trade-offs. He always uses the same on-the-one-hand-on-the-other sentence structure. Government should address problems without interfering with the dynamism of the market.

He has tried to find this balance in a town without an organized center — in a town in which liberals chair the main committees and small-government conservatives lead the opposition. He has tried to do it in a context maximally inhospitable to his aims.

But he has done it with tremendous tenacity. Readers of this column know that I've been critical on health care and other matters. Obama is four clicks to my left on most issues. He is inadequate on the greatest moral challenge of our day: the $9.7 trillion in new debt being created this decade. He has misread the country, imagining a hunger for federal activism that doesn't exist. But he is still the most realistic and reasonable major player in Washington.

Liberals are wrong to call him weak and indecisive. He's just not always pursuing their aims. Conservatives are wrong to call him a big-government liberal. That's just not a fair reading of his agenda.

Take health care. He has pushed a program that expands coverage, creates exchanges and moderately tinkers with the status quo — too moderately to restrain costs. To call this an orthodox liberal plan is an absurdity. It more closely resembles the center-left deals cut by Tom Daschle and Bob Dole, or Ted Kennedy and Mitt Romney. Obama has pushed this program with a tenacity unmatched in modern political history; with more tenacity than Bill Clinton pushed his health care plan or George W. Bush pushed Social Security reform.

Take education. Obama has taken on a Democratic constituency, the teachers' unions, with a courage not seen since George W. Bush took on the anti-immigration forces in his own party. In a remarkable speech on March 1, he went straight at the guardians of the status quo by calling for the removal of failing teachers in failing schools. Obama has been the most determined education reformer in the modern presidency.

Take foreign policy. To the consternation of many on the left, Obama has continued about 80 percent of the policies of the second Bush term. Obama conducted a long review of the Afghan policy and was genuinely moved by the evidence. He has emerged as a liberal hawk, pursuing victory in Iraq and adopting an Afghan surge that has already utterly transformed the momentum in that war. The Taliban is now in retreat and its leaders are being assassinated or captured at a steady rate.

Take finance. Obama and Tim Geithner are vilified on the left as craven to Wall Street and on the right as clueless bureaucrats who know nothing about how markets function. But they have tried with halting success to find a center-left set of restraints to provide some stability to market operations.

In a sensible country, people would see Obama as a president trying to define a modern brand of moderate progressivism. In a sensible country, Obama would be able to clearly define this project without fear of offending the people he needs to get legislation passed. But we don't live in that country. We live in a country in which many people live in information cocoons in which they only talk to members of their own party and read blogs of their own sect. They come away with perceptions fundamentally at odds with reality, fundamentally misunderstanding the man in the Oval Office. ..."

NYT Columnist David Brooks

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 10:56 AM

"Which brings me to the third myth: that health reform is fiscally irresponsible. How can people say this given Congressional Budget Office predictions — which, as I've already argued, are probably too pessimistic — that reform would actually reduce the deficit? Critics argue that we should ignore what's actually in the legislation; when cost control actually starts to bite on Medicare, they insist, Congress will back down.

But this isn't an argument against Obamacare, it's a declaration that we can't control Medicare costs no matter what. And it also flies in the face of history: contrary to legend, past efforts to limit Medicare spending have in fact "stuck," rather than being withdrawn in the face of political pressure.

So what's the reality of the proposed reform? Compared with the Platonic ideal of reform, Obamacare comes up short. If the votes were there, I would much prefer to see Medicare for all.

For a real piece of passable legislation, however, it looks very good. It wouldn't transform our health care system; in fact, Americans whose jobs come with health coverage would see little effect. But it would make a huge difference to the less fortunate among us, even as it would do more to control costs than anything we've done before.

This is a reasonable, responsible plan. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. "

Paul Krugman

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Mar 10 - 06:11 AM

Not to fear, ya'll... Health care is rounding Turn 4 and headin' for the home stretch and then...

...things are going to get real interesting for the Democrats because with that behind them they are going to be feeling purdy good about themselves--- ya know like feeling good when ya' stop beatin' yer head against the wall---and I see the Dems puttin' the Repubs in a few "trick boxes" fir all the help that the Repubs have been to health care reform...

Not too sure how it will play but I'm sure after that collective sigh of relief the Dems will take a couple days off and then figure out a few ways to inflict payback...

Again, can't offer an specifics... Just a hunch...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 10 - 08:56 PM

"Investigators looking into corruption involving reconstruction in Iraq say they have opened more than 50 new cases in six months by scrutinizing large cash transactions Ñ involving banks, land deals, loan payments, casinos and even plastic surgery Ñ made by some of the Americans involved in the nearly $150 billion program.

Some of the cases involve people who are suspected of having mailed tens of thousands of dollars to themselves from Iraq, or of having stuffed the money into duffel bags and suitcases when leaving the country, the federal investigators said. In other cases, millions of dollars were moved through wire transfers. Suspects then used cash to buy BMWs, Humvees and expensive jewelry, or to pay off enormous casino debts.

Some suspects also tried to conceal foreign bank accounts in Ghana, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Britain, the investigators said, while in other cases, cash was simply found stacked in home safes.

There have already been dozens of indictments and convictions for corruption since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But the new cases seem to confirm what investigators have long speculated: that the chaos, weak oversight and wide use of cash payments in the reconstruction program in Iraq allowed many more Americans who took bribes or stole money to get off scot-free.

ÒIÕve had a continuing sense that there is ongoing fraud that we have not been able to nail down,Ó said Stuart W. Bowen Jr., who leads the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, an independent oversight agency. ÒThis spate of new cases is evidence that that sense was reasonably well placed.Ó

The cases were uncovered during the first phase of a new, systematic inquiry into financial activities, which investigators said began in earnest last summer. A related investigation of rebuilding funds for Afghanistan began in February.

Mr. BowenÕs office agreed to answer general questions on the new inquiry but declined to divulge the names of the suspects, who include private contractors, military officers and civilian officials.

Developed in the Treasury Department, the financial monitoring effort goes by the generic name of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or Fincen, which continually generates data on suspicious financial transactions in support of more than 275 federal and state law enforcement agencies, according to a December report by the Government Accountability Office.

Stephen Hudak, a spokesman at the Treasury Department for Fincen, said it generated 15 million to 16 million reports a year on suspicious financial activity or major currency transactions, including cash deposits of more than $10,000. He said that transactions in banks, check-cashing outlets, wire services, casinos, stockbrokersÕ offices and insurance companies were covered...."NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 10 - 09:02 PM

Sorry, that was the wrong thread for that post. Should have been "Bush Years in Retrospect...".

Those boys did one hell of a job, eh, Brownie?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 11:32 PM

While campaigning for the democratic presidential bid, Mr. Obama has promised to put more information online. His plan includes posting more government data, posting bills for public comment and holding online hearings and meetings.
  He co-sponsored the recent FOIA amendment and was endorsed by one of the law's authors long-time open-government advocate Sen. Patrick Leahy.

An Obama secret: They're rejecting more Freedom of Information requests than those secretive Bush folks
March 16, 2010 LA Times

Here's a not-so-tiny tidbit of data that's getting lost in the White House-driven public frenzy over healthcare legislation this week:

The White House Democratic administration of Barack Obama, who denounced his presidential predecessor George W. Bush as the most secretive in history, is now denying more Freedom of Information Act requests than the Republican did.

Transparency and openness were deemed so important to the new president that on his first full day in office last year he dispatched a memo to all federal agencies saying:

    Transparency and openness were so important to the new president that on his first full day in office last year, he dispatched a much-publicized memo throughout the federal government saying:

    All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government. The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA. That was the same day he issued an executive order promising to shut the Guantanamo Bay detention facility by the end of calendar 2009, which hasn't happened yet either.

One of the exemptions allowed to deny Freedom of Information requests has been used by the Obama administration 70,779 times in its first year, while the same exemption was used 47,395 times in Bush's final budget year.

An Associated Press examination of 17 major agencies' handling of FOIA requests found denials 466,872 times, an increase of nearly 50% from the 2008 fiscal year under Bush. As the thorough Ed Morrissey points out over here, during a time of war and terrorist threats, any government can justify not releasing some sensitive information. And true, Obama's always been a legislator, not an executive.

But why despite advance warnings about the realities of governing make such a big campaign deal over a previous administration's secrecy (not to mention Guantanamo) when you're going to end up being even more secretive? And invite inevitable charges of hypocrisy and even more empty campaign promises?

Today to mark annual Sunshine Week, designed to promote openness in government, Obama applauded himself by issuing a statement: As Sunshine Week begins, I want to applaud everyone who has worked to increase transparency in government and recommit my administration to be the most open and transparent ever, an effort that will strengthen our democracy and ensure the public's trust in their government.

However, a new study out Monday by George Washington University's National Security Archive finds less than one-third of the 90 federal agencies who process such FOIA requests have made significant changes in their procedures since Obama's 2009 memo.

So, today in response, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel did what federal government chiefs of staff do: He sent out yet another memo. Since the agencies ignored the memo from the real president of the United States, they'll probably all snap to when the Obama staffer's note arrives, don't you think?.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 09:05 AM

That's purdy funny, Sawz...

I read that crap three days into Obama's administartion on another web site which does make one think, "Hmmmmmmmm, there are some folks who plainly don't like Obama"... So I confronted that individual then about how after three days the right wing could come up with that much crap after only three days and never got an answer...

Me thinks that this "Obama is the most secretive administartion" stuff started even before he was president????

But, ya'll just blog yer little right winged hearts out 'cause other than entertaining yourselves and each other this one jsut ain't gotta lot of stickin' power to it... Ya' see, if Bush hadn't lied out his butt to get US into a very immoral and wrong-headed war then maybe??? It all about timing, Sawz... Me thinks ya'll be better servfed tryin' somthin' else...

Now ol' Bobert goingh back to vacationin' here ion New Awww'leens...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 11:37 AM

Sawz:

What instruments, aside from the buffoon, do you play?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 11:54 AM

Amos,

Your attacks and insult on the PERSON that disagrees with you only demonstrates the weakness or lack of supporting evidence that you have for your own point of view.


I had thought better of you- but not for some time now.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 12:01 PM

Well, I have tried, Bruce, but there are limits. Actually though I was genuinely curious about Sawz' musical predilections if any. The buffoon part slipped in from another thread, sorry.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 12:23 PM

Amos,

I know that there are limits- and recently you have been going beyond them. Please endeavor to keep to the topic- feel free to criticise the facts presented, and express your own opinions- But PLEASE refrain from insulting others because they do not agree with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 12:27 PM

Amos,

(more)

After all, you are NOT from Chicago, where personnel attacks and underhanded actions seem to be the normal method of discussion.

You have demonstrated thet YOU do not believe in the type of discussion and political interaction the Obama has stated ( many times) that he desires. Just because HE does not demonstrate what he states is proper does not give you a pass on this.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 12:38 PM

You miss my point as usual, Bruce. I don't mind if someone disagrees with me, but I do object when they do so on the grounds of histrionic half-baked or downright neurotic views of reality based on false, distorted, uninspected or downright fraudulent data. One of the common ways to distort data is to take something that is relatively unimportant in the stream of things and blow it up as though it were terribly important. This is motivated by some sort of hungry a priori need for a casus belli, not by an actual effort to identify situations.

The promulgation of fraudulent data is a specialty of certain loudmouthed fearmongers like Coulter, Reilly, Beck and their ilk. For reasons I do not quite understand this dedication to motivating others through fear seems to crop up on the right side of the political spectrum much more frequently than it does on the left. Maybe liberals are just less interested in lives of hatred and fear. Whatever the reasons, the ill-founded logic of such assertions annoys me, as you know, far more than anyone disagreeeing with me personally. You always ignore that aspect, although we have discussed it before.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 01:01 PM

Amos,

"but I do object when they do so on the grounds of histrionic half-baked or downright neurotic views of reality based on false, distorted, uninspected or downright fraudulent data."

Then attack the data, NOT the person.



Do as Obama SAYS, not what he DOES.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 01:05 PM

Am I the only one who notices the droll inconsistency of your advice to address the data, not the person, uttered in the same breath as an inaccurate personal attack? I dunno, maybe it's a blind spot or something.

IN other news, a NYTimes blogger opines:

"This final hour of the health care battle looks promising for Barack Obama -- political analysts say he is winning back the base, and even the skeptical Paul Krugman is "impressed."

But this conventional wisdom is wrong. Obama never actually "lost" his core supporters in the first place. He does have a problem with the base. But it is about energy, not loyalty.

The current danger for the White House is not losing its coalition, which has shown it can stomach a lot, but rather mistaking its allegiance for enthusiasm.

According to a metric just introduced by Gallup last week, only 27 percent of Democrats are "enthusiastic" about voting in the midterms. Republicans are far more pumped: Forty-three percent say they are eager to turn out.

Put aside all the coverage of Obama's political woes. The fact is that this president is unusually popular within his party and strongly backed by self-identified liberals and the cohorts who propelled him to victory in 2008.

About 82 percent of Democrats currently approve of Obama's job performance. By historical standards, that's gangbusters. At this point in a first term, no Democratic president has held such high standing within his party since Lyndon B. Johnson. (LBJ clocked in just 3 percentage points higher.)

By ideology, Obama still does very well on the left: Seventy-nine percent of liberals approve of his job performance. And that number jumps to 89 percent among liberal Democrats. By contrast, moderates are at 58 percent, while conservatives hover at a sour 26 percent.

Meanwhile, the young, educated and multiracial coalition that Obama built is still in his corner.

About 61 percent of voters younger than 30 currently approve of Obama, while every other age bracket stands below 50 percent. That is a departure from the past two administrations, in which the approval gap by age ran only 3 to 6 percentage points. And a whopping 91 percent of black Americans approve of Obama's job performance.

A White House official told me these numbers show that while the base is "frustrated," given the current political process, Obama's supporters still think he is on the "right track."

"The core of the president's support, young people and African-Americans in particular, are still seeking change in Washington," the official said, but they "understand that changing that system is not going to happen overnight.""

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 01:12 PM

Amos,

To state that someone espouses verbally some form of behaviour, and then in his own actions and speeches does not abide by the action he requests others to do is not a personnel attack. OR were YOU just attacking me, with your observation, rather than the validity of what I said????

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 01:14 PM

"uttered in the same breath as an inaccurate personal attack? "

Care to give some example of the supposed "inaccuracy"? I am basing my comment on the documented speeches of Obama: What are you using to deny it?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 01:15 PM

"I dunno, maybe it's a blind spot or something."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 03:23 PM

Obama has a reputation more than any President in recent memory of looking at the data. Compared to the know-nothing President W, he's a data nut!! Come off it.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 03:29 PM

"a reputation "


But not backed up by his actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 03:40 PM

He's a very bright man. His actions, however, are up to whoever his controllers are, and I don't know who they are. Nor do most people know who they are. You're not supposed to know about that. ;-) (here's a tip: they're basically exactly the same people who controlled Bush and all the other presidents for the last few decades, and you can thank them for the wars, various acts of terrorism, numerous financial crises, your shrinking dollar, etc., and there's not a damn thing you can do about it either)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 04:24 PM

TARP, not stimulus, stabilized the economy

To mark the first anniversary of the stimulus program, President Barack Obama and his supporters went on the offensive. They told us that 2 million jobs have been created or saved. They also told us this program avoided another Depression.

But they didn't tell us the cost of this program has increased by $75 billion to $862 billion, according to the latest estimate of the Congressional Budget Office.

The number of federal and state employees has definitely increased. The jobs of numerous teachers, police officers and firefighters have been saved. But the funding for these saved jobs ends this year. Who will fund these jobs when this happens?

How many jobs were actually created or saved in the private sector?

I do not think anyone can give an accurate answer to this question. But we the people think we know. Only 6 percent think the stimulus program created any jobs, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll released Feb. 11.

Economists agree the Troubled Asset Relief Program was responsible for avoiding the collapse of our economy, not the stimulus program. TARP was responsible for bailing out General Motors, Chrysler and the financial institutions.

Now the president wants to use the money that was paid back as a general "slush fund". Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., added an amendment to the TARP bill to prevent this. His amendment requires that any money paid back go the Treasury to reduce debt.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 04:39 PM

Jaysus, you guys--LH with his conspiracy theories and Bruce's jaded generalized anti-social cynicism are enough to put me off any discussion of the Administration for good.

From what I have seen, BB his reputation was founded on the same very actions--unwillingness to jump into ill-founded bravado and histrionic heroism. In fact he's copped a lot of heat because he insists on gathering data longer than thew righties (who are not prone to thoughtful management techniques) can stand.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 04:56 PM

Coming from the colige edjucaited, professor of crapology, the man that thinks Gaza is the most densely populated place on earth and Obama bought his own "beater" airplane, Bobert has less credibility than a used camel salesman in Tehran.

I presented the numbers from a left leaning newspaper.

You can mumble about right wing blogs all you want if it helps you to ignore the facts.

March 17th, 2010
Obama Goes Upside Down in Gallup Tracking

A rather dramatic swing in the Gallup Daily Tracking poll has put President Obama's job rating upside down for the first time, with more Americans now disapproving of job he's doing than approving. According to today's numbers, which represent a rolling average of surveys taken over the past three days, 47% say they disapprove of Obama while 46% approve. That's a net five-point change from yesterday's reading of 48% approve and 44% disapprove, which is a pretty substantial move for a tracking poll. It means the President probably suffered a combination of a good day of polling dropping off the back end of the rolling average while adding a bad day of polling to the front end.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 07:30 PM

Conspiracy??? What conspiracy? I'm not talking about any conspiracy, I'm talking about how the system just naturally works, that's all. The richest people at the top of the power chain work in such a way as most directly benefits them, that works its way down through all the levels of government, it gets enshrined in law and legislation and executive decisions, and the results are predictable.

It's been that way in the past too in many other great powers and empires. It isn't just a recent American phenomenon.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 07:54 PM

"I've always found that courage comes from remembering that we fight
for something and someone beyond ourselves. It comes from our faith.
And it comes from our commitment to those we love."
Ñ PRESIDENT OBAMA Ñ

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 08:12 PM

Yup.

As Ronnie Hawkins always used to sing: "Who do ya LOVE????"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 01:57 PM

Now, why is this bad when Republicans do it, and good when Democrats do it?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 02:19 PM

For the same reason that it's "bad" in hockey or football when the visiting team does it, but it's "good" when the home team does it. ;-)

Until the audience realizes that the game is rigged, and that both teams work for the same corporate management, the old partisan silliness and blind prejudice and hatred will just go on, and on, and on, and on....which is exactly the way head office wants it. Without you partisan dummies constantly attacking each other, you might decide to attack the corporate bosses instead, and that would bring the system down.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 03:55 PM

Because the Republicans lied about doing it, perhaps? Oh, and possibly because a lot of their talking points were major departures from the truth? That might have something to do with it. Doesn't take a lot to notice those differences, I guess.





A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 05:10 PM

And the Democrats lying about doing it, perhaps? Oh, and possibly a lot of Democratic talking points are major departures from the truth?

Amos, you keep telling me that I should just accept anything Obama says as true, even when he says something different the next time.


It seems to me that Obama is doing a fair job as president- after all, just from the number of Bush policies he has continued, about half of what Obama does I approve of ( having approved when Bush did it, unlike fickle Amos). Almost as good a job as Bush did, in fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 05:41 PM

Come on, guys! (rolling my eyes) They both lie every time their lips move, fer Chrissake.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 08:09 PM

Funny thing, BB...you approve of Obama for the very same reasons I am so disappointed in him! ;-)

He's like a mug of George Bush Lite Beer.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 08:23 PM

My opinion, for what it is worth, as that you are both viewing him through fixed ideas, and not seeing what is actually there. Now, I admit that after a certain number of years of W, I may havebeen guilty of some fixed ideas myself. Bruce never admits it, but I did post some positive comments about W when he did something I thought was decent. But it happened so rarely it shrank out of view compared to the outrageous mistreatment of the office which surfaced over and over again. I do not see Obama abusing his office in the same way that W notoriously did.

His (W) malfeasance went way beyond the normal political maneuvers associated with trying to get things done.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,I'll try again...
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 09:08 PM

This computer is possessed... Hit the long skinny spacer thing twice and it makes it like "submit" but...

...first of all, seein' as I've had 600 miles of interstate driving today I ain't in mood for all the crap I've just read...

Number 1: Yo, Sawz... I got some bad news fir ya', son... The news departments in just about every newspaper and TV station in the country have experience drastic cuts which means that alot of shit that is being put out by rightie bloggers is making it into the medai as, ahhhhhh, fact??? It ain't... It's 10% fact and 90% homemade bullshit... This is where "critical thinking" skills come into play... If somethin' don't sound right it generally ain't right...

Which brings me to "Sawz facts"... You claim that only about half a million kids go to bed hungry when there are between 40 and 50 million people living in poverty???????

Man, that is some serious mis-thinking on yer part...

So I bring that up to you and you go off on yer little Obama's airplane trip??? Like what is that all about... We're talkin' "critical thinking" here about some serious shit... Not Obama's airplane...

But, no you don't wnat to talk nuthin' serious... You just want to attack me overstupid stuff that really has no bearing on the umber of kids that go hungry....

So I challenges you to provide a budget for a family of 4 living at the poverty level as a first step toward your 3 credits in "Critical Thinking 101" but you ignore that because you'd rather btalk about Obama's friggin' airplane???

Like what is that about, Sawz???

Well, you don't have to anaswer that because we know the answer to that... You really don't give a flyin' crap about kids that are hungry... You just wnat to post rightie-blog shit that because we don't have real newspeopoe out there doing real news things ya'll can get away with... Well, you ain't gettin' away with it from me, son, 'cause I'm on to the entire deal...

So now it's back to the rightie-blog mythology that Obama is the most secretive president ever going back to Ceasar (lol)... The righties sent that ballon up 3 days into the Obama administration and it wouldn't fly when they reminded that Obama had only been in office for 3 friggin' days so ya'll rightie bloggers (of which you are one) decided to just put that mythology off fir a while and try it again later????

What, do ya'll think the rest of us are friggin' morons, or what???

Quite the opposite, son... We see what ya'll are doing... Yeah, we know that ya'll hate Obama... We know that mythology is yer tool to display this hatred... Ain't nuthin' new here...

So, in the words of Paul Seibel, "No, this ain't been nice but we got something said..."

I know... Who is Paul Seibel??? Oh yeah... Ask a musican... There are plenty of them here... Not you, of course... Right??? Hey, this is a musican's website... At least bb is a geetar buyer and seller... BTW, what instrument is it again that you play...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 09:23 PM

Amos,

Notice any simularity to what you have posted? I guess we should start another thread demanding this, now...

From this Times.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Bobert on the road...
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 07:05 PM

Hey, given the fact that "reconciliation", a process that requires that a decrease in the federal deficit be achieved from the process, was used by Bush for tax cuts which *increased* the federal deficit me thinks that given the fact that both houses have passed very similar health care reform bills that you can take the "Slaughter Rule", put it in the toidy and pull that little chrome handle down...

I mean, let's get real here!!!

I understand that the Repubs don't want the Dems to achieve *anything*... That has been their strategy which really has nothing to do with any particular legislation but everything to do with pure politics but...

...hey, tough beans!!! If the Dems get this thru then they will get to live with it... If it turns out to be good then they will benefit and if it doesn't then they won't... That's the way things are...

I do find it very interesting that there are stories about Clinton's attempt to get health care reform passed and a memo ( I think from the Newt-ster himself) that stated that if the Dems got it thru that it would hurt the Republican Party for years to come??? I donno about their strategy other than they are completely wedded to it now...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 08:01 PM

Bruce:

Well, no. Bush actually assaulted the pillars of our constitutional republic; Obama is not actually doing so but is being framed by rightsiders. For example they are all up in arms about the procedure Obama is considering, while they had no such objections when Bush and Co used it for far less positive purposes. Mr Kuhner likes to use hot button words which are simply untrue, such as "unprecedented" "assaulting" and so on. It's a bunch of stink and fury designed to raise heat and cast no light.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 08:26 PM

That's true, Amos, but I honestly do think that it is wrong to legally force people to purchase private health insurance. I think it is utterly wrong to do that. I go further than that, I think it is evil to do that.

I don't ascribe that evil directly to Mr Obama himself, however, I ascribe it to the health insurance industry which has bribed and blackmailed his party into putting forth a health care bill that is tailored for one real purpose: to further enrich the private health insurance industry.

And the Republicans? Oh, they'd have done even worse things, in all probability if they were in power. You are ruled over by theives, traitors, and scoundrels. Your Mr Obama may be a good man, I don't know, but if he is, he is a good man in the grip of thieves, traitors, and scoundrels.

You are exchanging one form of disgracefully bad national health care scheme for another, that's all.

Have you seen "Capitalism - A Love Story" yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 09:06 PM

L:

SON, it's an easy answer to say there is no difference. It sounds very knowledgeable and all, but it is just lazy talk.    What we will have done when the health reform bill passes tomorrow is taken ONE step toward a more workable and compassionate union. Not yet a perfect union but in spite of all efforts against it, a small amount more perfect. No it doesn'
t amke all the difference, but it sure as hell makes some significant difference. You can jump to lazy conclusions all you want but the real hard work of political change (a job, by the way for which I surmise you are unsuited) comes from making hard-won small steps like this one. Followed by another. If Obama keeps on doing so in spite of all the muckraking and hateful vilification based on mythological horsepucky, why, he'll be earning his keep and then some.

Assume, just for discussion, this turns out to be the case.

Your own approach, in parallel and in contrast, will have left you doing pretty much what you are doing now, knowing best about the whole thing and accomplishing more of the same sameness. A change of nil. But you will still have the satisfaction of having great certainty that nothing has happened. And how terrible bad it is. I wish you the joy of it, if any can be found.


A

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 09:16 PM

Amos, please don't lose sight of the fact that I do want Mr Obama's bill to pass, okay? ;-) I agree that any small step forward is better than no step forward.

I am simply drawing attention to the perfidy of the powerful private industry which has unduly influenced the process much for the worse.

The joy I have is that I do live in a country where we have an affordable, government-run, single payer national health plan, and it costs me less than a thousand a year. If I had been living in the USA when my father got liver disease, I and my parents would have been bankrupted by the treatment he got. We'd have lost our savings, our house, everything.

Living in Canada, we simply lost my father (whose eventual death was inevitable).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 01:19 AM

Well, living in a good society is a great joy, no question.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 06:24 AM

Well, LH... Think about it this way... The government is ultimately responsible for either allowing people to die or pickin' up the tab to keep them alive so me thinks that if folks don't like it then they should be able to opt out of health care entirely... That may sound cruel but if you have no way to get folks who are young and healthy payin' into the pool then all yer gonna end up with is the high risk people... So I think that, yeah, if you want health care then, like auto insurance, yer gonna have to step to the plate and participate...

If you don't want it and agree to *never* use it regardless of the situation then, fine, opt out and just take yer chances...

But that is an argument that we never could have had because it would sound heartless and inhumane...

Meanwhile, today could be the day where the House reaffirms its earlier vote... What a bunch of baloney... Shouldn't have to come down to a million parlimentary loopholes...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 11:40 AM

In an interesting subplot the nuns of the Catholic universe are taking an end run around their bishops and the Pope and supporting Obama's health care initiative. Maureen Dowd, a good Irish girl, tells the story with humor.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 11:53 AM

An interesting analysis of the largely Republican-inspired malfeasance behind the LEhamnn Brothers collapse and related items by Frank Rich.

Financial reform is going to be a major second front in this long battle against malfeasance and institutionalized gouging and inequity. Prediction: the Republicans will stir up their flying monkeys to throw turds and scream about socialism when Obama's administration makes serious efforts to establish a viable, rational rules set limiting the right of high-power financial executives to fuck the country for profit.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 12:29 PM

No doubt, Amos, no doubt.

Guest - Yes, I see your point. However, I don't think it's the same as auto insurance in that respect. Your bad driving presents a direct threat to the lives and property of other people...that's why auto insurance is compulsory. Your bad health does not present a direct threat to the lives and property of other people.

I've never heard of a Canadian citizen who wanted to opt of of health insurance coverage, because it is a civil right here which is given to everyone...in the same fashion that having a police force, a fire department, and other vital services like that is given to everyone.

Would you like it if the police were privately employed by a bunch of corporations and would only come to your assistance in an emergency if you had already purchased an expensive yearly protection policy from them??? No, you wouldn't like that one bit, and you'd be right not to like it, because it would be tyrrany. It would be like having the Mafia running the police force.

A police force is supported through taxes and is there to help everyone, without prejudice, any time help is required. They don't make you pay them first...everyone has already shared the cost through their taxes.

That is what we have in Canada for health care, and that is what most other developed countries have. Health care isn't an optional luxury, it's an absolute requirement for everyone in a society, and it should be prepaid for EVERYONE by taxes.

If you do that, each individual person can afford the overall cost of health care, because only a few people are in need of it at any one time....same as only a few people need the police or the fire department at any one time.

Health care, like police and fire departments, should be a civil RIGHT that is provided to the entire society in a totally equal manner through taxation. That's the only sane way to do it. Period.

And getting back to auto insurance...I do, in fact, think that auto insurance should be handled that way too. It isn't, but I believe it should be. If it was, I suspect it would be a lot less expensive.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 07:08 PM

It's the best we could get under the circumstances, LH... Ya' see, our government is badly broken and if this thing goes thru it will be an amazing achievement and the first major legislation passed in almost 4 decades...

So lighten up on US, por favor...

Plus, yeah... No one is going to opy out... That was crazy tghinkin' on my part but it does kinda go toward all these Tea Baggers who hate the governement until they ***need*** the government... Then they can't get enough government...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 08:16 PM

I realize your circumstances, Bobert, and I would describe them as "desperate". I sure hope it passes...and if it does, I hope it leads to further steps in that same direction until you have a new Bill of Rights which includes free and available health care for all.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Leadfingers
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 09:51 PM

1800

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 10:56 PM

At this hour it looks very likely; the first phase of the voting is proceeding.


A

Subject: HEALTH CARE BILL PASSES!
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 10:59 PM

House Approves Landmark Bill to Extend Health Care to Millions

Congress gave final approval on Sunday to legislation that
would provide medical coverage to tens of millions of
uninsured Americans and remake the nation's health care
system along the lines proposed by President Obama.

By a vote of 219 to 212, the House passed the bill after a
day of tumultuous debate that echoed the epic struggle of the
last year. The action sent the bill to President Obama, whose
crusade for such legislation has been a hallmark of his
presidency.

Democrats hailed the votes as historic, comparable to the
establishment of Medicare and Social Security and a long
overdue step forward in social justice.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 09:49 AM

"...(C)ynicism has been the hallmark of the whole campaign against reform.

Yes, a few conservative policy intellectuals, after making a show of thinking hard about the issues, claimed to be disturbed by reform’s fiscal implications (but were strangely unmoved by the clean bill of fiscal health from the Congressional Budget Office) or to want stronger action on costs (even though this reform does more to tackle health care costs than any previous legislation). For the most part, however, opponents of reform didn’t even pretend to engage with the reality either of the existing health care system or of the moderate, centrist plan â€" very close in outline to the reform Mitt Romney introduced in Massachusetts â€" that Democrats were proposing.

Instead, the emotional core of opposition to reform was blatant fear-mongering, unconstrained either by the facts or by any sense of decency.

It wasn’t just the death panel smear. It was racial hate-mongering, like a piece in Investor’s Business Daily declaring that health reform is “affirmative action on steroids, deciding everything from who becomes a doctor to who gets treatment on the basis of skin color.â€쳌 It was wild claims about abortion funding. It was the insistence that there is something tyrannical about giving young working Americans the assurance that health care will be available when they need it, an assurance that older Americans have enjoyed ever since Lyndon Johnson â€" whom Mr. Gingrich considers a failed president â€" pushed Medicare through over the howls of conservatives.

And let’s be clear: the campaign of fear hasn’t been carried out by a radical fringe, unconnected to the Republican establishment. On the contrary, that establishment has been involved and approving all the way. Politicians like Sarah Palin â€" who was, let us remember, the G.O.P.’s vice-presidential candidate â€" eagerly spread the death panel lie, and supposedly reasonable, moderate politicians like Senator Chuck Grassley refused to say that it was untrue. On the eve of the big vote, Republican members of Congress warned that “freedom dies a little bit todayâ€쳌 and accused Democrats of “totalitarian tactics,â€쳌 which I believe means the process known as “voting.â€쳌

Without question, the campaign of fear was effective: health reform went from being highly popular to wide disapproval, although the numbers have been improving lately. But the question was, would it actually be enough to block reform?

And the answer is no. The Democrats have done it. The House has passed the Senate version of health reform, and an improved version will be achieved through reconciliation.

This is, of course, a political victory for President Obama, and a triumph for Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker. But it is also a victory for America’s soul. In the end, a vicious, unprincipled fear offensive failed to block reform. This time, fear struck out. "

Paul Krugman, economist, NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 12:04 PM

Boy, what a titanic struggle it has been! It's absolutely incredible that it would be that hard to make some small steps toward what the rest of the developed world already has.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 03:37 PM

Well, all of the razzy media who were going "Fight! Fight!! Terrible FIGHT!!" are now making their sales by yelling "Pyrrhic Victory!! Obama wins but at terrible future cost!! More fights ahead!! Blaaaaggggh!"

I had what the media have become in this country--pusillanimous shock-jocks and turmoil-mongers.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 03:40 PM

That's how they get their jaded listeners to tune in.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 07:13 PM

10 THINGS EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD KNOW ABOUT HEALTH CARE REFORM

1. Once reform is fully implemented, over 95% of Americans will have health insurance coverage, including 32 million who are currently uninsured.2

2. Health insurance companies will no longer be allowed to deny people coverage because of preexisting conditionsÑor to drop coverage when people become sick.3

3. Just like members of Congress, individuals and small businesses who can't afford to purchase insurance on their own will be able to pool together and choose from a variety of competing plans with lower premiums.4

4. Reform will cut the federal budget deficit by $138 billion over the next ten years, and a whopping $1.2 trillion in the following ten years.5

5. Health care will be more affordable for families and small businesses thanks to new tax credits, subsidies, and other assistanceÑpaid for largely by taxing insurance companies, drug companies, and the very wealthiest Americans.6

6. Seniors on Medicare will pay less for their prescription drugs because the legislation closes the "donut hole" gap in existing coverage.7

7. By reducing health care costs for employers, reform will create or save more than 2.5 million jobs over the next decade.8

8. Medicaid will be expanded to offer health insurance coverage to an additional 16 million low-income people.9

9. Instead of losing coverage after they leave home or graduate from college, young adults will be able to remain on their families' insurance plans until age 26.10

10. Community health centers would receive an additional $11 billion, doubling the number of patients who can be treated regardless of their insurance or ability to pay.11

To share this list with your friends using Facebook or Twitter, visit:

http://pol.moveon.org/healthcare/tenthings/?id=19503-7901518-nmyPuNx&t=1

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 10:36 PM

Favor 39%
Oppose 59%
No opinion 2%

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 10:48 PM

So, you're saying that 59% of the American public are too damn ignorant to realize how outrageously they've been screwed and lied to for decades by the private health insurance companies, and that they'd rather just remain that way because it feels "safer" to change nothing in the status quo?

Why am I not surprised? ;-)

I built my mother's fat old dog a ramp, because he can hardly climb the stairs any more, but he won't use the ramp! Nothing can persuade him to use it. He's scared of all innovations, and would rather continue just doing exactly what he's always done...struggling and suffering, and not getting up the stairs.

Sounds like a similar problem to your 59% to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 11:12 PM

Seeing that you know so much about what is going on, I have a few questions that I hope you will be kind enough to answer Amos:

"Health insurance companies will no longer be allowed to deny people coverage because of preexisting conditions or to drop coverage when people become sick"
Does this mean they can raise their rates because of this or is there a some sort of controls in the bill?

"4. Reform will cut the federal budget deficit by $138 billion over the next ten years, and a whopping $1.2 trillion in the following ten"
Do I have your personal assurance on that Amos or are you the echo chamber that does not have the slightest idea if what you echo is true or not?

"paid for largely by taxing insurance companies, drug companies"
What business sector's stock gained the most today? You forgot the wheelchair tax. Do you think that will be passed along to people who need wheelchairs?

"the very wealthiest Americans"
That was people making over $250k when Obama was campaigning and now it is down to $200k.

"Instead of losing coverage after they leave home or graduate from college, young adults will be able to remain on their families' insurance plans until age 26."
What is the cut off age now Amos? Some states are up to 31 so are the students in those states fucked? Pell grants to students have been cut in half.

"By reducing health care costs for employers, reform will create or save more than 2.5 million jobs over the next decade"
Caterpillar has announced it will cost them more and Thye will be moving more jobs offshore to stay competitive with other heavy equipment operators.

"Seniors on Medicare will pay less for their prescription drugs"
Up to $250 !!!! WOW. They can get them for $4 a month at Walmart.

"doubling the number of patients who can be treated"
By whom Amos? Are the number of doctors going to be doubled?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 11:16 PM

"Legislation hailed by supporters as the most significant change to college student lending in a generation passed the House on Sunday night.

The student aid initiative, which House Democrats attached to their final amendments to the health-care bill, would overhaul the student loan industry, eliminating a $60 billion program that supports private student loans with federal subsidies and replacing it with government lending to students. The House amendments will now go to the Senate.

By ending the subsidies and effectively eliminating the middleman, the student loan bill would generate $61 billion in savings over 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Most of those savings, $36 billion, would go to Pell grants, funding an era of steady and predictable increases in the massive but underfunded federal aid program for needy students. Smaller portions would go toward reducing the deficit and to various Democratic priorities, including community colleges, historically black colleges and universities, and caps on loan payments.

The bill's greatest impact would fall on the more than 6 million students who rely on Pell grants to finance their education. Pell, launched in 1973, once covered more than two-thirds of total costs at a public university. It now covers about one-third."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 11:20 PM

Sawz:

Ya know, if your cynicism and jaded bitterness was supported by a better set of facts, you might be worth listening to. I appreciate you raise questions, but do not pretend that having a question about a statement is proof the statement is invalid.

BTW, I assumed you understood that the post--and almost everything I place in this thread--is drawn from other sources. So stop pretending you do not realize that. We've discussed it before. Especially considering your own proclivity for deluging this and other threads with interminable and inaccurate pastings from much more bizarre sources.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 01:09 AM

"hailed by supporters"

Well I guess they would have to pat themselves on the back but what about the 60 % that do not support it?

Having some proof that the statement is valid is proof that the statement is valid.

Not having proof is not proof.

Would you care to name an inaccurate pasting from a bizzare source?

Were the Pell grants cut in half or not? I could be wrong but from what I can find:

The administration is caught in a funding bind in large part because it made a miscalculation when it raised the ceiling for Pell grants to $5,300 from $4,800 last year as part of the stimulus bill. Combined with a surge in new Pell grant recipients, the higher ceiling has sharply driven up costs for the program, which has run a $19 billion deficit since 2008. An administration official said that about 800,000 more students than predicted have received Pell grants since last fall.

The administration now says it will have to lower the Pell grant ceiling for the 2011 academic year to $2,150, if the lending overhaul fails to pass.

The administration has argued the government stood to save $87 billion over the next 10 years by removing middleman lenders from the government-backed student-loan program. That money would then be used to ramp up Pell grants for poor students and to fund an array of other educational programs.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 10:12 AM

I wonder whose copy that is you are reciting?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 11:35 AM

A great many liberals and progressives did not support the bill, Sawzaw, because they felt it didn't go far enough and that it was a giveaway to the insurance companies (which it is).

Therefore I think it probable that about half of that 60% you refer to in the polls were people who disagree radically with the conservative viewpoint that I presume you espouse, and who opposed the bill for the diametrically opposite reason: not because they thought it was a government takeover, but because they were bitterly disappointed that it did not provide universal healthcare and did not bring in a public option such as exists in virtually every other country in the developed world now.

That's why Dennis Kucinich was opposed to the bill. That's why Michael Moore is disgusted with it. That's why I'm disgusted with it.

Nevertheless, Kucinich, Moore, and many others like them finally came to the conclusion that the bill as it exists was better than no changes at all, therefore they gave it their unenthusiastic endorsement.

I think you are misinterpreting the poll results to mean that everyone who didn't like the bill thinks the same way. I very much doubt that is the case.

There are huge reasons for liberals and progressives to be very disappointed in this bill's failure to provide a universal public health system...but it's still better than nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 11:46 AM

The very voice of reason!! Well posted, Sir Hawk.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 12:00 PM

From WaPo:

"Waterloo for whom?

David Frum issued his blistering critique of the Republican Party in the health-care debate on Sunday. But his words should clang in the ears of the GOP as it watches President Obama sign the biggest piece of social welfare legislation in decades. Republicans might have thought this was going to be his Waterloo, but they messed up -- and they messed up big.

Frum reminds his fellow Republicans that "[t]he Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994." Still, GOP "leaders" adopted the hell-no approach. "We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat," Frum wrote.

That may be just a tad overwrought. If history is a guide, the Republicans are bound to pick up seats in the House. Maybe even in the Senate, too. As we all know, the party that wins the White House in a presidential election year loses seats in congress in the mid-term elections. But Charlie Cook told Politics Daily's Jill Lawrence that, as of right now, the Democrats are not in danger of losing control of the House.

Cook also told Lawrence that he didn't think health care would necessarily be a vote winner for the Democrats. I disagree. Mark Halperin asked the right question yesterday, "Can the G.O.P. succeed running against health care?" Given all the popular provisions in the legislation, no, it can't. And as Frum, Halperin and Jay Newton Small point out, attempts to repeal the law are a fool's errand...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 12:13 PM

An email I received recently cited this essay by Robert P. Watson, Ph.D. who is Coordinator of American Studies at Lynn University.   

"I am always being asked to grade Obama's presidency. In place of offering him a grade, I put together a list of his accomplishments thus far. I think you would agree that it is very impressive. His first six months have been even more active than FDRs or LBJs the two standards for such assessments. Yet, there is little media attention given to much of what he has done. Of late, the media is focusing almost exclusively on Obama's critics, without holding them responsible for the uncivil, unconstructive tone of their disagreements or without holding the previous administration responsible for getting us in such a deep hole. The misinformation and venom that now passes for political reporting and civic debate is beyond description.

As such, there is a need to set the record straight. What most impresses me is the fact that Obama has accomplished so much not from a heavy-handed or top-down approach but from a style that has institutionalized efforts to reach across the aisle, encourage vigorous debate, and utilize town halls and panels of experts in the policy-making process. Beyond the accomplishments, the process is good for democracy and our democratic processes have been battered and bruised in recent years.

Let me know if I missed anything in the list (surely I did).

________________________________________

1.. Ordered all federal agencies to undertake a study and make recommendations for ways to cut spending

2. Ordered a review of all federal operations to identify and cut wasteful spending and practices

3. Instituted enforcement for equal pay for women

4. Beginning the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq

5. Families of fallen soldiers have expenses covered to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB

6. Ended media blackout on war casualties; reporting full information

7. Ended media blackout on covering the return of fallen soldiers to Dover AFB; the media is now permitted to do so pending adherence to respectful rules and approval of fallen soldier's family

8. The White House and federal government are respecting the Freedom of Information Act

9. Instructed all federal agencies to promote openness and transparency as much as possible

10. Limits on lobbyist's access to the White House

11. Limits on White House aides working for lobbyists after their tenure in the administration

12. Ended the previous stop-loss policy that kept soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan longer than their enlistment date

13. Phasing out the expensive F-22 war plane and other outdated
weapons systems, which weren't even used or needed in Iraq/Afghanistan

14. Removed restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research

15. Federal support for stem-cell and new biomedical research

16. New federal funding for science and research labs

17. States are permitted to enact federal fuel efficiency standards above federal standards

18. Increased infrastructure spending (roads, bridges, power plants) after years of neglect

19. Funds for high-speed, broadband Internet access to K-12 schools
20. New funds for school construction

21. The prison at Guantanamo Bay is being phased out

22. US Auto industry rescue plan


23. Housing rescue plan

24. $789 billion economic stimulus plan

25. The public can meet with federal housing insurers to refinance (the new plan can be completed in one day) a mortgage if they are having trouble paying

26. US financial and banking rescue plan

27. The secret detention facilities in Eastern Europe and elsewhere are being closed

28. Ended the previous policy; the US now has a no torture policy and is in compliance with the Geneva Convention standards

29. Better body armor is now being provided to our troops

30. The missile defense program is being cut by $1.4 billion in 2010

31. Restarted the nuclear nonproliferation talks and building back up the nuclear inspection infrastructure/protocols

32. Reengaged in the treaties/agreements to protect the Antarctic
33. Reengaged in the agreements/talks on global warming and greenhouse gas emissions
34. Visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any president in his first six months in office
35. Successful release of US captain held by Somali pirates; authorized the SEALS to do their job
36. US Navy increasing patrols off Somali coast
37. Attractive tax write-offs for those who buy hybrid automobiles
38. Cash for clunkers program offers vouchers to trade in fuel inefficient, polluting old cars for new cars; stimulated auto sales
39. Announced plans to purchase fuel efficient American-made fleet for the federal government
40. Expanded the SCHIP program to cover health care for 4 million more children
41. Signed national service legislation; expanded national youth service program
42. Instituted a new policy on Cuba, allowing Cuban families to return home to visit loved ones
43. Ended the previous policy of not regulating and labeling carbon dioxide emissions
44. Expanding vaccination programs
45. Immediate and efficient response to the floods in North Dakota and other natural disasters
46. Closed offshore tax safe havens
47. Negotiated deal with Swiss banks to permit US government to gain access to records of tax evaders and criminals
48. Ended the previous policy of offering tax benefits to corporations who outsource American jobs; the new policy is to promote in-sourcing to bring jobs back
49.. Ended the previous practice of protecting credit card companies; in place of it are new consumer protections from credit card industry's predatory practices
50. Energy producing plants must begin preparing to produce 15% of their energy from renewable sources
51. Lower drug costs for seniors
52. Ended the previous practice of forbidding Medicare from negotiating with drug manufacturers for cheaper drugs; the federal government is now realizing hundreds of millions in savings
53. Increasing pay and benefits for military personnel
54. Improved housing for military personnel
55. Initiating a new policy to promote federal hiring of military spouses
56. Improved conditions at Walter Reed Military Hospital and other military hospitals
57. Increasing student loans
58. Increasing opportunities in AmeriCorps program
59. Sent envoys to Middle East and other parts of the world that had been neglected for years; reengaging in multilateral and bilateral talks and diplomacy
60. Established a new cyber security office
61. Beginning the process of reforming and restructuring the military 20 years after the Cold War to a more modern fighting force; this includes new procurement policies, increasing size of military, new technology and cyber units and operations, etc.
62. Ended previous policy of awarding no-bid defense contracts
63. Ordered a review of hurricane and natural disaster preparedness
64. Established a National Performance Officer charged with saving the federal government money and making federal operations more efficient
65. Students struggling to make college loan payments can have their loans refinanced
66. Improving benefits for veterans
67. Many more press conferences and town halls and much more media access than previous administration
68. Instituted a new focus on mortgage fraud
69. The FDA is now regulating tobacco
70. Ended previous policy of cutting the FDA and circumventing FDA rules
71. Ended previous practice of having White House aides rewrite scientific and environmental rules, regulations, and reports
72. Authorized discussions with North Korea and private mission by Pres. Bill Clinton to secure the release of two Americans held in prisons
73. Authorized discussions with Myanmar and mission by Sen. Jim Web to secure the release of an American held captive
74. Making more loans available to small businesses
75. Established independent commission to make recommendations on slowing the costs of Medicare
76. Appointment of first Latina to the Supreme Court
77. Authorized construction/opening of additional health centers to care for veterans
78. Limited salaries of senior White House aides; cut to $100,000
79. Renewed loan guarantees for Israel
80. Changed the failing/status quo military command in Afghanistan
81. Deployed additional troops to Afghanistan
82. New Afghan War policy that limits aerial bombing and prioritizes aid, development of infrastructure, diplomacy, and good government practices by Afghans
83. Announced the long-term development of a national energy grid with renewable sources and cleaner, efficient energy production
84. Returned money authorized for refurbishment of White House offices and private living quarters
85. Paid for redecoration of White House living quarters out of his own pocket
86. Held first Seder in White House
87. Attempting to reform the nation's healthcare system which is the most expensive in the world yet leaves almost 50 million without health insurance and millions more under insured
88. Has put the ball in play for comprehensive immigration reform
89. Has announced his intention to push for energy reform
90. Has announced his intention to push for education reform

Oh, and he built a swing set for the girls outside the Oval Office"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 12:32 PM

Hawk,,

"So, you're saying that 59% of the American public are too damn ignorant..."

And what percentage voted for Obama?? A lower one- so I will presume that they were all fooled by the hype and/or scared of being labeled racist, and that their votes should have been ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 12:53 PM

I don't know, BB. But I should amend what I said about the 59% being too ignorant. Half of them are probably against the bill because it's not progressive enough and it doesn't bring in a public option.

If so, that would mean that only about 29 or 30% of the American public is "too damn ignorant to realize how outrageously they've been screwed and lied to for decades by the private health insurance companies, and that they'd rather just remain that way because it feels "safer" to change nothing in the status quo..."

That I could easily believe. If only 30% of your population is too damn ignorant to have any idea how to help themselves escape their corporate oppressors, you're doing better than I thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 01:13 PM

Fooled by hype? After eight years of completely disingenuous misrepresentation by the military adventurer dry-drunk frat-boy? Oh, pot! Oh, kettle!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 02:57 PM

March 22, 2010
CNN poll: Majority disapprove of Obama for first time
Posted: March 22nd, 2010 11:07 PM ET

From CNNMoney.com Deputy Managing Editor Rich Barbieri


A new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll reveals that 51 percent of respondents disapprove of President Obama's job performance.
Washington (CNN) – For the first time, a CNN poll has found that a majority of Americans disapprove of President Obama's job performance.

According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Monday, 51 percent of respondents disapprove of Obama's job performance and 46 percent approve of it.

Full results (pdf)

Obama's approval rating has dropped steadily each month since December, when it was 54 percent. His highest approval rating in a CNN poll was 76 percent in February 2009 shortly after he took office.

The new poll was conducted before the House on Sunday narrowly approved the Obama administration's signature domestic policy proposal: health care reform.


The measure, which Obama plans to sign on Tuesday, represents the biggest expansion of federal health care guarantees since Medicare and Medicaid were enacted more than four decades ago.

In fact, health care was the policy area that drew the second highest negative rating, with 58 percent registering disapproval. The highest negative rating was 62 percent for his handling of the federal deficit.

While his performance ratings have slid, Americans personally like Obama. The poll found that 70 percent of respondents approve of him as a person, and only 25 percent disapprove.

On the economy overall, 54 percent disapprove of his work and 43 percent approve. He scored well for his handling of the environment and education, as well as on national security.

"Obama scores some of his best numbers on 'commander-in-chief' issues - Afghanistan, Iraq, and terrorism," said Keating Holland, CNN polling director. "In January, 51% approved of Obama's handling of Afghanistan; that number is now 55%, an indication that the public has a positive view of the latest military offensive in that country."

The CNN poll was conducted on March 19-21 through telephone interviews with 1,030 adult Americans. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 03:01 PM

The Ten Most Outrageous Histrionic Right-Wing Responses from Limbaugh to Zed. I am happy too see Rush is planning to move to Costa Rica, though.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 03:09 PM

http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/1563-20-ways-obamacare-will-take-away-our-freedoms

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 04:23 PM

Click here to find out more!
D.C. Now
News from Washington, minute by minute

« Previous Post | D.C. Now Home | Next Post »
Obama's poll numbers rise a bit
March 23, 2010 | 12:04 pm LA Times

It would seem unlikely that an event as historic -- by both sides' accounts -- as the passage of a healthcare bill would pass unnoticed in the opinion polls that measure the temperature of a presidency.

The immediate effect of the past few days' events in Washington has been a gradual increase in President Barack Obama's job approval in the daily tracking surveys of the Gallup Poll. It stood at 51% today, a report of the last three days' surveys.
Just last week, the March 14-17 measures had put Obama's approval at 46% in the Gallup Poll, a term low.

We heard one of the pundits over the weekend suggest that people may not know all about the healthcare bill, but people like winners.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: curmudgeon
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 04:42 PM

What Republicans really "think" about Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 05:58 PM

curmudgeon - It's not really all that surprising how negatively Republicans think about Obama. It means that Republicans hate and despise Obama about as much as Democrats used to hate and despise Bush and Cheney. That's tit for tat.

That is exactly what happens when one has an eternally divisive 2 party political system designed from the getgo on the "divide and conquer" principle...or what might better be termed "the politics of hatred".

Obama made great efforts to encourage bipartisanship, but there was almost no chance of any such thing occurring in the poisonous atmosphere of American partisan politics. The only time I've seen much in the way of genuine bipartisan spirit in the USA was immediately after a major foreign attack (or at least a perceived foreign attack...) on the USA. That is the one thing which appears to be capalbe of uniting Democrats and Republicans. Aside from that, they might as well be red ants and black ants living in neighbouring hives, because they live to destroy one another.

Obama didn't think that way...but I bet he's learning to now in the wake of this health care bill. You either get tough in that shark pool or you don't survive long.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 06:04 PM

"Obama Administration Awarded Hundreds of Thousands in Airport Grants to Stupak's District Two Days Before Vote



Was this Yet Another Backroom Deal to Force Obama's Bill Down the American People's Throats?

Three airports in the district of infamous fence-sitting and ultimately kowtowing Democrat Bart Stupak were awarded $726,409 in grants by the Obama Administration just two days before a vote on Obama and Pelosi's government takeover of healthcare.

Did Stupak compromise his supposed principled stand against taxpayer funding of abortion in exchange for taxpayer dollars for pet projects?

Alpena County Regional Airport received a $85,500 grant, but had only 7,519 passenger boardings in 2008 (the most recent year for which there is information) according to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) data. Alpena County Regional Airport serves fewer passengers than even the late Rep. John Murtha's famous "Airport for Nobody."

Delta County Airport has even less customers than that, but still received a $179,209 grant.

Chippewa County International Airport received a $461,700 grant, but had only 13,733 passenger boardings in 2008.

Will Stupak come clean about this apparent backroom deal for his vote?"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 06:40 PM

"The poll, which surveyed 2,230 people right at the height of the health-care reform debate, also clearly shows that education is a barrier to extremism. Respondents without a college education are vastly more likely to believe such claims, while Americans with college degrees or better are less easily duped. It's a reminder of what the 19th-century educator Horace Mann once too-loftily said: "Ignorance breeds monsters to fill up the vacancies of the soul that are unoccupied by the verities of knowledge."

The full results of the poll, which will be released in greater detail tomorrow, are even more frightening: including news that high percentages of RepublicansÑand Americans overallÑbelieve that President Obama is "racist," "anti-American" "wants the terrorists to win" and "wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one-world government." The "Hatriot" belief that Obama is a "domestic enemy" as set forth in the Constitution is also widely heldÑa sign of trouble yet to come. It's the same claim made by Marine Lance Corporal Kody Brittingham in his letter of intent to assassinate the President Obama.

This poll is the latest and most detailed evidence of the extent to which Wingnuts are hijacking our politics. It should be a wakeup call to all Americans and a collective reminder, as we move past health-care reform, that we need to stand up to extremism."

---

(From the link above)

This confirms something I suspected--the biggest hatred-and-fear buyers are the ones with the lowest degree of educamation or sompn.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 07:40 PM

Polls... What a joke... Give me a couple recently graduated Psychology majors and I can devise a poll where Hitler would have a 50% approval rate in Isreal...

Ya'll oughtta just leave them polls alone... They are pablum...

b~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 02:23 AM

Yeah, polls are usually designed to elicit certain responses. That is done by wording questions in such a way that you get the response you want from most people.

Some pollster called my Mother up the other day and asked her some political questions, then asked her which country she thought was the "worst country in the world" (politically speaking)....

My Mother said "The USA."

The woman at the other end of the line gasped in surprise...then said in a flustered way, "Uh...Thank you...well, that's all then. Goodbye!" and hung up in a hurry. It was quite clear that my Mother was not the kind of respondent that particular pollster was looking for... ;-) (I think she probably wanted to hear "Iran"...or maybe "North Korea").

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 10:38 AM

"Mr. Brooks is right. The Democrats should proudly rejoice after their success in passing the health care reform bill. Congratulations to President Obama and his team for standing by what they believed to be right and necessary.

The Republicans, on the other hand, should hang their heads in shame that they could not muster enough common sense to contribute to the most important piece of social legislation of this generation.

It is incredible that national health care reform has taken so long and been fought so bitterly. When the health care reform bill finally passed, I was reminded of a comment attributed to Winston Churchill: "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing, after they've exhausted all the alternatives."

So Mr. Brooks may admire the energy of the people and the vibrancy of the marketplace. Good for him; I do, too. But people are even more energetic and the market they create is even more vibrant when they are in good health. Like other nations, we should recognize that health care is an investment in people, not in a market.

Bill O'Reilly" (NYT Letter)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 11:56 AM

"Being Republican means never having to say you're sorry."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 01:23 PM

I thought that was

"Being Canadian means never having to say you're sorry."

Ey?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 02:52 PM

Right. Being Republican, on the other hand, means never having to say "I understand".

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 03:41 PM

And being Democratic means never considering the unintended consequences of your actions.



Or is it never having to pay for your mistakes?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 03:43 PM

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Gap-in-health-care-laws-apf-4272209396.html?x=0&.v=1

"Obama made better coverage for children a centerpiece of his health care remake, but it turns out the letter of the law provided a less-than-complete guarantee that kids with health problems would not be shut out of coverage.

Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 04:30 PM

No, being a Democrat (for most of the elected ones) means pretending that you're really almost the same as a Republican, because you haven't got the guts to actually BE a Democrat and do what the people who voted for you ELECTED you to do!

(exception to the above: Dennis Kucinich)

To be a Canadian, on the other hand, means you're not afraid to make fun of your nation, your culture, and yourself...and you do so quite frequently. ;-) Canadian humour, in fact, is almost entirely based on making fun of Canadian culture, and we love it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 05:37 PM

Actually, Bruce, I think you know that being democratic means striving to honor all citizens as participants in the effort to build a more perfect Union.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 06:35 PM

"striving to honor all citizens as participants in the effort to build a more perfect Union."

You mean like keeping the Republicans locked out of the meeting to write the Health Bill?


I judge Democrats by the actions of this administration and Congress- and find them lacking most if not all of the attributes YOU have claimed for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 07:09 PM

That's BS, Bruce. The Republicans were invited in over and over and many of their suggestions are in the Bill. Yet they still insisted they had to stop it at an cost, for political reasons not related to the good of the nation. Pretending otherwise doesn't change that.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 07:18 PM

Breakthrough Is Reported in U.S. Arms Pact With Russia

President Obama and his Russian counterpart, President Dmitri
A. Medvedev, have broken through a logjam in their arms
control negotiations and expect to sign a new treaty slashing
American and Russian nuclear arsenals in Prague next month,
officials from both nations said Wednesday.

Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com?emc=na

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 07:45 PM

I think we forget where and when the Repubs decided that "No" was going to be their strategy... It was way back a long time ago when Obama met with them and asked for their ideas... Geeze, that was a year ago... Since then they have done nothing but play games and politics... They don't want Obama to have any success and they are willing to let the country suffer in an attempt to regain power...

BTW, they have had power purdy much for 30 years and proved that they are no capable or governing... That is an important concept that the Dems should not be shy in talking about...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 09:37 PM

More Americans now favor than oppose the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds Ñ a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against the legislation.

By 49%-40%, those polled say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms Ñ as "enthusiastic" or "pleased" Ñ while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as "disappointed" or "angry."

The largest single group, 48%, calls the legislation "a good first step" that needs to be followed by more action. And 4% say the bill itself makes the most important changes needed in the nation's health care system.

"After a century of striving, after a year of debate, after a historic vote, health care reform is no longer an unmet promise," Obama declared in a celebration at the Interior Department auditorium with members of Congress, leaders of advocacy groups and citizens whose personal stories were cited during the debate. "It is the law of the land."


USA Today

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 10:47 AM

Well well well Amos. While admonishing others for cutting and pasting things in this thread, you triumph in doing the same thing.

The difference however is that you do not know if the things you paste are true or not. You act as if it is someone else's responsibility while you want others to prove responsibility.

Evidently you do not have the ability to distinguish the truth because you avoid any questions asking you if it is true or not. Is there any positive purpose in posting things that are not true?

"your own proclivity for deluging this and other threads with interminable and inaccurate pastings from much more bizarre sources."

Can you give me an example Amos?

Here is a sterling example of the crap that Amos deluges this and other threads with interminable and inaccurate pastings more bizarre sources:

"George W. Bush has abused the authority that we, the people, entrusted to him as commander-in-chief of our military forces.


Bush has expressed his desire to keep our military forces in Iraq. Consider what has happened to our economy, plus all of the American casualties in this "Bush conflict," which has cut off our crude oil imports from the big oil-producing nations, which has caused the totally unreasonable oil prices to get out of hand.

The Iraqi government and the Iraqi people don't want America in their nation, just as the people from Georgia do not want Russia in their nation. Bush is squealing like a stuck pig at Russia for doing the same thing he did to Iraq.

We American citizens do not want Russia to control Georgia, and we certainly do not want our armed forces or our tax money wasted in Iraq.

The "Bush government" is totally un-American. In my 81 years, Bush is the only president who promoted torture of prisoners. Our economy has gone to pot during this Bush watch.

I would be in favor of having Bush impeached before he leads us into World War III."

Gordon Lukkasson, Salem, MA [actually it was Oregon Amos]

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 11:01 AM

Dear Amos:

Do you have the guts to explain this claim that you made or is echoing chain email letters your only talent?

which we had under Glass-Steagal, but which Reagan eradicated under pressure from adventurous and irresponsible money men.

I have asked you to explain this several times but you avoid answering like a true poltroon.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 11:46 AM

pour Hawk Petite:

Some Canadian Humor:

Mr. Speaker, speaking about homelessness and the vulnerable, winter is here. Thirty-two thousand people in Toronto, 4,779 children, stayed in a shelter last year. In Calgary 3,400 people live in a shelter and four people have died. In Vancouver, 2,174 people live on the streets, including 22 families with children. There are 700 homeless people in Victoria.

In 1998 our large city mayors declared homelessness a national disaster. In view of this alarming and tragic reality in our country, will the government declare a state of emergency?


Oh Canada! Too Many Children in Poverty For Too Long

In 1989, the House of Commons unanimously resolved to "seek to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000." Yet, close to 1.2 million children - almost one child out of every six in Canada - still live in poverty.


Although, I am a Canadian - a lot of Canadians are faced with the same circumstances. Dyslexia is a 4-letter word in some spots across North America. Take advantage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act laws and what other posters have advised. I just wish Canada would have laws like it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 12:08 PM

Your concerns about poverty in Canada are well-founded, Sawzaw. It's particularly dire in Native Canadian communities in the rural North where there is a terribly high suicide rate, unemployment, juvenile crime, and other family problems, not to mention a lot of drug use.

My town of Orillia has quite a reputation for its high population of unwed mothers. You see these waifs pushing their babies around in little carriages downtown. Where are the teenage fathers? God knows...but they probably wouldn't be any good at raising their offspring anyway in most cases, so perhaps it's better that those young mothers are on their own.

Then there's the problem of jobs. There ain't many! You can get a job flipping burgers, mind you, although the competition is fierce.

Yes, the financial strains that are afflicting the entire western world have certainly made their presence known in this country, no doubt about it.

The ever-sinking American dollar has caused our Canadian dollar to get stronger and stronger. It's now at about parity with the American dollar. You might think that would be good for Canada....it's not. It causes all our exports (the majority of which are to the USA) to become less competitive and it causes Canadian to buy more American goods. The more threadbare and shaky the American economy gets, the stronger our Canadian dollar gets, and the worse that makes it for everybody.

Yuck. I imagine the Chinese are not so happy about it either, as it must be affecting them in a similar manner.

When did you ever get the idea that I think everything is perfect in Canada??? ;-) It's just relatively kind of nice here, what with our universal health care, but it's certainly not perfect.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 12:15 PM

An example of Amos's lack of knowledge and inability to distinguish facts from bullshit:


Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos - PM
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 11:32 PM

Bruce:

As a vociferous participant in the protest against Bush, as you yourself have witnessed, I can offer testimony that I was not coordinated, bought, persuaded or directed by anyone on the left in my protest against his heinous disregard for the Constitution or for the traditions of American dignity and intelligence in public, to name a few.

So, I am sorry to say that there is a world of differnce. It is true that some lefterly centers like MoveON picked up on the growing anger and discontent he fomented; but there were huge protests against, for example, the Iraq war and the bullying of the election before MoveOn even came into existence.

A

Dear Amos: The MoveOn.org domain name was registered on September 18, 1998.

The MoveOn website was launched initially to oppose the Republican-led effort to impeach Clinton. Initially called "Censure and Move On,"

Can you kindly explain to us how the Clinton impeachment trial came after the GWB election?

You do fact checking before you post don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 12:44 PM

Gawd you are petty-minded and pastey-faced. Move On per se may well have been a registered domain but, as far as my experience goes, they weren't playing the role of movement coordination they played later and they were not organizing the "Not in My Name" protests, for example.

I also note that you dodge the main point completely by gluing your nose to minuscule details in the hopes you can find an error based on which you can pretend the whole point is invalid, when it is not.

Wake up, Sawz.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 12:48 PM

I say we arrange a steel cage match between you guys and have it in Chicago. (Chongo knows people there who have the facility and can make the arrangements.)

The winner gets a free trip to Schenectady!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 12:54 PM

You do it, LH. I cannot be bothered with this tripe.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 09:56 PM

Amos:

So your experience is now fact that trumps any other facts?

All you cam come up with to support your claim about Moveon.org is an ad hominem attack.

You continue to spout propaganda that you don't have the guts to support.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 10:12 PM

Amos:

Why are you refusing to explain to us lesser people how Reagan eradicated the Glass Steagal act as you claimed on 08 Jan 10 - 02:13 PM?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 11:58 AM

The NEw York Daily News of 3-29-10 (Stanley Crouch) opines:

"...Last week in Iowa City, a cheerful Obama addressed the Americans who had first brought his candidacy for President into the full light of unprecedented possibility. In 2007, Obama promised an Iowa audience that a health care bill would be on the way as soon as he was elected. It would reform much of what was wrong in our system, which was badly tainted by money and lobbyists and indifferent greed. As the facts prove, that greed was turned most terrible by a sense of profit so narcissistic it made those infected blind to everyone else.

During his Iowa speech, Obama reasserted the power of the English language into the world of politics and proved once more how the stiff and hysterical rhetoric of his foes has whetted the appetites of Americans to those great heights to which a President can take this country when he chooses well articulated and lyrically delivered ideas.

What he said sounded fairly revolutionary because it took the long view that has so often been lacking in our politics. His tragic optimism did not deny the difficulty that comes with freedom and with democracy; he emphasized the high-mindedness necessary to carry our country through its demanding patches of backwardness, bigotry, greed, manipulation and corruption.

A tall order, but this is the country that produced many inventors capable of innovation so startling it was laughable at first. This is as true of Obama's apparently doomed health care reform as it was of the "Fosbury Flop," which revolutionized the art of high jumping in the 1968 Summer Olympics. The Flop was thought of as backward, crazy looking and incapable of being competitive. Now it has completely changed the sport.

That is essentially what we have just seen in Washington.

A tall, gangly man has led Washington in a revolution but never submitted to those who are more involved in the theater of politics than they are in what superior legislation can do for the country.

The President also pointed out that the health care reform bill was at least 100 years in the making and that what we now see written into the law of the land is connected to the high-mindedness of our best social changes.

That is how the democratic mess of our politics works - if you have the patience and the will to take all of the punches that must be taken in order to become a champion....

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/03/29/2010-03-29_obama_starts_a_revolution.html#ixzz0ja7KppyO

---

Oh, Sawz, give it up. I answered that question thoroughly elsewhere. Don't be so upset that I made an error. It's not THAT unusual, and even those who believe I am perfect eventually settle down and accept it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 03:08 PM

Yeah, After I asked it on 2 other threads where you still dodged it.

Then you still tried to hang it on Reagan with your famous rhetorical spin.

You were too chicken to answer it here cause it might sully up your magnificent ego inflating Obama thread by pointing out your lack of accuracy, your general overall sloppiness and disregard for the truth.

Well here is the truth: Reagan did not eradicate the Glass Steagall act as opposed to your Amos "fact" that "we had under Glass-Steagal, but which Reagan eradicated under pressure from adventurous and irresponsible money men."

Also Moveon existed before the GWB election and the Iraq war as opposed to your Amos "fact" that "the Iraq war and the bullying of the election before MoveOn even came into existence."

I expect you to adhere to your own standard of "If you cannot state things accurately, it is a real wonder to me why you bother stating them at all."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 04:10 PM

Well, I apologize for my errors. It was certainly a key aspect of Reagonomics to deregulate the industry, even though he did not get to Glass-Steagall. However, you should distinguish between my dodging questions and simply declining to get sucked into your rhetorical snares. I do appreciate your catching my errors for me. I am unaccustoimed to having such a fastidious watchman, and at no charge, too!! Thanks for all your efforts.

Your ad hominem characterizations, though, are a bit wild and off the mark.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 04:14 PM

"Your ad hominem characterizations, though, are a bit wild and off the mark."


Amos, Amos, Amos....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 10:16 PM

Late last week, the Obama administrationÊannounced that the United States and Russia reached an agreement on a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). President Obama will sign the treaty with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in Prague on April 8, which will produce the most "most concrete foreign policy achievement" of the Obama administration thus far. The Financial Times, in an editorial titled "Obama makes the world a safer place," noted that "in the past 10 days, Barack Obama has pulled off the two biggest achievements of his US presidency."ÊThis new treatyÊwillsignificantlyÊreduce the number of nuclear weapons pointed at American citiesÊand will ensure that verification and monitoring measures that maintain nuclear stability between Russia and the U.S. -- and were contained in President Reagan's original START treaty -- are preserved and strengthened.

This agreement gives a shot in the arm to the non-proliferation regime and should improve the chances of spurring far-reaching action to prevent nuclear proliferation atÊupcoming international nuclear summits. The START agreement also importantly affirms the Obama administration's efforts toÊreset U.S.-Russia relationsÊand lays the groundwork for more productive engagement. However, this new treaty must be approved by a two-thirds majority in the Senate, setting up a test for Senate conservatives. The new START treaty hasÊextensive bipartisan supportÊfrom senior foreign policy officials and extends Reagan's legacy, yet there are concerns that many Senate Republicans, motivated by an extreme foreign policy ideology and partisan politics, will oppose the treaty. This would have dire consequences, as it would greatly upset nuclear stability, create tensions between the U.S. and Russia, and potentially doom the precarious nonproliferation regime.Ê

(The Progress Report)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 11:53 PM

Sounds like good news to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 01:01 AM

or all the political and economic uncertainties about health reform, at least one thing seems clear: The bill that President Obama signed on Tuesday is the federal governmentÕs biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago.

A blog from The New York Times that tracks the health care debate as it unfolds.
More Health Care Overhaul News

Health Care Conversations

Share your thoughts about the health care debate.
Top Discussions: The Final Reconciliation Bill | Abortion | Taxes and the National Deficit
Multimedia


Interactive Graphic
How Different Types of People Will Be Affected by the Health Care Overhaul

Graphic
Increasing Inequality

Interactive Feature
A History of Overhauling Health Care
Related

Obama Signs Health Care Overhaul Bill, With a Flourish (March 24, 2010)
Readers' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (1052) È
Over most of that period, government policy and market forces have been moving in the same direction, both increasing inequality. The pretax incomes of the wealthy have soared since the late 1970s, while their tax rates have fallen more than rates for the middle class and poor.

Nearly every major aspect of the health bill pushes in the other direction. This fact helps explain why Mr. Obama was willing to spend so much political capital on the issue, even though it did not appear to be his top priority as a presidential candidate. Beyond the health reformÕs effect on the medical system, it is the centerpiece of his deliberate effort to end what historians have called the age of Reagan.

Speaking to an ebullient audience of Democratic legislators and White House aides at the bill-signing ceremony on Tuesday, Mr. Obama claimed that health reform would Òmark a new season in America.Ó He added, ÒWe have now just enshrined, as soon as I sign this bill, the core principle that everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health care.Ó

The bill is the most sweeping piece of federal legislation since Medicare was passed in 1965. It aims to smooth out one of the roughest edges in American society Ñ the inability of many people to afford medical care after they lose a job or get sick. And it would do so in large measure by taxing the rich.

A big chunk of the money to pay for the bill comes from lifting payroll taxes on households making more than $250,000. On average, the annual tax bill for households making more than $1 million a year will rise by $46,000 in 2013, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group. Another major piece of financing would cut Medicare subsidies for private insurers, ultimately affecting their executives and shareholders.

The benefits, meanwhile, flow mostly to households making less than four times the poverty level Ñ $88,200 for a family of four people. Those without insurance in this group will become eligible to receive subsidies or to join Medicaid. (Many of the poor are already covered by Medicaid.) Insurance costs are also likely to drop for higher-income workers at small companies.

Finally, the bill will also reduce a different kind of inequality. In the broadest sense, insurance is meant to spread the costs of an individualÕs misfortune Ñ illness, death, fire, flood Ñ across society. Since the late 1970s, though, the share of Americans with health insurance has shrunk. As a result, the gap between the economic well-being of the sick and the healthy has been growing, at virtually every level of the income distribution.

The health reform bill will reverse that trend. By 2019, 95 percent of people are projected to be covered, up from 85 percent today (and about 90 percent in the late 1970s). Even affluent families ineligible for subsidies will benefit if they lose their insurance, by being able to buy a plan that can no longer charge more for pre-existing conditions. In effect, healthy families will be picking up most of the bill Ñ and their insurance will be somewhat more expensive than it otherwise would have been.
..(NYT editorial)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 07:48 PM

Amos one day: Was that brainless remark devoid of meaning altogether? Or just so inept as to be totally obscure?

Why do you not speak plainly, say what you mean, and try to communicate instead of just slanging?



Amos another day: Good to see your Magic Mirror is still working, Froggie...


Again, Amos does not follow his own standards.

Time to come back down to earth with us humans Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 07:59 PM

Human??? There you go again with that elitist crap... Amos is 100% human and firmly here on this Earth...

How about this, Slawz... How about yu try coming down to Earth yerself... Without the OCD... Obsessive Compulsive Disorder... Yeah, leave that out in space where it belongs...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 08:32 PM

Geez, Sawz, I guess I must have touched a nerve somewhere, to make you so worried about what I say or do not say.

I'll say this: Obama's Administration is delivering change in health care, change in education, change in the employment picture, and a lot of othe rpositive changes, one at a time. He's done one helluva lot more for this country than an of your rightie-tighties Presidents since Ronnie have done. And furthermore he is doing it intelligently and carefully, as much as possible considering the shitstorm of unfounded hatred and noise you and yours have being slinging.

There ya go. Plain talk from a plain human.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 12:57 AM

Well Well Well. How many catters does it take to screw in a light bulb?

I see Frick and Frack are here together trying to prop up each other's non existant credibility and still dodging ordinary, simple, plain questions.

How about the change in the national deficit?

Yup it took pokey ol' George 8 years to do what Obama did in less than a year. Damn he's good.

Can either of you down to earth honest question answering guys tell me when your health insurance is going down and when?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 11:14 AM

Poll: More blame Obama for poor economy, unemployment

By Susan Page, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Americans anxious about unemployment and the economy increasingly blame President Obama for hard times, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, amid signs of turbulence in November's midterm elections.
Last week's jubilant signing of the health care overhaul, Obama's signature domestic initiative, seems to have given the president little boost. Instead, his standing on four personal qualities has sagged, and 50% of those surveyed say he doesn't deserve re-election.

"People are still hurting; a lot of people are still struggling, and I think a lot of what we're seeing in the polls reflects people's views on the economy," says Rep. Chris Van Hollen, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

"At the same time, things have been improving. Clearly the economy is growing again," Van Hollen said. "I believe that if we begin to see positive job growth, people's confidence will return and that will change the dynamic."

In the survey last Friday through Sunday, the president gets tough treatment:

• Obama's standing on four key personal qualities, including being a strong and decisive leader and understanding the problems Americans face in their lives, has dipped. For the first time since the 2008 campaign, he fails to win a majority of people saying he shares their values and can manage the government effectively.

• Twenty-six percent say he deserves "a great deal" of the blame for the nation's economic problems, nearly double the number who felt that way last summer. In all, half say he deserves at least a moderate amount of blame.

The blame directed at his predecessor, former president George W. Bush, hasn't eased, however: 42% now give Bush "a great deal" of blame, basically unchanged from 43% last July.

• By 50%-46%, those surveyed say Obama doesn't deserve re-election.

Obama's approval rating on handling the economy, foreign affairs and the federal budget deficit hasn't significantly changed from February. It has risen a bit on health care, though he doesn't get majority approval on any of the categories.

Even so, the president fares better than other Washington leaders. In the poll, 52% say they have a favorable opinion of Obama. That's much higher than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (36%), House Republican Leader John Boehner (29%), Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (29%) and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (31%).

The telephone poll of 1,033 adults has a margin of error of +/—4 percentage points.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 08:38 PM

I keep telling Chongo, "You are soooo lucky, man!"

He didn't get elected in 2008. Accordingly, no one is blaming him now for the bad economy or for anything else either.

He'd be in very deep shit now, had he been elected. ;-D He has no idea just how lucky he is.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 08:51 PM

The only polls that count are in November... The rest are bogus non sense...

(Well, Boberdz... Hows about the 2000 Novemember poll???)

Okay, some of the November polls are bogus, too...

BTW, yeah... Chongo woulda been over his head and prolly gone into the joint session of Congress, pulled out the AK and shot the joint up... And prolly gotten a standing ovation from alot of folks watchin' in on the TV...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 10:02 AM

Ouch

When it comes to health care, the President's approval rating is even lower -- and is also a new all-time low. Only 34% approved, while 55% said they disapproved.

This concern is reflected in yet another low approval rating this time for the President's handling of the economy. Just 42% approve of how President Obama is handling the economy, 50% disapprove.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 10:50 AM

Is there a poll yet on how people feel about his suit jackets? ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 10 - 10:43 AM

Frank RIch of the NYT opines:

"By FRANK RICH
Published: April 3, 2010
NOT since Clark Kent changed in a phone booth has there been an instant image makeover to match Barack ObamaÕs in the aftermath of his health care victory. ÒHe went from Jimmy Carter to F.D.R. in just a fortnight,Ó said one of the ÒGame ChangeÓ authors, Mark Halperin, on MSNBC. ÒLook at the steam in the manÕs stride!Ó exclaimed Chris Matthews. ÒIs it just me, or does Barack Obama seem different since health care passed?Ó wrote Peter Beinart in The Daily Beast, which, like The Financial Times, ran an illustration portraying the gangly president as a newly bulked-up Superman.

Enlarge This Image

Barry Blitt
Go to Columnist Page È
Related
Times Topics: Barack Obama


Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Frank Rich
Readers' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (166) È
What a difference winning makes Ñ especially in America. Whatever did (or didnÕt) get into ObamaÕs Wheaties, this much is certain: No one is talking about the clout of Scott Brown or Rahm Emanuel any more.

But has the man really changed Ñ or is it just us? Fifteen months after arriving at the White House, Obama remains by far the most popular national politician in the country, even with a sub-50 percent approval rating. And yet heÕs also the most enigmatic. While he is in our face more than any other figure in the world, we still arenÕt entirely sure what to make of him.

Depending on where you stand Ñ or the given day Ñ he is either an overintellectual, professorial wuss or a ruthless Chicago machine pol rivaling the original Boss Daley. He is either a socialist redistributing wealth to the undeserving poor or a tool of Wall StreetÕs Goldman Sachs elite. He is a terrorist-coddling, A.C.L.U.-tilting lawyer or a closet Cheneyite upholding the worst excesses of the Bush administrationÕs end run on the Constitution. He is a lightweight celebrity whoÕs clueless without a teleprompter or a Machiavellian mastermind who has ingeniously forged his Hawaiian birth certificate, covered up his ties to Islamic radicals and bamboozled the entire mainstream press. He is the reincarnation of J.F.K., L.B.J., F.D.R., Reagan, Hitler, Stalin, Adlai Stevenson or Nelson Mandela. (Funny how few people compared George W. Bush to anyone but Hitler and his parents.)..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 12:27 AM

Well Well Well. I see Bobert has never honored or deal on the source of the gold plated M16 rifle he claims was given to Saddam and Amos will not admit that like Obama said, the economy did not collapse.

If Bobert or Amos ever had to admit they were wrong they would squeal like a stuck pig. They would squeal so loud it would be louder than 400,000 200 megaton nuclear warheads goin' off at the same time.

We wouldn't have any eardrums left and we would have to get cochlear implants or use sign language to communicate. It would alter our DNA and the entire human race would be deaf forever. Boss Hogg would have the market cornered on the implants and sign language schools.

It would be so loud you could hear it everywhere in the Galaxy even though there is no atmosphere to conduct it. Space would be ionized by the power of their squeals. It would be knockin' asteroids and comets out of orbit It would be breakin' out windows on planet Krypton and they're made outa krypton.

Scientists would be analyzing the echo from the squeal 100,000 years from now like the big bang. It would be named the Ambert Inter Galactic Squeal. All of the calendars would have to start over again at year 1 AAIGS, After Ambert Inter Galactic Squeal.

That's how loud they would squeal. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 11:20 AM

""If Bobert or Amos ever had to admit they were wrong they would squeal like a stuck pig. They would squeal so loud it would be louder than 400,000 200 megaton nuclear warheads goin' off at the same time. Sawzaw.""

How loud are YOU going to squeal when you read what's below, and have to admit that YOU were wrong?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

""Republicans reflected the public will with respect to health care. Every poll showed significant opposition to the health care legislation. By 2-1 the American people said stop it from passing. We tried to do that. But the Democrats were able to jam it through.   Sawzaw.""
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

""Although I am a Democrat, I personally believe it is better to do it the way Republicans do it. That way, a individual can research their favorite charities and foundations and give directly to them based on thier own beliefs. Sawzaw.""
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Well folks, now we know how much credence to give to posts from Sawzaw, who is obviously a fully paid up member of the well known "Church of the Wholly Undecided".

The only thing he is absolutely sure of is that he is either a Republican or a Democrat, depending on his mood, and the current state of his short term memory.

I hope this will help him to come to terms with his political identity, should he ever find out what it is.



Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 02:23 PM

Sheesh. What a waste of nitpicking bandwidth, Don. ;-) Look, the word "we" in that post of Sawzaw's simply means anyone who was opposed to the health care bill and anyone in Congress who voted against it. That included both the Republicans and some Democrats. Amongst the public it would include most Republicans, some Democrats, and various independents as well. People had a great variety of reasons for opposing that health bill (often diametrically opposite reasons, in fact...). For some it was too "leftist" (ha! ha!). For others it wasn't leftist enough. For some it was a move by "big government" against private enterprise. For others it was a move by the government to reward private enterprise at the expense of the public.

Sawzaw makes it quite clear that he is a Democrat, but that he opposes this particular piece of legislation. It is you who are muddying the matter by your eager search to prove that Sawzaw is some sort of apostate (a traitor to his own party?) because he prefers the opposing party's position on one piece of legislation.

He's simply showing that he's an independent thinker who doesn't always support EVERYTHING his own party does. I think we could use a few more of those, don't you?

I'm not posting any of the above because I support the Republicans in any way. I don't. I'm posting it because you are conveniently misinterpreting Sawzaw's post to satisfy your own emotional need to attack him and prove he's some kind of hypocrite, but you have not understood what he said in that post at all.

There is no conflict between being a Democratic Party member, and   not supporting EVERY single thing a Democratic administration decides to do. If there were, it would mean Democrats aren't human beings at all...just blindly obedient robots who vote party line regardless of what the issue is.

(Sort of like the Republicans?) ;-) Actually, most members of Congress do act like blindly obedient robots most of the time...and that is one of the things that is so sick and so wrong about the party system itself. It enforces conformity...what Sawzaw has been calling "tribalism", and stifles independent thought. As such, it is inimical to the very concept of freedom and good government.

And that's why I don't like political parties.   And that's why I've never belonged to one and I never will.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 05:58 PM

Sawz,

That sort of personal obsession with making derogatory remarks about others is kinda of frowned on in these parts, pardner. Especially since you were given the answers to these whines long since.

That Obama, now, he\s steady=on. A GOOD PRESIDENT, AND I AM GLAD WE ELECTED HIM.

Sorry for the capslock.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 07:37 PM

""And that's why I don't like political parties.   And that's why I've never belonged to one and I never will.""

And that, LH, is why you should look further than the last two posts and see the constant drip drip drip, on multiple threads, of Sawzaws Obama bashing, and support of the Republicans.

Ask yourself would Obama see a Democrat when looking at Sawzaw.

I don't think so.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 08:06 PM

The boy can't help himself, Amos... He suffers from chronic obsessive compulsive disorder and you and I are his obsessions... Okay, me more than you but who cares... That stuff is between his shrink and him...

As for LH??? I donno??? Me think that he was abducted and taken off to the joint where Ron Reagan was rewired prior to gettin' elected... Sawz a Democrat??? See what I mean, Amos??? I am worried about the Hawk... Someone has the real one locked up somewhere...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 10:53 PM

I find Sawzaw interesting, Don, because he says a lot of stuff I disagree with totally...and yet a lot of other stuff I agree with quite enthusiasically. Therefore he doesn't fit the broad and very primitive Right/Left opposite political stereotypes people are always jousting for or against here. He has been very critical of both Bush and Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 12:37 AM

Amos: You are the A#1 Champ at making derogatory remarks about others. Bobert is #2.

Now I want you to tell me where I have ever called either of you stupid or a liar.

You will or should have noticed where I have specifically stated when I agree with what either of you say. Or when I agree with Obama.

But neither one of you can get past that juvenile attitude toward forming up a gang to fight the other gang.

The recent arms treaty is something I agree with. Right wing pundits are bitching about it just to have something to bitch about.

If you get way back from the current squabbles, you will see that the Media, the talking heads, the politicians are playing us for fools for their benefit. All they give a shit about is money, power and votes.

They use scare tactics, race, class warfare, religion, Anything to divide the people into us and them.

Meanwhile the country is going down the tubes financially.

430,000 kids can't get enough to eat, they get a shitty education, people in Haiti are literally eating dirt. But the government can borrow $3.4-million from China to build a turtle tunnel. They can eat $100 a pound Wagyu steak at the White House.

So go ahead and flail away at each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 10:29 AM

"Free" Stimulus Money Results in Higher Utility Costs for Residents of Perkins, Oklahoma

In Perkins, Oklahoma, residents are literally paying a price for ccepting "free" stimulus dollars. Perkins' wastewater treatment plant is outdated and the town had planned to build a new one for $5 million. To help with the cost, the town applied for, and received, $1.5 million in "free" stimulus money.

"We were shovel ready. The engineering was done. We were ready or getting ready to advertise for bids," said Perkins City Manager Pete Seikel.

Then came the catch.

The Perkins Journal reported, "The good news: Perkins is receiving money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for its new wastewater treatment plant. The bad news: ARRA funds come with strings that will increase project costs by 25 percent."

As a condition of accepting those funds, the town must comply with a number of federal requirements. These federal restrictions have increased the total cost of the project from $5.26 million to $7.2 million, offsetting any financial benefit from the grant.

Additionally, the state tied the federal dollars to the Oklahoma Water Resource Board's (OWRB) revolving loan program in a 70 percent loan/30 percent grant arrangement. Perkins will be borrowing $5.875 million from OWRB and receiving $1.445 million from a federal stimulus grant. As a result, utility rates for local residents have risen dramatically to pay the costs for accepting the
federal assistance. To pay back the loan and the increased cost of the project, the town raised residents' utility taxes by 60 percent this year.

The City Manager acknowledged that residents don't understand why their sewer rates have to be increased if the city is getting federal grants to build the new wastewater treatment plant.

"I thought the stimulus money, I thought that was going to pay for it. I don't understand why we have to pay for it, too," said Robert Allensworth of Perkins.

"It is to stimulate the economy, to (get) people back to work, inject some cash into the system," said Seikel, but even he says, at best, getting the stimulus money for the new wastewater treatment plant will
be a wash.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 01:37 PM

Don, take note of something Sawzaw just said:

"The recent arms treaty is something I agree with. Right wing pundits are bitching about it just to have something to bitch about."


I enthusiastically agree with that. That is a clear case of Sawzaw agreeing with and approving something that Obama has done. Sawzaw has also said a number of positive things about Obama, in addition to disagreeing with some of Obama's policies, etc. Sawzaw is not, like so many others here, an instrument that can only play in one key or can only sound one note. His opinions are not one-dimensional. He has varied opinions about Obama...agreeing with some things Obama does, disagreeing with others.

And that is why I find what he says interesting. He's actually thinking about each matter on its own merits rather than just rushing blindly to the partisan barricades to hurl stones at "the other side".

Most of the people here don't do that. They simply, to paraphrase Sawzaw, can't get past that juvenile attitude toward forming up a gang to fight the other gang.

That's the thing I can't stand, and that's the thing I take issue with here all the time...that juvenile gang mentality. It's as one-dimensional and unthinking as an old John Wayne movie. It sees only the predetermined "good guys" and the predetermined "bad guys" that it has already decided upon (based on partisan labels), and is only out to attack and condemn on that basis.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 09:07 PM

Tell ya' what, Sawz... When you submit yer budget for a family of 4 living at the ppoverty level then, and only then, can a real discussion begin about the horribly bogus "facts" that you spew out can be looked at from the strict viewpoint of critical and logical thinking...

Your "facts" are absurd... I don't give a rat's ass where you got them... They are a joke...

But, as I have pointed out... You won't submit that budget because in doing so I will rip yer so-called facts to shreads and you will end up having to admit that yer "facts" are crap...

So, like all the stupid stuff that you accuse me ****over and over and over*** of sayin' that you have found some source --- pick a source, any source will do --- as being wrong you won't even allow yourself to enter into one of those "cordial discussions" that you say I won't enter into because you are more obsessed inrepeating ***over and over and over*** that "Bobert facts" are wrong...

Bullshit, Sawz... Here I am offering you an opportunity to prove that I am wrong!!! Wouldn't you like that??? I mean, *over and over and over* you have played these little fact-checker-from-hell games here and it's growing tiresome to paot anything and have you come back with yer little obsessive cumpulsive baiting...

If you want to be taken seriously here then put up yer friggin' budget and let's just get it on, son... I can do this... You may think I'm some kinda stupmo that jusy lives in ***bobert facts world of mythology*** but when I challenge you to have that "cordial discussion' you just come up with some other false accustaion about me being some racist, 'er whatever pops into yer little obsessive compulsive mind...

Here's yer chance, Saw... Sheet fire, son... You hung thru 800 posts and three different handles (Old Guy, Dickey and the Sawz) here in Mudburg buggin' me over Katrinagate... The least you could do is step up to the plate here and not pull one of yer disappearing acts and then come back as some new-'n improved obsessive compulsive person...

So... Post yer budget, son, of get the f off my back... Obsess on someone else...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 11:15 PM

Is it my imagination or do most people here only react to the things they disagree about with someone and not even notice the other stuff he says in his posts? ;-)

Hey, Bobert, why do you think Sawzaw is "old Guy" and "Dicky"? You got inside information or somethin'?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 11:26 PM

"So, like all the stupid stuff that you accuse me ****over and over and over*** of sayin' that you have found some source --- pick a source, any source will do --- as being wrong you won't even allow yourself to enter into one of those "cordial discussions" that you say I won't enter into because you are more obsessed inrepeating ***over and over and over*** that "Bobert facts" are wrong..."

Ah yes Bobert - the infamous "Climate Change is Crap" exponent ... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 01:04 AM

I doubt that there's anyone alive who thinks the climate isn't changing. It always changes. Climate change is the one thing you can definitely depend on. The only problem is figuring out how much it's going to change, where, in which direction, when, and why?

Climate change is also occurring, after all, on planets like Mars, Venus, and Jupiter. It's normal there too.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 01:11 AM

Tell ya' what, Bobert: You back up the horribly bogus "facts" that you spew out with some visible facts and quit huffin' and puffin' to side step it by telling somebody else they have to do it for you.

Start with the "illegal loop hole" What is that? Does such a thing exist? Can you give us an example of an illegal loophole?

If you don't want to answer or can't just say so.

But when I want to disagree with something you say, I will. If I want to show where you have contradicted yourself, I will.

And whenever you prove that I am wrong with some facts instead of your usual assignments, I can and will admit I am wrong because I am human, I can admit to being wrong.

I don't regard my refusal to make out a budget as any kind of proof of anything except that I don't feel it is my responsibility to prove your "facts".

Is there anything I said that you need some more information on? You can ask and I will do my best but I won't assign projects to avoid having to answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 01:26 AM

LH: I like to point out when I am in agreement with people who seem to want to disagree with whatever I say because I am on the "other side".

It sort of illustrates that nobody is either right or wrong all the time and this "our side" VS the "other side" mentality is ridiculous and counter productive.

People need to find what they agree on and work from there, not the other way around.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 02:22 AM

You are quite correct. The only way to any kind of positive resolution is to find out what one has in common with other people, and work from that point forward towards some kind of mutual understanding.

If you take the time to listen to what people say you usually discover that like you, they want freedom, justice, fairness, peace, and all those other good things. They want truth. They want everyone to be safe and have a good life.

But they lose their good judgement when they start arguing and stop listening, and when they turn someone else into a stereotyical symbol for everything they think is wrong in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 11:18 AM

Sawz:

You bounce off the most unpredictable angles. For example, I never said you said I was stupid or a liar. But for some goddamned reason you just had to haul out that ancient mackerel about whether "collapse" is a binary state or a process. I explained it to you four times, if I recall aright. But you kinda got stuck on it. Furthermore you seem to intentionally forget the times when I allow I was wrong about something. That's the kind of obsessive alteration I am talking about.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 11:33 AM

""LH: I like to point out when I am in agreement with people who seem to want to disagree with whatever I say because I am on the "other side"."" Sawzaw.

""You are quite correct. The only way to any kind of positive resolution is to find out what one has in common with other people, and work from that point forward towards some kind of mutual understanding."" LH.

Shouldn't you two just Get a Room?

One of you "likes to point out when he is in agreement with people", but is never in agreement with anyone who doesn't fall for his Repub propaganda.

The other doesn't seem to have much of an opinion on any issue, but persists in posting patronising assessments of those who do.

All of which is, to quote Sawzaw, "ridiculous and counter productive".

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 08:11 PM

Tell ya' what, Sawz...

We can begin to disect the little ballgame you got going by posting that budget...

Ya' see, LH, this ain't about some midunderstanding we got going here... This is about a jerk who has cyberstalked me from one website to another with his same ballgame... While I'm out making a friggin' living he has unlimited time to spend going thru a multitude or wegbsites finding someone who disagrees with me and then plays his childish *Bobert's Facts Ballgame*... Sometimes I come home and he has spent most of his entire waking day loading up on me from one thread to another with his moronish ballgame...

Don't believe me??? Check out my evening posts and see who is right there behind me with his usual ballgame... Been going on here under three diffferent handles... I have given up asking Joe Offer to intervene 'cause I really no longer care about someone out there with a major obsession on me 'cause I flat out don't have the time to care about it...

So, I figured I'd just take one of Sawz "Bobert's Fact" ballgamers outta the air which was hunger in America and we could have a "cordial discussion", kinda like "Katrinagate" (which BTW was initaited by one of Sawz earlier handles here), and bring some critical thinking into his ballgame of assuming if he could find one person on the planet who disagreed with me about anything that I post that this other person's position was certainly the most valid position on the planet... Problem is that in this world we know as cyberworld you can find people who will say anything and then provide their resons for those beliefs... Now, if I didn't have to work for a living andf could spend the time that Sawz spends on these cyber-wackos he finds to attack me then I could counter very one of them... But the fact is, I have to work... That is reality... So while I am working for a living Sawz is sittin' in front of his computer setting one dog-poo-in-a-bag ballgame after another so when I come home they are like mine fields...

That, LH, is reality... Maybe you domn't undertand what it is like to be stalked and harassed but Sawz has a PHD in it...

That is why, BTW, he won't stand here and post a budget so we can have that "cordial discussion" that ***he says*** he wants to have about hunger in America... No, rather than do that, he'll just spend up his entire tomorrow setting up more dog-poo-in-a-bag ballgames...

That is reality here, regardless of how Sawz, now that I have tired of his obsession with me, tries to come off as this more decent person... He ain't a decent person... He is a creep... Period...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 09:01 PM

Name me an issue, Don, and I'll give you my opinion.

(That doesn't mean I have to engage in an endless succession of bullying and personal attacks on whoever happens to hold a different opinion about that issue. What I object to on this forum IS the vitriolic personal attacks and the obsessive cyber-bullying that goes on all the time here...NOT people's opinions about issues. I am willing to hear any opinion.)

Amos - You are quite correct that Sawzaw's obsessive insistence on continuing to endlessly badger you about things you said way back when about the "collapse of the economy" has been ridiculous behaviour on his part, pointless behaviour, and a complete waste of bandwidth. ;-) There, old chap! I have come to your defence. Don't forget this kindness, because I may need your help some day too. (grin)

Bobert - You're right. He stalks you. You stalk him. There are a lot of people here stalking each other all the time, and it's generally pretty hard to determine who started stalking who first. It reminds me of the Democratic and Republican parties. Ugly, man. Really ugly.

You mean to tell me it's happening on some OTHER websites too????? To YOU, I mean? And by him? Sheesh. Thank God I only know about this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 06:22 AM

""Bobert - You're right. He stalks you. You stalk him. There are a lot of people here stalking each other all the time, and it's generally pretty hard to determine who started stalking who first.""


Not that hard LH, if you actually read whole threads.

Of course, if you simply dip in here and there to have a little poke at somebody.............

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 04:12 PM

I am not accepting Bobert's assignment. He has to prove his "facts" not I.

If a Bobert claims a budget needs to be posted, he needs to post it.

He has no response on the illegal loophole either.

I am ready to provide more info about my facts or admit when they are wrong.

The reason I made a point of the Amos's collapse is because Amos wants it both ways. He wants to claim there was a collapse but Obama prevented a collapse. Then Obama reversed a collapse. I don't believe collapses are reversible any more than avalanches are reversible.

To correct Amos takes about 50 posts wherein he makes ad hominem attacks and contorts logic into every conceivable form until it finally becomes apparent that he was wrong and he can't escape it. Then he carries a grudge against the person that wouldn't back down and accept his version of reality.

Seems to me that reasonable people would want to know when they were wrong.

PS: I saw David Axelrod on TV saying a collapse was prevented.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 04:49 PM

Hey Amos:

I never said that you said that I said you were stupid or a liar.

I merely said I have never called you or Bobert stupid or a liar.

But you have called me stupid in your endless and vitriolic ad hominem attacks.

"Sawz: How do you find the sheer hutzpah, or the abysmal stupidity,"

Just because I say I never said something does not mean I am accusing someone else of saying what I said I didn't say.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 05:14 PM

"if you read whole threads"

Yeah...if I only had the time, I could devote my entire life to that end and never achieve anything else at all. Probably not even eat, shave or wash myself. Just read entire political threads on Mudcat. What prize would I win for committing such dubious folly? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 06:06 PM

""What prize would I win for committing such dubious folly? ;-)""

Well one reward might be that you would actually know who said what to whom and in what order.

Then when you commented on behaviour, you would know what you were talking about, an excellent way, I find, to avoid looking foolish.

Besides, if you can't be bothered to follow the discussion, what value does your intermittent input have?

Not much IMHO.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 06:36 PM

Yeah, LH... This is way below yer standards... It's just like folks saying there has been way too much rudness in Congress and that both sides are responsible... Well, okay, maybe to some degree but if the Repubs are throwing 90% of the poo and the Dems 10% it's not really a fair assessment to say, "Awwww, shucks, can't both of ya'lls get along???"...

I mean, you say that I am stalkin' Sawz back??? Who followed whom from one one website to another??? Oh, you don't have time for that??? Well, take a guess???

Seems that by the time I get home from work and find that Sawz has taken shots at me from every concievable direction with some of the most bizarre thinking and links to others bizarre thinking and that it would take over the hour a day (at the most) I have for all my pudder work that we'd be well beyond sayin', "Well yer both stalking each other..."... That in the words of Henry Ford is "bunk"...

And so with my limited amount of time I thought that the best way to stop Sawz ballgame was to call him on just one of his dozens (maybe hundreds) of his "Bobert Facts" ballgames so I chose the statement that I made about kids in America who go hungry at night... Heck, I thought (silly me) that I could engage Sawz in just one *critical thinking* "cordial discussion" (which BTW he says he wants???) on one of his ballgames that I just picked from chance... Heck, I could pick any of them and offer to enter in a "coridal discussion" with him about it and he would do just what he has done here: on the streets it's called "shootin' his regular", meaning that he was just going to do what he was going to do... Which means: No "cordial discussion", no "critical thinking", no "risk", no learning something new, no, no and more no...

As for "cordial discussions"??? Sawz has absolutely no interest in them... None, nada, zero, zipola... All he wants to do here is play games with me and occasionally Amos... No discussion... Just more dog-poo-in-the-bag...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 15 Apr 10 - 02:11 AM

Bobert is the one that swallows the 1 in 5 claim whole with out questioning it or doing any critical thinking. I question him about, like he says I should do and he brags that a USDA report proves he is right. I actually read the report, which Bobert did't read, and I find nothing to support the 1 in 5 claim.

Then I emailed the authors of the report and one replies and says the 1 in 5 claim is not supported, it is merely a claim about what the report said. Also I find on barackobama.com the real number to be around 1 in 200. Now Bobert refuses to admit he was wrong and says screw the USDA but he ignores what the Obama website said.

When the ego is threatened, it grows bigger and more powerful. It controls the person instead of the person controling the ego.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 15 Apr 10 - 02:17 AM

The Id, The Ego, & The Superego: Freud & The Structure Of Personality. by Arsene Hodali
Although a lot of people know about what I'm going to talk about, the majority of you don't. So I'm going to talk about one of the most basic understandings of personality there is around (and a foundation for behavioural psychology). While at the same time taking you back to my own psychology class (ahh, memories). I'm going to look at how Freud viewed personality.

According to Freud most behaviour involves activity of three main systems (at the same time):
    * the id,
    * the ego,
    * and the superego.
The Id
The id is made up of innate biological instincts and urges. It is self-serving, irrational, impulsive, and totally unconscious. The id operates on the pleasure principle (a desire for immediate satisfaction of wishes, desires, and/or needs).

    That is, it seeks to freely express pleasure-seeking urges of all kinds.

If we were solely under control of the id, the world would be chaotic beyond belief.

The id acts as a well of energy for the entire psyche, or personality. This energy, called libido, flows from the life instincts (Eros). According to Freud, libido underlies our efforts to survive, as well as our sexual desire and pleasure seeking. Freud also described a death instinct. Thanatos, as he called it, produces aggressive and destructive urges. Freud offered humanity's long history of wars and violence as evidence of such urges. Most id energies, then, are aimed at discharging tensions related to sex and aggression.
The Ego
The ego is sometimes described as the executive, because it directs energies supplied by the id. The id is like a tyrannical king or queen whose power is awesome but who must rely on others to carry out orders. The id can only form mental images of things it desires. The ego wins power to direct behavior by relating the desires of the id to external reality. The ego is guided by the reality principle.

    That is, it delays action until it is practical or appropriate.

The ego is the system of thinking, planning, problem solving, and deciding. It is in conscious control of the personality.
The Superego
The superego acts as a judge or censor for the thoughts and actions of the ego. One part of the superego, called the conscience (maybe you've heard of it), reflects actions for which a person has been punished. When standards of the conscience are not met, you are punished internally by guilt feelings.

A second part of the superego is the ego ideal. The ego ideal reflects all behaviour one's parents (or superiors while growing up) approved of or rewarded. The ego ideal is a source of goals and aspirations. When its standards are met, we feel pride.

The superego acts as an internalized parent to bring behaviour under control. A person with a weak superego will be a delinquent, criminal, or anti-social personality. On the other hand, an overly strict or harsh superego may cause inhibition, rigidity, or unbearable guilt.
How Do The Id, Ego, And Superego Interact?
Freud didn't strictly picture the id, ego, and superego as parts of the brain or as little people running the human psyche (not creative enough for that). Instead, they are conflicting mental processes (Freud liked complicating things). Freud theorized a delicate balance of power among the three. For example, the id's demands for immediate pleasure often clash with the superego's moral restrictions. Hmm, perfect time for an example.

    Let's say you're sexually attracted to someone. The id wants immediate satisfaction for its sexual desires, but is opposed by the superego (which finds the very thought of sex shocking). The id says, Go for it, you can so do her/him right now, right here! The superego icily replies, Never fucking think that again, NEVER! And what does the ego say? The ego says, I have a plan! .

Although I've drastically simplified the situation, it captures the core of Freudian thinking perfectly. To reduce tension, the ego could begin actions leading to friendship, romance, courtship, and marriage. If the id is unusually powerful, the ego may give in and attempt a seduction. If the superego prevails, the ego may be forced to displace or subliminate sexual energies to other activities; sports, music, dancing, push-ups, cold showers, and (what we're all thinking of) masturbation. And, according to Freud, much of this activity occurs at the unconscious level
Is The Ego Always Caught In The Middle?
Basically yes, and the pressures on it can be intense! In addition to meeting the conflicting demands of the id and superego, the overworked ego must deal with external reality.

According to Freud, you feel anxiety when your ego is threatened or overwhelmed. Impulses from the id cause neurotic anxiety when the ego can barely keep them under control. And, threats of punishment from the superego cause moral anxiety (guilt).

Each person develops habitual ways of calming these anxieties, and many resort to using ego-defense mechanisms to lessen internal conflicts. Defense mechanisms are mental processes that deny, distort, or otherwise block out sources of threat and anxiety. The ego defense mechanisms that Freud indentified are used as a form of protection against stress, anxiety, and threatening events. In addition, Freud argued that it is the repressed unconcious thoughts, wishes, and feelings that can potentially cause maladaptive behaviours or mental disorders.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 10:07 PM

Distrust Of Government Undermines Obama's SupportNPR April 19, 2010

For a Democratic administration that wants to do big things with government, the severe erosion of trust in government is a real problem -- and President Obama knows it.

"We have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of dollars right now," he said during this year's State of the Union address. "We face a deficit of trust -- deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years."

What the president calls a deficit of trust has been impossible for him to surmount -- and it's undermining support for him and his policies, says Andrew Kohut, the director of the Pew Research Center that just completed a big survey looking at Americans' growing distrust of government.

"No other factor loomed as large in preventing Americans from embracing the proposals of the Congress and Barack Obama than views about government," Kohut says. "A president who wants to use government to solve problems when a public says, 'We don't trust the government; we want less government,' is a problem."

Continued Loss Of Trust
In Kohut's poll, 84 percent of those opposed to the president's new health care law said the reason was too much government. In November 2008, 43 percent said they wanted a smaller government with fewer services. That number has now grown to 50 percent.

Bill Galston, who served in the Clinton White House when it was grappling with similar anger at big government, says the continued loss of trust in government over the past year is striking given the wave of trust -- at least personal trust -- that swept Obama into office. Explore The Results: Americans' Distrust Of Government

"I think the president assumed ... that the confidence that the American people had invested in him as a leader would somehow spill over to his party and to the instruments of government as a whole," Galston says. "And if that's what he assumed, he was wrong from the start. The American people had not suspended their mistrust of government. For example, candidate Obama issued a large promissory note about an end to partisan bickering and a return to something closer to civility ... in the relations between the political parties."

And when Obama wasn't able to redeem that promise, attitudes toward government got even more negative. But the president's top strategist, David Axelrod, says that's not all Obama's fault. Axelrod accuses the Republicans of trying to de-legitimize government.

"In Chicago, there was an old tradition of throwing a brick through your own campaign office window, and then calling a press conference to say that you've been attacked," Axelrod says.[projects his own dirty tricks on others] "I think it's a little bit the same with the Republicans. They meet, they decide we're not going to give the president any bipartisan support, and then they call a press conference to accuse him of not governing in a bipartisan way. And that, I think, grates on people."

Not The President's Fault, But It Is His Problem
Kohut agrees that the current deficit of trust is due to a lot of factors.

"Trust in government declines when national conditions are bad," he says. "National conditions are bad; the economy is bad. So that's one factor. [The second] factor is that when there's a Democratic president, Republicans become much more mistrusting of government than do Democrats when there is a Republican president."

So the lack of trust in government may not be the president's fault, but it certainly is his problem. The people who tell surveyors they are angriest about the government also favor Republicans. And survey after survey has found that these angry voters are more likely to go to the polls in this November's midterm elections than are Democrats.

What can President Obama do about this? Axelrod says in the long run, the best thing is to solve the country's problems and convince the public the solutions are working. "There is a fundamental sense of jaundice on the part of everyday people who feel like they're meeting their responsibilities, and all around them, they see irresponsibility," he says. "Well, the best way to deal with that is to behave responsibly, to govern responsibly, to be straightforward, to be transparent. That is the goal, and that is the standard by which we want to hold ourselves. It's hard to do, given the nature of politics and government, but that should be our North Star."

Obama himself is bothered by the amount of disdain for government among politicians and the press. He says he's been thinking about ways he might address this -- such as a series of presidential speeches. Of course, the president's conservative critics would argue that Obama might be able to increase trust in government if his government weren't trying to do so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 10:51 PM

Ya know, it's the real deal that friends will step in and say 'Hey, man, you really don't need to be doing that".... Translated, "What the hell you doin'??? You look like a fool out there..."

I am at a loss as to what else to say to ya, son, 'cept that you apparently ain't got no friends here to pull ya' up...

Gettin' purdy sad...

Reminds me of the Scarecrow in Wizzard of Oz....

No heart... Just obsessive compulsive behavior... Must suck to be you, Sawz...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Apr 10 - 02:04 AM

Don't need a fan club Pop.

"Hey, man, you really don't need to be doing that"

Your thinking is becoming bent and I ask you as a friend to cool off.

Bobert,

The problem isn't code words or institutionalized racism or subconscious racism.

The problem is that you project your own racist thoughts on the rest of the world. Stop accusing others of subscribing to your own personal prejudices. Some of us don't worry about race; we actually look at the man's words and deeds and consider him based on those. It's obvious you are not able to do that and instead filter the world through your own bigoted glasses.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Apr 10 - 08:16 AM

Once again, I don't have racist thoughts... But I fully understand what racism is about... If yer hangin' with some organizations that looks like, and smell like some of the folks who in different times would have been Jim Crowers I'd suggest you find something else to do with yer time...

Once again, I try my level hardest to not personalize terms like "racist, bigot or Nazi" on anyone here in Mudville... But, with that said, I reserve my rights to make statements about various "groups" or "orgainzations" and won't be bullied by anyone from making those statements...

I mean, that's all part of discussion...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 10 - 11:45 AM

Sawz:

You really have the wrong ticket on Bobez, I am here to tell ya. Accusing him of racism is as far-fetched as accusing the Tea Prty of rationality.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Apr 10 - 12:35 PM

Or Amos of consistancy ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Apr 10 - 01:12 PM

Whenever you refer to Jim Crow laws please add that they were created by Democrats over the objections of Republicans.

If you can claim anyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist, I can claim you have racist thoughts.

I am not saying there are no racists or racism but your painting of an entire group or class of people like Re****ks with your holier than thou racist paintbrush is the act of a racist.

One thing I admire about Obama is that he is always the first one to claim that something somebody said was not racial. I don't believe he is a racist and he would never play the racist card to get his way. I think a lot of people voted for him because of that.

But I still believe his policies can be wrong, irregardless of his race.

Does that make me a racist?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 21 Apr 10 - 01:19 PM

If you can claim anyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist, I can claim you have racist thoughts.

Remember when you use a word to mean something it doesn't mean, you have to pay it extra.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 10 - 01:35 PM

Have I been inconsistent, Bruce? I don't think so, not on the important things.

By important things I mean assessing actors, policies and actions against their large impact on the world. I mean supporting the key values of the Constitution and decrying efforts such as the Patriot act to erode them. Things of that order. If you are accusing me of inconsistency, it is probably because you believe I treat Obama with a different standard of performance than I did W. But there's an important difference which has to be figured into the equation. W was a dry alcoholic semi-infantile anti-intellectual uncurious partying fratboy with a "C" average. Obama was and is the opposite in all those things.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Apr 10 - 02:08 PM

"By important things I mean assessing actors, policies and actions against their large impact on the world."


And you have failed to judge Obama's actions ( as you have judged Bush's) by these standards.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 10 - 06:19 PM

Well, I disagree with your blunt accusation, and I wonder how you would know.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Apr 10 - 06:25 PM

By examination of the facts presented to you, and your conclusions.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Apr 10 - 12:34 AM

Actors like Booth?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Apr 10 - 03:54 PM

"...Today, the economy is growing. In fact, we've seen the fastest turnaround in growth in nearly three decades. But we have more work to do.

Until this progress is felt not just on Wall Street but Main Street we cannot be satisfied. Until the millions of our neighbors who are looking for work can find jobs, and wages are growing at a meaningful pace, we may be able to claim a recovery â€" but we will not have recovered.

And even as we seek to revive this economy, it is incumbent on us to rebuild it stronger than before. That means addressing some of the underlying problems that led to this turmoil and devastation in the first place.

One of the most significant contributors to this recession was a financial crisis as dire as any we've known in generations. And that crisis was born of a failure of responsibility â€" from Wall Street to Washington â€" that brought down many of the world's largest financial firms and nearly dragged our economy into a second Great Depression.

It was that failure of responsibility that I spoke about when I came to New York more than two years ago â€" before the worst of the crisis had unfolded. I take no satisfaction in noting that my comments have largely been borne out by the events that followed.

But I repeat what I said then because it is essential that we learn the lessons of this crisis, so we don't doom ourselves to repeat it.

And make no mistake, that is exactly what will happen if we allow this moment to pass â€" an outcome that is unacceptable to me and to the American people. As I said two years ago on this stage, I believe in the power of the free market. I believe in a strong financial sector that helps people to raise capital and get loans and invest their savings...."

Excerpt, President Barack Obama addressing New York VIPs at Cooper Union this week.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/04/22/2010-04-22_live_video_president_barack_obama_speaks_on_wall_street_reform_at_cooper_union_i.html#ixzz0lrPB9mR1

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 22 Apr 10 - 04:05 PM

These are the words of a socialist. Mm-hmm.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Apr 10 - 07:37 PM

Jim Crow was purdy much all southern Democrat... So what??? I'm not a Democrat... I have pointed out that the Democratic party split itself up with the passage of the Civil Rights Act... Lyndon Johnson even said so... He said that in passing that bill that the Democratic Party would suffer for many years to come... He couldn't have been more correct as since the passage of the bill the South has been purdy much Republican territory...

As one who has always been interested in politics, I find it very interesting that the Democrats in Page County, Va. (where I live) tend to be the "hillbillies", many of whom come from families who were put off the mountain by FDR when the feds put in Skyline Drive and the Shenandoah National Park... One would think that it would be the opposite... Yeah, okay, they are a tad distrustfull of the fed but tend to be the Dems... And they are also very tolerant people... Don't wanta fight... Ain't all eat up with egos... The townies and valley folks tend to be Repub... Not too sure why this is but I keep askin' folks questions and am in hot pursuit of the story...

BTW, these people also like their moonshine, their pot and their mergals...

(Geeze, Bobert... That fits you to a tee...)

B~

So it does... No wonder why I like it up here...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Apr 10 - 11:13 AM

""Whenever you refer to Jim Crow laws please add that they were created by Democrats over the objections of Republicans.""

Yeah! Way back when Republican and Democrat meant almost the exact opposite of what they do today.

Bad Luck Sawz

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 23 Apr 10 - 12:10 PM

Lyndon Johnson even said "I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 23 Apr 10 - 01:20 PM

The Sheriff of Page County was a Repub and the sumbitch turned out to be as crooked and corrupt as any Democrat ever hoped to be. ;-D

Screw it. I'm headin' out for Almost Heaven.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Apr 10 - 10:01 PM

Lyndon Johnson said alot of very stupid stuff by today's standards, Sawz... But Lyndon Johnson also had a soft spot... The "Great Society" wasn't about getting black votes to ol' softie Lyndon (former high school teacher) it was about doing something right that he would be remembered for having done...

I mean, we judge people on the body of their work... Not isolated incidents... Johnson was probaly the most crass (Nixon included) of any president we have ever had... That is a given... He was purdy much a redneck... But he did have this sense of purpose that trumped his crassness... It's not fair to judge a man so narrowly that we aren't able to appreciate the goodness in him...

Yeah, I was real pissed at Johnson for Vietnam until the day he told the nation he wasn't going to seek re-election... Yeah, Vietnam had worn him down... And then over time I realized just how anguished the man was...

Lyndon wasn't a perfect man but to have his life and what he did somehow narrowed down to one stupid statement is not only unfair to a great man but also not exactly how history will remember this guy...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 24 Apr 10 - 12:17 PM

When Trent Lott said something stupid it suddenly became the focus of his whole life. It overshadows every thing he has ever done.

But that was a different standard than the one used to judge LBJ.s racism.

LBJ: "Son, when I appoint a ni**er to the court, I want everyone to know he's a ni**er."

Yeah, LBJ was one of those politicians that saw the black vote as an election tool.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 24 Apr 10 - 12:20 PM

How dare he not be 50 years ahead of his time.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Apr 10 - 09:27 PM

Trent Lott wasn't drummed out of politics for just one statement but a life time of dumbass statements for which he never seemed to figgure out were dumbass... Lyndon??? He was a changed man at the end of his life... Lott??? I don't think so....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 10 - 10:04 PM

I guess it is important to really work hard to clarify these past issues, Sawz. Thanks for hanging back there...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Apr 10 - 10:56 AM

Interesting piece HERE

Be sure to also read the ignorant fools'comments which
follow.

Back to the Future- its 1960 all over again.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Apr 10 - 12:18 PM

"a life time of dumbass statements"

Care to back that phony bulshit up Bobert or would you rather refuse and sidestep as usual?

Harry McPherson remembered, "And about five minutes later I heard (LBJ) say to some southerner . . . , "I'm going to have to bring up the ni**er bill again.""

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 10 - 01:49 PM

Lott is on the hot seat for telling a 100th birthday party for Thurmond, the South Carolina senator who in 1948 ran an overtly racist campaign for president on the State's Rights Party ticket: "I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either."
Those remarks have caused a major stir, which is appropriate. But this is hardly the first time that Lott, who began his political career in the 1960s as an aide to segregationist Democratic Congressman William Colmer, has hailed the legacy of those who fought to defend the practices of slavery and segregation. Nor is the tortured "apology" Lott has issued the first to come from the senator.
Indeed, there is no greater constant in Trent Lott's political career than his embrace of all things Confederate.
To wit:
* In 1978, after his election to the US House, Lott led a successful campaign to have the US citizenship of Jefferson Davis restored. Davis lost his citizenship when he became president of the Confederate States of America when southern states were in open revolt against the US government.
* During the 1980 campaign, after Thurmond spoke at a Mississippi rally for Ronald Reagan, Lott said of the old Dixiecrat: "You know, if we had elected that man 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today."
* In 1981, when he was lending his prestige as a member of the US Congress to an effort to preserve the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University -- the notorious South Carolina college that was under fire for prohibiting interracial dating -- Lott insisted that, "Racial discrimination does not always violate public policy."
* Despite the fact that he represents the state with the largest percentage of African-American citizens in the US, Lott has throughout his career been an active supporter of the Sons of the Confederacy, a group that celebrates the soldiers who fought to defend the "right" of Mississippians to own African-Americans as slaves." Lott even appears in recruitment videos for the group.
* Speaking at a 1984 convention of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, Lott declared that "the spirit of Jefferson Davis lives in the 1984 Republican Platform." Asked to explain his statement in an interview with the extreme rightwing publication Southern Partisan, Lott said, "I think that a lot of the fundamental principles that Jefferson Davis believed in are very important to people across the country, and they apply to the Republican Party... and more of The South's sons, Jefferson Davis' descendants, direct or indirect, are becoming involved with the Republican party."
* Lott gave the keynote address at a 1992 national executive board meeting of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a successor organization to the old white Citizens Councils, segregation-era groups the Southern Poverty Law Center refers to as "the white-collar Ku Klux Klan. The C of CC may have changed its name, but it remains a passionate "white racialist" group that condemns intermarriage, integration and immigration by non-whites. As Boston Globe columnist Derrick Z. Jackson, who has researched the group, argues, "There is no question of the resegregationist agenda of the Council of Conservative Citizens when four of the seven links listed on the home page for former Klan leader David Duke link back to the Council of Conservative Citizens." Other links, Jackson has noted, "deny the Holocaust and sell T-shirts with swastikas and Nazi stormtrooper symbols." But when Lott appeared at that Greenwood, Mississippi, meeting of C of CC leaders, he did not address his disdain for racism or anti-Semitism. Rather, he discussed his concerns about "the dark forces" that he said were overwhelming America and said, "We need more meetings like this across the nation... The people in this room stand for the right principles and the right philosophy. Let's take it in the right direction and our children will be the beneficiaries."
* In 1997, Lott was photographed meeting with national leaders of the C of CC in his Washington office. At his side were two prominent C of CC leaders: Gordon Baum, a former field organizer for the Citizens Councils in the days when they were referred to as the "uptown Klan," and William Lord, who has acknowledged using the mailing lists of the Citizens Councils to build the C of CC in the 1980s and 1990s. That same year, the C of CC used an endorsement quote from Lott in recruitment literature.
* When the Washington Post began to detail Lott's ties to the C of CC, his office announced that he had "no firsthand knowledge of the group's views." But when The New York Times asked Lott's uncle, former Mississippi state Sen. Arnie Watson, a member of the C of CC executive board, about ties between the senator and the organization, Watson said, "Trent is an honorary member." When a reporter for the Jackson Clarion-Ledger showed up at a 1998 C of CC meeting in Mississippi, he was told by those in attendance that Lott was a member. Lott's office never challenged the report when it appeared in his homestate's largest newspaper. But a year later, when the Washington Post took the issue up, Lott said, "I have made my condemnation of the white supremacist and racist view of this group, or any group, clear."
* Yet, a column written by Lott still appeared on a regular basis in the Citizens Informer, the group's publication, alongside articles thick with statements like: "Western civilization, with all its might and glory, would never have achieved its greatness without the directing hand of God and the creative genius of the white race. Any effort to destroy the race by a mixture of black blood is an effort to destroy Western civilization itself."
* Go to the website of the Council of Conservative Citizens today and you will find, beneath the Confederate flag and the section attacking an African-American professor at Vanderbilt, a big smiling picture of the Mississippi senator next to headlines that read: "A Lott of Courage!" "C of CC Passes Resolution Commending Lott" and "Lott Needs Your Support."
When he started to face questions about his most recent praise of Thurmond's 1948 Dixiecrat campaign, Lott initially said that his remarks were just part of "a lighthearted celebration" of the retiring segregationist's career. That was enough for Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, to give Lott an initial pass. But, thankfully, Julian Bond and the NAACP, and a few African-American and progressive members of the House, refused to allow the matter to die. Only under this lingering pressure did Lott sort of apologize by saying of his statement at the Thurmond bash: "I regret the way it has been interpreted."
That's the standard line from Lott, who always apologizes when he gets caught defending the defenders of slavery and segregation. But, so far, Lott has never failed to follow each "apology" with another tribute to the Confederacy or the segregationists who seek even in the 21st century to maintain the racist legacy of Jefferson Davis, Strom Thurmond and the "uptown Klan."

---

n Congress Lott has rarely authored legislation, but he is seen as a master deal-maker behind the scenes. The insurance and oil industries are Lott's biggest campaign donors, and he has an almost perfect rating from the American Conservative Union. He has generally supported increased spending on the military, farm subsidies, and rural public-works projects, and opposed tax increases and programs that would help the poor. He supported a proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit school busing in 1979, and in 1983 he voted against a holiday honoring Martin Luther King, complaining about the cost.

In the 1990s, Lott spoke at five separate meetings of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a hate group that routinely describes blacks as "genetically inferior", calls gays and lesbians "perverted sodomites", and complains that immigrants are making the US a "slimy brown mass of glop". In 1998 he spoke at the Mississippi home of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, saying "Sometimes I feel closer to Jefferson Davis than any other man in America."

In 2002, Lott became suddenly controversial when he said at the 100th birthday party of Sen Strom Thurmond, "I want to say this about my state: when Strom Thurmond ran for President, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." Lott was referring to Thurmond's 1948 campaign for President on the Dixiecrat ticket's platform of "racial integrity", endorsing segregation and miscegenation statutes, and opposing "social equality" in voting rights, law enforcement, and "the misnamed civil rights program". Thurmond's campaign fliers warned that if Harry S. Truman were re-elected, "anti-lynching and anti-segregation proposals will become the law of the land and our way of life in the South will be gone forever."

---

'NUFF SAID. THIS TOOK THREE MINUTES, SAWZ, AND YOU COULD HAVE DONE IT YOURSELF.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Apr 10 - 05:02 PM

I doubt that Amos.

He suffers from a rare form of selective blindness, which prevents him from seeing anything which will expose his ignorance and bias.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Apr 10 - 09:06 PM

Thanks, Amos... Sawz knows that I have limited computer skills and even less time to actually be on the thing... (Maybe a hour a day, sometimes less or not at all) so he tries to bully me 'cause he prolly doesn't work (and if so not like I do) and has lots of time to roll up lots of his "stink bombs" (BTW, Saws, that's proff that you were both Old Guy and Dickey and you can deny it but that "stink Bomb" think done blew up in yer face and got the stink all over you)... But I ain't worried about Saws trying to bully me 'casue I can't be bullied... Never have been... In the 8th grade there was this kid who have failed so many grades that he was like 17 years old and outweighed me by a hundred pounds and decided that he was gonna try to bully me, too, so in English class he sucker punched me so hard in the face that everything just went black... Yeah, he got suspended for it.... 'Bout a month later in the boy's locker room I jumped Mr. Bully and got in at least a dozen punches on him before he got me controlled and was startin' a land a few of his own and the gym teachers broke it up... Mr. Bully never messed witrh me again... I'd use his name but, just incase he ever got educated somewhat and might Google up his name, I don't want to embarrass him... But his initials are C.C.

Lott, unlike Lyndon or Robert Bryd,has never shown that he finally got it... I can forgive a man if he he changes course... Lott never changed course...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Apr 10 - 11:12 PM

Bobert:

Threatening or inflicting physical harm is bullying.

Asking people to back up their claims is not bullying.

I have shown posts of yours demanding that others respond to your question and then accusing them of subterfuge, evasive BS being full of hate because they would not answer your straight up question.

I am not doing anything you don't do.

You have a right to your opinion but when you claim something is a fact you should be able to have a source of that fact. Otherwise it is your opinion or belief.

At least Amos finally admits it when he presents something that is not correct and I respect him for that.

I have no problems with admitting when I am wrong when presented with the facts.

When you resort to claiming I need a shrink, you leave the door wide open for my diagnoses of your inability to answer straight forward questions except with subterfuge and evasive BS.

Have I ever dodged one of your questions? The only questions I don't answer are the complex questions that are based on the assumption that something is true or not true. And I state why I believe it is a complex question.

I believe the reason you post those outlandish "facts" is because you want people to argue with you about their veracity. But you also like to win the argument and you get hostile when you can't and the other person does not give up.

And you want an ego building fan club to defend your "facts".

It seems to me that people would want to be factual and well informed rather that belligerent and uninformed.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Apr 10 - 11:14 PM

Over 700 killed in 44 drone strikes in 2009

PESHAWAR: Of the 44 predator strikes carried out by US drones in the tribal areas of Pakistan over the past 12 months, only five were able to hit their actual targets, killing five key Al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders, but at the cost of over 700 innocent civilians.

According to the statistics compiled by Pakistani authorities, the Afghanistan-based US drones killed 708 people in 44 predator attacks targeting the tribal areas between January 1 and December 31, 2009.

For each Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorist killed by US drones, 140 innocent Pakistanis also had to die. Over 90 per cent of those killed in the deadly missile strikes were civilians, claim authorities.....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Apr 10 - 08:42 AM

Sorry, Sawz, but what you do is well beyond asking people to back up their claims.... You nit-pick insignificant parts of my posts that have little or nothin to do with the geberal flow of a thread and try to turn that insignificant part into the new topic of the thread... On my end it is harassment but to others who are trying to allow a thread to follow the topic it is downright rude and borish...

If you disagree with something that I say then ask yerself if making a fedearl case over it serves the thread or serves Sawz ego... If it's the later of the two, start anew thread about whatever nit-picking you wnat to do...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 10 - 03:53 PM

"The Obama administration said Tuesday it would provide more information to Congress about the Fort Hood shootings but continued to defy a subpoena request for witness statements and other documents.

After days of negotiations, the Pentagon and Justice Department informed a Senate committee that they would not comply with congressional subpoenas to share investigative records from the Nov. 5 shootings at Fort Hood, Tex., which killed 13 people. The agencies said that divulging the material could jeopardize their prosecution of Army Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, the accused gunman.

The Pentagon did budge in other areas, however, saying it had agreed to give the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs access to Hasan's personnel file, as well as part of an Army report that scrutinized why superiors failed to intervene in Hasan's career as an Army psychiatrist, despite signs of his religious radicalization and shortcomings as a soldier.

Leslie Phillips, a spokeswoman for the Senate committee, called the refusal by the Pentagon and the Justice Department to hand over all the requested material "an affront to Congress's constitutional obligation to conduct independent oversight of the executive branch."

She said the committee, chaired by Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), was still deciding whether to pursue the subpoenas in court. The committee has complained that the Obama administration has been stonewalling it for months over its Hasan probe, prompting it to issue the subpoenas April 19.

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said the Defense Department has tried to cooperate as much as possible with the Senate investigation.


He said that Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn III spoke Friday with Lieberman and Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), the committee's ranking Republican, in an attempt to resolve the dispute but added that he didn't know whether the Obama administration's offer would be enough to satisfy the panel.

"We feel as though we have leaned very far forward," Morrell said. "This is as far as we are prepared to go." "

---

For once, I feel I really am showing a double standard, just to make Bruce's day. If this story had been published about W's administration I would have been certain it was creeping fascism raising its ugly head.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 28 Apr 10 - 12:09 AM

Amos, you're as bad as Sawz. Where is this quote from, and what conclusions do you wish for us to draw from it?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 10 - 12:45 PM

Sorry, man.

Source: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/.../AR2010042704501.html

Conclusions: Draw as you prefer.


Elsewhere, the President instructs in the art of basic citizenship:

(NYT) "The president told students and others in the audience Ñ the school stopping giving out tickets once 80,000 were distributed Ñ that debates about the size and role of government are as old as the republic itself.

"But it troubles me when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad," said Obama, who received an honorary doctor of laws degree. "For when our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it conveniently ignores the fact in our democracy, government is us."

Obama didn't mention Palin in the speech, according to remarks the White House released in advance, nor was there any reference to the tea party movement. Palin, a potential Obama opponent in 2012, told activists that "big government" led by Obama's White House has become "intrusive" in Americans' lives.

In Obama's view, there are some things that only government can do.
Government, he said, is the roads we drive on and the speed limits that keep us safe. It's the men and women in the military, the inspectors in our mines, the pioneering researchers in public universities.

The financial meltdown dramatically showed the dangers of too little government, he said, "when a lack of accountability on Wall Street nearly led to the collapse of our entire economy."

Obama told both sides in the political debate to tone it down. "Phrases like 'socialist' and 'Soviet-style takeover,' 'fascist' and 'right-wing nut' may grab headlines," he said. But such language "closes the door to the possibility of compromise."
That kind of passion isn't new, he acknowledged. Politics in America, he said, "has never been for the thin-skinned or the faint of heart. ... If you enter the arena, you should expect to get roughed up."

Obama hoped the graduates hearing his words can avoid cynicism and brush off the overheated noise of politics. In fact, he said, they should seek out opposing views.
His advice: If you're a regular Glenn Beck listener, then check out the Huffington Post sometimes. If you read The New York Times editorial page the morning, then glance every now and then at The Wall Street Journal.

"It may make your blood boil. Your mind may not often be changed. But the practice of listening to opposing views is essential for effective citizenship," he said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 10 - 01:37 PM

U.S. Economy Grew at a 3.2% Annual Rate in First Quarter

The United States economy continued to expand in the first
quarter, but economists cautioned that the pace of growth is
still not nearly fast enough to recover ground lost during
the recession.

National output grew at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of
3.2 percent last quarter, after growth of 5.6 percent in the
fourth quarter of 2009 and 2.2 percent in the third quarter.

The steady growth has quelled fears that the downturn is not
quite over. Consumers were a major contributor to the
expansion last quarter. Consumer spending grew at an annual
rate of 3.6 percent in the first part of the year, after
growing at an annual rate of 1.6 percent in the previous
three months.

Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com?emc=na

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 May 10 - 11:43 PM

I see Bobert did not back up his claims, Amos did and he did a fine job. So fine that it leads me to believe he was originally a Democrat.

"Lott was raised as a Democrat. He served as administrative assistant to House Rules Committee chairman William M. Colmer, also of Pascagoula, from 1968 to 1972.

In 1972, Colmer, one of the most conservative Democrats in the House, announced his retirement after 40 years in Congress. He endorsed Lott as his successor in Mississippi's 5th District"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 May 10 - 11:18 AM

Hot diggety dang! There's a pair of cardinals at my feeder.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 May 10 - 12:48 PM

Sawz, you're bouncing off the walls again. What the hell does 1972 and Lott have to do with this thread?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 03 May 10 - 05:39 PM

Not a Lott.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 May 10 - 12:52 AM

Well Amos. You posted about a page and a half about Lott so you must think it is important.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 May 10 - 12:59 AM

Who is going to bail out the US?

WSJ

Then there's the United States which, like Greece and Britain, is facing double-digit deficits. In February, the Obama administration predicted an eye-popping $1.6 trillion deficit for this year, or 11.2% of GDP. Barring an unexpected windfall, the federal government will borrow fully 40% of the $3.6 trillion it is on course to spend this fiscal year. The administration's response? It passed a new $1 trillion health-care entitlement and asserted that this new spending would lower the deficit over the coming decade...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 May 10 - 09:23 AM

Right now there are 3 goldfinches and a couple of mourning doves balancing their respective budgets at the feeders in the backyard. They are masters of fiscal responsiblity.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 May 10 - 11:14 AM

Nation's GDP grows at 3.2% rate in first quarter

LA Times Apr 30

The economy grew 3.2% in the first quarter of the year, the Commerce Department reported Friday, another indication a steady, though modest, recovery has taken hold.

The annualized rate of growth of the gross domestic product -- the nation's total production of goods and services -- was down from the 5.6% rate of the last three months of 2009. But that had been expected as the effect of the federal government's stimulus policies peaked during that period.

"We're still running on the fumes of stimulus in the U.S. economy," said Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial in Chicago. "It's a recovery, but by any standard is still a muted recovery. But we're thankful to have what we've got," given the depth of the recession, she said.

The median forecast for first quarter GDP was 3.4%, according to a survey of economists by Thomson Reuters, and Friday's figure fell below that. But that projection reflected more bullish sentiment about the economy in recent weeks. The National Assn. of Business Economics had forecast in February that first-quarter GDP would be 3%.

The GDP growth rate released Friday by the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis is only modest, but still is a dramatic improvement over the same period last year. At the bottom of the recession, the U.S. economy shrank 6.4% in the first quarter of 2009.

That was the low point for the deepest recession since the 1930s, which began in December 2007. Economic growth returned last summer when the third-quarter GDP increased at an annualized rate of 2.2%.

"I think its well in line with expectations," Swonk said of the first-quarter figure. "The recovery's more broad-based. Although the momentum slowed quite a bit from the fourth quarter, the consumer showed up and we had a lot of demand, which is good."

The Bureau of Economic Analysis said growth was boosted in the first quarter by consumer spending. Real personal consumption expenditures increased 3.6%, compared with a 1.6% increase in the last three months of 2009.

Despite three straight quarters of economic growth, the recession still has not been declared officially over. The National Bureau of Economic Research, which determines the lengths of business cycles, said this month that it "would be premature" to set a date marking the end of the recession and the start of an economic expansion.

A major reason for that decision was the still-high unemployment rate.

Although job growth returned in March, with the economy creating 162,000 jobs, the national unemployment rate remained at 9.7%. The figure is higher in many states, including California, which reached a new high of 12.6% in March, tied for third-worst in the nation. The state trailed only Michigan's 14.1% jobless rate and Nevada's 13.4% figure, and was tied with Rhode Island.

"At the end of the day, none of this really matters unless we can get the employment machine going, which is coming, but very slowly," Swonk said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 May 10 - 10:38 AM

A dialogue at the New York Times:


"David Brooks: Gail, would you mind if I praised Barack Obama today? I thought not. I'm feeling grateful to the prez these days because we happen to be in the middle of a bunch of midsized crises. There's the oil spill in the Gulf (which is verging on a big crisis, I guess). There's the Times Square bomber. There are various floods in Tennessee and elsewhere. The European Union is falling apart over the Greek debt crisis, and so on and so on.

It's good to have a president with equipoise.
It seems to me that Obama is handling his role, which ranges from the marginal to the significant, in these events with calm professionalism. He's active yet not annoying. He's not taking credit for everything. He's not creating friction by making any missteps. He is calm, cool and collected.

Gail Collins: Please, feel free to applaud the president as much as you like. But I'm sorry I can't return the favor when it comes to the Republicans. All we're hearing is carping or sullen silence. And there's John McCain, complaining again about giving the alleged Times Square bomber his Miranda rights. (Nothing worse than handling a prisoner in a way that will make it possible to take him to trial.) And while it's not exactly in the same category with Rush Limbaugh's claim that the administration wanted a big oil spill, I was kind of bemused by the House minority leader, John Boehner, who seems to be claiming that a monster spill demonstrates our need for more offshore drilling.

David Brooks: Sometimes people fault Obama for being too cool. I can see their point 5 percent of the time, but 95 percent of the time, it's good to have a president with equipoise. Times like this — with stuff bubbling in all directions — are typical.

This is why people elected him over McCain.
Gail Collins: Well, this is why people elected him. When the economy collapsed they looked at him and McCain and decided in about three seconds which one they wanted running the show in a crisis.

David Brooks: When the oil thing blew, he mobilized what he could, he delegated authority, especially to the Coast Guard, and he reminded the world that even amid disasters like this, we still need a variety of energy sources.

Gail Collins: Certainly true, but I suspect we won't be hearing a whole lot of "drill, baby, drill" in the near future.

David Brooks: It took a long time to get to the point when we stopped debating which energy source was best and started agreeing that we need a lot of different sources. The debate went from "x or y" to "x and y." We could have lost that near-consensus, but Obama kept his head, while still putting pressure on BP. Those are small acts of statesmanship, but valuable ones.

I especially appreciate this because I have never been able to assign moral value to different energy sources. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 07 May 10 - 11:56 AM

How interesting it is to watch people fling large chunks of other people's words at each other. Not.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 May 10 - 12:11 PM

Yeah. ;-) Gets pretty tedious, doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 07 May 10 - 09:00 PM

Yeah.... Even I'm out...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 May 10 - 11:40 PM

Obama's 'no tax hike' pledge on the line

My fellow members of the President's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform and I met for the first time on April 27. Like many Americans, I wonder if the commission is an attempt by the Obama administration to sweep the spending and debt crisis under the rug until after the November election or provide political cover for a massive tax increase, perhaps through a European-style value-added tax (VAT). Then again, it might represent a sincere effort and unique opportunity to save America from a fiscal crisis of historic proportions. Only time will tell.

However, I was encouraged to hear the president reiterate during our meeting with him that "everything" must be on the table. Let us hope that "everything" includes more than token spending reductions and reforms. If not, in order to solve the debt crisis, the president will likely be forced to again break his "no tax increase" pledge to families making less than $250,000 a year.

According to the Office of Management and Budget, federal revenues have averaged 18 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) and federal spending has averaged 20 percent of GDP since World War II. Over the last few years as tax revenue has fallen, federal spending exploded to 24.7 percent of GDP in 2009 to create the largest debt and deficit since World War II. CBO data shows that the president's fiscal year 2011 budget will result in a debt of 90 percent of GDP at the end of the decade, more than double its historic norm of 43 percent. Greece could prove to be a preview of coming attractions to Main Street, USA.

Despite the president's claim to the contrary, the chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently certified the president's new health care plan actually increases national health care costs, adding another unsustainable entitlement program to the existing "Big 3" unsustainable entitlement programs - Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. These programs will help drive federal spending to approximately 40 percent of GDP over the course of the next generation, according to CBO's 2009 Long-Term Budget Outlook.

To tackle this crisis mainly or, in a worst-case scenario, solely on the tax side, would be a huge mistake, or simply impossible.

First, it is important to note that, unless Congress and the president intervene, under current law, taxes will increase, including taxes for families who earn under $250,000. The 2001 and 2003 tax relief is scheduled to expire at the end of this year. For many Americans, the dividend tax will increase 164 percent and the capital-gains tax will increase from 15 percent to 20 percent. The alternative minimum tax is due to hit millions. The death tax will revert from nothing to confiscatory levels, and at least 18 new taxes in the new health care law, including a new 3.8 percent investment tax, will soon follow.

What if Congress intervened and tried to limit tax increases to just those households earning $250,000 or more annually? A study by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center estimated that to reduce the deficit to 2 percent of GDP under the administration's baseline, in 2019 those households making over $250,000 would see the top two marginal tax rates rise to 85.7 percent and 90.9 percent.

The more likely scenario is that, according to the CBO, to finance current projected spending only on the tax side, assuming current policies continue, all taxpayers would be punished by requiring the 10 percent bracket to increase to 25 percent, the 25 percent bracket to jump to 63 percent, and the 35 percent rate to rise to 88 percent. The CBO noted "such tax rates would significantly reduce economic activity and would create serious problems with tax avoidance and tax evasion," which understates the point.

Former CBO Director Robert Reischauer testified before the commission that the fiscal crisis is so serious that, "raising taxes on the rich or corporations ... simply won't be enough." Another former CBO head, Rudolph Penner, told the commission that if we maintain current federal spending patterns and stabilize the debt at 60 percent of GDP, the U.S. total tax burden would be higher than today's Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development average by midcentury and that a few years after that we would be "the highest-taxed nation on Earth."

Without intervention from Congress and the president, taxes on all Americans, including families making less than $250,000, are due to increase. If the president is serious about fiscal responsibility, he needs to either roll up his sleeves on the spending side or be prepared to acknowledge that his "no tax increase" promise to those households making under $250,000 has already been broken.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 May 10 - 12:25 AM

Barack Obama September 16, 2008:
"This morning, instead of offering up concrete plans to solve these issues, Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book. You pass the buck to a commission to study the problem."

Obama passes the buck:

Feb. 18, 2010: A bipartisan commission on fiscal responsibility and reform came into being Thursday when U.S. President Barack Obama signed an executive order.

And appoints a lobbyist to the commission who's organization gathered $60 million for his election campaign:

Andy Stern has become an influential figure under the new administration after endorsing Obama in the Democratic primary, while the other main axis of Labor's political power, the AFL-CIO (whose political committee is led by AFSCME's Gerald McEntee) endorsed Clinton. SEIU went on to pour millions into Obama's campaign, and the AFL-CIO (now led by President Richard Trumka) went on to back Obama in the general election.

Oddly enough, SEIU actually lobbied against the creation of a bipartisan deficit commission when it was being considered in the Senate.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 May 10 - 12:54 AM

This guy is appointed to a commission on fiscal responsibility?

Andy Stern's debts - SEIU leader swims away while his organization sinks
   
Purple may be the official color of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), but Andy Stern is leaving the union deep in the red. Last week, he surprised the labor community by announcing his resignation as president of SEIU. Mr. Stern has claimed victories in helping pass health care legislation and getting President Obama elected, but his impact within his own organization shows gaping budget deficits and massive underfunding of pensions.

SEIU has seen its liabilities skyrocket during the past decade. The union's liabilities totaled $7,625,832 in 2000. By 2009, they had increased almost by a factor of 16, to $120,893,259. Meanwhile, SEIU's assets barely tripled, growing from $66,632,631 in 2000 to $187,664,763 in 2009. A significant portion of SEIU's current assets are from IOUs from hard-up locals.

SEIU is $85 million in debt, down from its 2008 high of $102 million, and has been forced to lay off employees. Mr. Stern has led protests against Bank of America, calling for the firing of Chief Executive Ken Lewis. Yet the union owes $80 million to Bank of America and $5 million to Amalgamated Bank, which is owned by the rival union Unite-Here.

SEIU's pensions are in even worse shape. Both of SEIU's two national pension plans, the SEIU National Industry Pension Fund and the Pension Plan for Employees of the SEIU, issued critical-status letters last year. The Pension Protection Act requires any pension fund that is funded below 65 percent of what it needs to pay its obligations to inform its beneficiaries of the deficit.

Many SEIU local pension plans are in as bad a shape as the national plans - if not worse. In 2007, well before the financial meltdown, the SEIU Local 32BJ Building Maintenance Contractors Association Pension Plan was funded at an anemic 41 percent, the SEIU 1199 Greater New York Pension Fund at 58 percent, the 32BJ District Building Operators Pension Trust Fund at 56 percent, and the Service Employees 32BJ North Pension Fund at 68 percent.

An underfunded pension plan does not have enough assets to meet its obligations to retirees in the future. Recovery is difficult if plans are significantly underfunded, as is the case with the SEIU plans. The Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp. (PBGC) insures only a portion of promised benefits to retirees in union multiemployer pension plans. If one of those plans goes bankrupt, the PBGC will guarantee only up to $12,870 in benefits.

Do not worry about Mr. Stern and other high-ranking SEIU officials, though. At age 59, he has 37 years of service in the SEIU and is entitled to a full pension and lifetime health benefits. Unlike SEIU's pension plans for rank-and-file members and union employees, SEIU's officer pension plan, the SEIU Affiliates Officers and Employees Pension Plan, was funded at 102 percent in 2007.

While SEIU's pension plans were failing and its liabilities growing, Mr. Stern seemed more concerned with electoral politics than with the internal workings of the union. Indeed, politics can account for much of SEIU's lavish spending in recent years. "We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama - $60.7 million to be exact - and we're proud of it," he boasted to the Las Vegas Sun last year. In all, under Mr. Stern, SEIU spent more than $85 million to elect President Obama and give Democrats control of Congress. What has been Mr. Stern's reward?

It is often said that in politics, personnel is policy. By that measure, SEIU carries considerable weight within the Obama administration. Patrick Gaspard, formerly the executive vice president of politics and legislation for the powerful Local 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, is now the political director at the White House.

Craig Becker, formerly SEIU's associate general counsel and adviser to the ACORN affiliate SEIU 800 in Chicago, is now on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Mr. Obama made a recess appointment of Mr. Becker after he failed to be confirmed by the Senate. This was a significant win for organized labor. Mr. Becker has hinted at having the NLRB enact card check without a vote in Congress.

SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger sits on the Obama administration's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. Mr. Stern himself was appointed by Mr. Obama to its deficit commission. (Mr. Stern has said he will stay in that post after he steps down from SEIU.)

Mr. Stern's abrupt resignation has led many to question his motives and ponder his next steps. Whatever the answer, one thing is certain: He leaves SEIU - especially its pension funds - swimming in red ink. Sadly, it will be the union's rank-and-file members who will be paying for Mr. Stern's profligacy well into the future.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 11 May 10 - 07:32 PM

Zzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 May 10 - 03:27 PM

Former astronauts unhappy with Obama space plan

May 12 02:50 PM US/Eastern
By JIM ABRAMS
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON (AP) - Neil Armstrong and other former astronauts say President Barack Obama's vision of future human space travel will cost the United States its standing as the longtime leader.
Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon, and Eugene Cernan, the last astronaut on the moon, are telling a Senate hearing Wednesday that Obama's decision to alter the Bush administration blueprint for returning to the moon will undermine NASA's manned space program.

Obama told NASA workers last month that he was committed to manned space exploration and foresaw astronauts orbiting Mars by the mid-2030s. But Cernan asserted that Obama was following a "pledge to mediocrity."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 13 May 10 - 12:41 AM

Reduce the deficit! Just as long as you don't cut spending on MY favourite projects!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 13 May 10 - 07:28 AM

The problem with the former austronauts being against Obama's plans is that another group came out the following day supporting the plan...

Seems that's the American way these days... Politics has become like a common light switch when real problems require a reostat...

I mean, there are so many issues that could be dealt with if folks would try to find some common ground... Seems that Obama keeps offering olive branches to the right and getting his hand bit off for the jestures... Time for the right to show a little grace here... But, no... They are intent on only one thing and that is reagining control and with it power so they can go back to the business of deregulation and therefore big checks from the crooks...

And, no, this isn't about who gave $$$ to Obama... It's about who doesn't give $$$ to the party out of power...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 14 May 10 - 12:26 AM

John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar:

"Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction. Some people respected legislators, judges, and lawyers included have viewed the right to have children as a fundamental and inalienable right. Yet neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce. Nor does the UN Charter describe such a right, although a resolution of the United Nations affirms the "right responsibly to choose" the number and spacing of children (our emphasis). In the United States, individuals have a constitutional right to privacy and it has been held that the right to privacy includes the right to choose whether or not to have children, at least to the extent that a woman has a right to choose not to have children. But the right is not unlimited. Where the society has a "compelling, subordinating interest" in regulating population size, the right of the individual may be curtailed. If society's survival depended on having more children, women could he required to bear children, just as men can constitutionally be required to serve in the armed forces. Similarly, given a crisis caused by overpopulation, reasonably necessary laws to control excessive reproduction could be enacted.
    It is often argued that the right to have children is so personal that the government should not regulate it. In an ideal society, no doubt the state should leave family size and composition solely to the desires of the parents. In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children? "

"If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization"

"The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 May 10 - 11:31 AM

From Mother Jones magazine:

"...A bipartisan group from Congress sponsors legislation to strip Americans of their citizenship based on Terrorism accusations. Barack Obama claims the right to assassinate Americans far from any battlefield and with no due process of any kind. The Obama administration begins covertly abandoning long-standing Miranda protections for American suspects by vastly expanding what had long been a very narrow "public safety" exception, and now Eric Holder explicitly advocates legislation to codify that erosion. John McCain and Joe Lieberman introduce legislation to bar all Terrorism suspects, including Americans arrested on U.S. soil, from being tried in civilian courts.

....There is, of course, no moral difference between subjecting citizens and non-citizens to abusive or tyrannical treatment. But as a practical matter, the dangers intensify when the denial of rights is aimed at a government's own population. The ultimate check on any government is its own citizenry; vesting political leaders with oppressive domestic authority uniquely empowers them to avoid accountability and deter dissent.

Aside from war and occupation, governments have far more coercive power against their own citizens than they do against residents of other countries. There are natural limits to what the U.S. government can do, say, to Chinese or French nationals in their own countries. But within the United States itself, the only restrictions on state power are largely legal, and without those legal limitations the federal government has an almost unlimited ability to exercise its coercive authority over anyone it chooses to. This is why the distinction between citizens and non-citizens is so important.

I am, fundamentally, an admirer of Barack Obama. I like his temperament, I like his worldview, and I like his management style. As I've said before, he has a habit of disappointing me just a little bit on an almost routine basis, but most of the time that doesn't interfere with my basic admiration. The one exception has been his attitude toward civil liberties and terrorism. His early ban on torture was profoundly welcome, but aside from that he's mostly continued Bush-era policies with only minor changes and then added to them things that Bush and Cheney could only have dreamed of. In this one area, I feel betrayed.

For a couple of reasons it's funny that I feel this way. First, this is really nothing new. Democrats have been only marginally better than Republicans on these issues for years. The Clinton era was hardly a golden age of civil liberties, after all, and after 9/11 most of Bush's infingements on civil liberties were supported — sometimes publicly, sometimes merely implicitly — by plenty of Democrats. Obama was one of those Democrats while he was a senator, and he's still one of them now.

Second, unlike Glenn, I'm not a hardcore defender of civil liberties in every conceivable circumstance. Global terrorism really does blur the lines between traditional battlefields and domestic policing in ways that are tricky to resolve. Guantanamo and the broader issue of enemy combatants is, as I said several times while Bush was still in office, an excruciatingly difficult one. Even the operation of broad surveillance networks poses some genuinely complicated problems thanks to the technical architecture of modern communications systems.

But as difficult as a lot of these problems are generally, once the U.S. government starts targeting U.S. citizens without warrants or due process, we've crossed a bright line that's dangerously corrosive. That includes the warrantless wiretapping and non-appealable no-fly lists of the Bush administration, and it includes assassinating Americans and removing Miranda protections under the Obama administration. They're outrageous and dangerous transgressions no matter who's doing them, and Obama needs to take a long, deep breath and reconsider how he's handling these issues. In most things, Obama is famous for taking the long view and not letting day-to-day political considerations force his hand. He needs to start doing the same thing here."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 18 May 10 - 12:54 PM

This entire idea of stripping citizens of their citizenship is a slippery slope that could backfire on US... There are legal remedies that would better serve our nation as a nation of laws... The problem is that the right is trying to frame the issue around their mythology that we are less safe if we follow our laws??? The facts do not support those claims as both recent t5errorist suspects talked their heads off after being Marandized...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 May 10 - 06:49 PM

Top political strategist Woody Allen thinks Obama would get much more done as dictator; No, really

May 18, 2010 | 2:22 am



The notorious and formerly funny movie director Woody Allen is apparently frustrated with the cumbersome operations of American democracy too.

The one-time-father-now-husband-of-his-daughter tells the Spanish-language magazine La Vanguardia that the United States' Democratic Smoker-in-Chief could accomplish a whole lot more from his White House if he didn't have so many disorderly, annoying people objecting, distracting and criticizing him all the time.

Such social messiness has been known to occur in functioning democracies, even cinematic ones, although less often on celebrity-strewn movie sets under the direction of a dictatorial director.

"It would be good...if (Obama) could be dictator for a few years because he could do a lot of good things quickly," Allen is quoted as saying.

Allen is also said to have said:

I am pleased with Obama. I think he is brilliant. The Republican Party should get out of his way and stop trying to hurt him.

With healthcare and the economy now fully fixed, no doubt one area in urgent need of sweeping Obama-style reforms would be targeting movie reviewers who write negatively about Hollywood. Or about its politician favorites.


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/05/woody-allen-obama.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 18 May 10 - 07:31 PM

George W. Bush once commented that he'd rather be a dictator... He was trying to make a joke but, hey, I'm sure that he'd given the matter some consideration...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 May 10 - 01:09 AM

It might help at this point to consider possible alternatives to both the Democrats and the Republicans. Consider the American Primate Party. Chongo has been articulating his continually evolving platform for change in anticipation of the 2012 election:

He is running for president again in 2012, but his platform is a little hard to categorize as either Right, Left, or Center. For instance: he's very pro-gun, but he's very anti-war. He would lobby for increased gun ownership amongst the general public and promote opening more firing ranges in communities across the nation to train proper handling of firearms, but he would very rapidly pull the USA out of both Iraq and Afghanistan, and he would shut down Guantanamo...no ifs, ands, or buts about that. He would give the place back to Cuba. He would also give the Panama Canal Zone back to Panama. And he would make sure that people can continue to smoke in American bars if they so desire. He would legalize home cultivation of marijuana for personal use only, but would not allow it to be sold commercially by anyone. He would raise the minimum wage significantly and institute universal health care as has been done long ago in Europe and Canada. He would resume much expanded space exploration and work to put a chimp (or a man) on Mars by 2016. He would put major funding into reforestation efforts in both the USA and abroad, and greatly curtail defence spending. ("We need more trees, not more missiles.") He would act to ban the sale of inflatable dolls of Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton, because "It's disrespectful to women and just downright tacky." He would remove the import tax on bananas.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 19 May 10 - 08:26 AM

Well!!! That's purdy narrow minded of Chongz... I mean, I can understand Hillary dolls but Ms. Sarah dolls, too??? Ain't gonna get elected that way...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 19 May 10 - 10:30 AM

Which kind of dolls does Chongo prefer, then?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 May 10 - 10:47 AM

Chongo is ineligible, first because he is not a citizen; second, because he is a figment of a Canadian imagination; and third because he's fucking Goofy.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 19 May 10 - 10:58 AM

Anatomically correct Goofy dolls? Can you get those at disneystore.com?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 May 10 - 11:17 AM

I thought it was Minnie Mouse who was fucking Goofy?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 May 10 - 12:08 PM

THat's what Chongo would like you to think, LH. No-one wants to discover their own creations engaging in lurid and bestial practices, so he is trying to protect you. Just humor him.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 May 10 - 12:42 PM

LOL!

"No-one wants to discover their own creations engaging in lurid and bestial practices"

Are you quite sure about that, Amos? Remember...Shane engages in lurid and bestial practices.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 May 10 - 02:05 PM

Well, I was trying to be discrete, while nudging you politely, LH into recognizing the sorry truth that all these lurid, bestial practices with which you endow your figments are only projections from your own Higher Self, with whom I think you should have a good heart-to-heart talk...



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 May 10 - 02:21 PM

They are archetypes, Amos, and I find archetypes interesting. Each one is the epitome of a certain type of character. This does not reflect on me particularly, it just shows my enjoyment of the many varieties of human behaviour and possibility that are out there.

Do you really think, for example, that the guy who does the "Garfield" comic strip resembles either the cat, Garfield or his hapless nerdy owner, Jon or the dimwitted dog, Ody? I doubt that he resembles any one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 May 10 - 02:46 PM

IF he had not a dimwitted dog mind within him, how would he know how to draw one?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 May 10 - 06:07 PM

Ah, but each one of us is the sum of all Creation, Amos, waiting to be drawn upon and used. Within us are multitudes. I think that Walt Whitman had something to say about that, didn't he? The thing that prevents most people from accessing so many of the infinite possibilities within them is their own belief that they are limited to a very narrow range of identity.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 May 10 - 07:13 PM

Well, sir, I cannot dispute the profundity of your remarks, even though their texture is suspicious! :D But if, as you say, we are the sum of all Creation, then how do you account for hauling out such ne'er-do-well ragamuffin entities from the depths, if not to expiate your own most disreputable attributes?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 19 May 10 - 08:30 PM

Maybe it's just me but I don't think Walt Whitman dolls will sell all that well...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 May 10 - 10:07 PM

It's entertainment, Amos. Entertainment. People have always been amused and intrigued by disreputable characters, and that is why we find so many of them in stories, comic strips, and dramas.

I find much enjoyment in encountering in fictional story form the kinds of things I have no desire to deal with in real 3-D life. Isn't that true of everyone? Why else would people enjoy watching horror films?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 May 10 - 01:02 PM

The fruits of weakness

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, May 21, 2010

It is perfectly obvious that Iran's latest uranium maneuver, brokered by Brazil and Turkey, is a ruse. Iran retains more than enough enriched uranium to make a bomb. And it continues enriching at an accelerated pace and to a greater purity (20 percent). Which is why the French foreign ministry immediately declared that the trumpeted temporary shipping of some Iranian uranium to Turkey will do nothing to halt Iran's nuclear program.

It will, however, make meaningful sanctions more difficult. America's proposed Security Council resolution is already laughably weak -- no blacklisting of Iran's central bank, no sanctions against Iran's oil and gas industry, no nonconsensual inspections on the high seas. Yet Turkey and Brazil -- both current members of the Security Council -- are so opposed to sanctions that they will not even discuss the resolution. And China will now have a new excuse to weaken it further.

But the deeper meaning of the uranium-export stunt is the brazenness with which Brazil and Turkey gave cover to the mullahs' nuclear ambitions and deliberately undermined U.S. efforts to curb Iran's program.

The real news is that already notorious photo: the president of Brazil, our largest ally in Latin America, and the prime minister of Turkey, for more than half a century the Muslim anchor of NATO, raising hands together with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the most virulently anti-American leader in the world.

That picture -- a defiant, triumphant take-that-Uncle-Sam -- is a crushing verdict on the Obama foreign policy. It demonstrates how rising powers, traditional American allies, having watched this administration in action, have decided that there's no cost in lining up with America's enemies and no profit in lining up with a U.S. president given to apologies and appeasement.

They've watched President Obama's humiliating attempts to appease Iran, as every rejected overture is met with abjectly renewed U.S. negotiating offers. American acquiescence reached such a point that the president was late, hesitant and flaccid in expressing even rhetorical support for democracy demonstrators who were being brutally suppressed and whose call for regime change offered the potential for the most significant U.S. strategic advance in the region in 30 years.

They've watched America acquiesce to Russia's re-exerting sway over Eastern Europe, over Ukraine (pressured by Russia last month into extending for 25 years its lease of the Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol) and over Georgia (Russia's de facto annexation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is no longer an issue under the Obama "reset" policy).

They've watched our appeasement of Syria, Iran's agent in the Arab Levant -- sending our ambassador back to Syria even as it tightens its grip on Lebanon, supplies Hezbollah with Scuds and intensifies its role as the pivot of the Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas alliance. The price for this ostentatious flouting of the United States and its interests? Ever more eager U.S. "engagement."

They've observed the administration's gratuitous slap at Britain over the Falklands, its contemptuous treatment of Israel, its undercutting of the Czech Republic and Poland, and its indifference to Lebanon and Georgia. And in Latin America, they see not just U.S. passivity as Venezuela's Hugo Chávez organizes his anti-American "Bolivarian" coalition while deepening military and commercial ties with Iran and Russia. They saw active U.S. support in Honduras for a pro-Chávez would-be dictator seeking unconstitutional powers in defiance of the democratic institutions of that country.

This is not just an America in decline. This is an America in retreat -- accepting, ratifying and declaring its decline, and inviting rising powers to fill the vacuum.

Nor is this retreat by inadvertence. This is retreat by design and, indeed, on principle. It's the perfect fulfillment of Obama's adopted Third World narrative of American misdeeds, disrespect and domination from which he has come to redeem us and the world. Hence his foundational declaration at the U.N. General Assembly last September that "No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation" (guess who's been the dominant nation for the last two decades?) and his dismissal of any "world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another." (NATO? The West?)

Given Obama's policies and principles, Turkey and Brazil are acting rationally. Why not give cover to Ahmadinejad and his nuclear ambitions? As the United States retreats in the face of Iran, China, Russia and Venezuela, why not hedge your bets? There's nothing to fear from Obama, and everything to gain by ingratiating yourself with America's rising adversaries. After all, they actually believe in helping one's friends and punishing one's enemies.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 21 May 10 - 01:12 PM

If a bear shits in the woods, is it Obama's fault too?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 May 10 - 01:23 PM

mousethief ,

"If a bear shits in the woods, is it Obama's fault too?"



Try reading the post, if you can read...


"That picture -- a defiant, triumphant take-that-Uncle-Sam -- is a crushing verdict on the Obama foreign policy. It demonstrates how rising powers, traditional American allies, having watched this administration in action, have decided that there's no cost in lining up with America's enemies and no profit in lining up with a U.S. president given to apologies and appeasement.

They've watched President Obama's humiliating attempts to appease Iran, as every rejected overture is met with abjectly renewed U.S. negotiating offers. American acquiescence reached such a point that the president was late, hesitant and flaccid in expressing even rhetorical support for democracy demonstrators who were being brutally suppressed and whose call for regime change offered the potential for the most significant U.S. strategic advance in the region in 30 years.

They've watched America acquiesce to Russia's re-exerting sway over Eastern Europe, over Ukraine (pressured by Russia last month into extending for 25 years its lease of the Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol) and over Georgia (Russia's de facto annexation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is no longer an issue under the Obama "reset" policy).

They've watched our appeasement of Syria, Iran's agent in the Arab Levant -- sending our ambassador back to Syria even as it tightens its grip on Lebanon, supplies Hezbollah with Scuds and intensifies its role as the pivot of the Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas alliance. The price for this ostentatious flouting of the United States and its interests? Ever more eager U.S. "engagement."

They've observed the administration's gratuitous slap at Britain over the Falklands, its contemptuous treatment of Israel, its undercutting of the Czech Republic and Poland, and its indifference to Lebanon and Georgia. And in Latin America, they see not just U.S. passivity as Venezuela's Hugo Chávez organizes his anti-American "Bolivarian" coalition while deepening military and commercial ties with Iran and Russia. They saw active U.S. support in Honduras for a pro-Chávez would-be dictator seeking unconstitutional powers in defiance of the democratic institutions of that country.

This is not just an America in decline. This is an America in retreat -- accepting, ratifying and declaring its decline, and inviting rising powers to fill the vacuum. "


A specific listing of how the Obama administration has caused this. If you care to dispute the points, feel free- but your comment is not saying anything other than a comment on your bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 10 - 02:11 PM

Charles Krauthammer, as usual, is being blinded by his own intransigent reactionary blind spots. He confuses negotiation with appeasement. As such he casts the whole picture in to a distorted color of hate, which is his own projection.

If he limited himself to facts and clearly stated opinions, hemight have something intelligent to offer, but he is addicted to the sound of his own hate-filled rhetoric.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 May 10 - 02:18 PM

America's real enemy, Bearded Bruce, is its own grandiose imperial ambitions, its own corrupt government and financial systems, and its own dramatic social and moral decline...not the various smaller countries around the world that it invades, persecutes, and exploits.

If Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon, they have every reason for doing so. The possession of a few nuclear weapons and a means to effectively launch them is the only possible way they could prevent America from someday doing to them what it did very recently to both Iraq and Afghanistan.

America is the aggressor in this scenario, not Iran. Like the millions of ordinary Germans and Japanese who patriotically supported their countries' grandiose imperial efforts in the 40s, you just don't get it, because you can only see the situation in terms of your own national viewpoint...and you imagine that your nation is under threat. Your nation is the one doing the threatening and launching the invasions. Your nation. Not Iran or Iraq or Afghanistan.

You are not the injured party. They are. A few of your people die in the wars your government has planned and chosen. Tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of their people die, are maimed, lose their homes and loved ones, see their socieities demolished, and suffer foreign occupation. They are the victims of your government's imperial policies.

You're living under an Orwellian system, BB, like in 1984, and you're cheering for Big Brother, and you don't know it.

As for Obama, he's what all presidents are. He's a front man, mostly just a puppet on strings. He is not the Big Brother you're unwittingly cheering for, he is the face that Big Brother puts on your TV screen to occupy your attention, that's all, and he's just temporary. Big Brother is many people...many rich people at the top of the corporate and banking chain...and you don't get to vote them either in or out of office. They are in power for life. You get to vote for the ephemeral front men they market to you in your bogus elections, and it doesn't change much of anything, but it sure works great to keep you divided against each other and distracted, doesn't it?

If they can keep you all fighting with each other over partisan viewpoints, then they have you exactly where they want you: under control.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 May 10 - 02:32 PM

Amos,

Again, you attack the person rather than the points presented. This indicates that you agree with those points, or at the least cannot find fault with them.


LH,

"The possession of a few nuclear weapons and a means to effectively launch them is the only possible way they could prevent America... "

I disagree with this statement: The danger is increased, because they are seen as a threat ( by giving that weapon to unstable terrorists who have already attacked the US) and thus need to be neutralized BEFORE the weapon can be used. Unfortunately, by not taking effective steps toward stopping Iran, Obama has created a situation which leads directly towards another World War, with nuclear weapons being used on both sides.

But it WILL reduce oil production ( and oil usage, and human population): So I guess he succeeds in reducing anthropologic CO2.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 May 10 - 02:43 PM

QAmos,

"but he is addicted to the sound of his own hate-filled rhetoric."


And YOU dare state this, after the anti-Bush threads?


SHAME.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 May 10 - 02:52 PM

The person??? I'm not attacking a person in my remarks, BB, I'm criticizing your nation's foreign policy, and the way your nation is run.

I fully understand your line of reasoning about the possible danger of Iran supplying nuclear weapons to terrorists, but I think it's a side-issue. It's analogous to Hitler complaining that the French Resistance are committing antisocial acts by blowing up trains, and that they might one day do it in Berlin! ;-) True, they are blowing up trains! But why? Well, because the Germans invaded and occupied France, that's why. You must expect violent resistance, BB, when you put in place imperial policies that dominate, terrorize, and oppress entire populations and rob people of their land and sovereignty. (I am referring to the robbery of land belonging to the Palestinians and other Muslim people in that region.)

What you don't seem to get, BB, is that the military forces of the USA, the UK, and Israel ARE terrorists in the view of all those they invade and dominate and occupy. The people you support are far bigger and more effective terrorists than the terrorists you are worried about.

This was also true of the Germans in WWII. They were terrorists...but they didn't see it that way at all. No one sees himself as a terrorist. The people they saw as terrorists were the French Resistance, the Polish resistance, the Greek Resistance, the Jews who rose up in the Warsaw Ghetto, the Russian Partisans, Communists, basically anyone who resisted the dictates of the Reich.

And that's how you see it. America, the UK, and Israel are the people holding the whip in this scenario, BB. They are the people with military supremacy who are invading and occupying...and they are facing resistance to their imperial policies.

It is extremely disingenous to imagine that terrorism is occuring on only one side of these conflicts, that is, the Muslim side....

Terrorism IS the primary means employed by the political side you are backing. Since the USA and the UK and Israel are well-armed enough to do terror with their modern armies and modern weapons, that's how they do it. Just like all conquering empires. Terror is the order of the day if you are set upon imperial conquest. The so-called War Against Terror is a gigantic exercise in terrorism...against Muslim populations in the various targeted regions.

Iran is the nation under direct threat, and they know it. Therefore they want to protect themselves and deter an attack. Why would they NOT want to do that? They'd have to be downright stupid not to be looking for a way to effectively defend themselves, given the political climate in that region, and America's and Israel's general attitude towards them.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 May 10 - 03:04 PM

Excuse me, BB...I see that it was Amos of whom you were saying that he was attacking the person (meaning Krauthammer).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 May 10 - 03:18 PM

LH,

You are excused. Note I am NOT commenting ( either way) about your comments, save the one I quoted.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 21 May 10 - 03:19 PM

Try reading the post, if you can read...

If I can't read how can I have read enough to know Krautheimer was up to his usual bullshit?

You really need a break, I think. You're getting stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 May 10 - 03:24 PM

Mousecrook,

Again, you attack the person rather than the points presented. This indicates that you agree with those points, or at the least cannot find fault with them.



You obviously did not read beyond his name, or you would have seen the part I reprinted. Again, you show your bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 10 - 04:15 PM

Again, you attack the person rather than the points presented. This indicates that you agree with those points, or at the least cannot find fault with them.


This is a blatant falsehood, sir, and you know better.

Krauthammer's "points" are indiscernible because he makes them with vapid vitriolic turns of phrase such that his actual fact-based point of view--if he even has one--is not readily discernible.

Seems to me he does not want to communicate what he actually sees, but his writhing hatred.

I am not going to camouflage this by trying to unbury any actual points in that sewer, thanks.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 May 10 - 04:18 PM

Amos, Amos, Amos...


" "points" are indiscernible because he makes them with vapid vitriolic turns of phrase such that his actual fact-based point of view--if he even has one--is not readily discernible.

Seems to me he does not want to communicate what he actually sees, but his writhing hatred."




And you wanted US to think about what YOU have posted in those anti-Bush threrads? I fail to see any difference between what you complain about him doing, and what you did.

He DID make statements, albeit with commentary simialar to what YOU posted. Please address his points, and stop attacking him, or concede that you have no disagreement with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 10 - 07:07 PM

Stop trying to suck me in to your anger, Bruce. I am not going there.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 May 10 - 07:17 PM

Amos,

When you have apologized for sucking US into your anger at Bush, you may then request me to stop.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 21 May 10 - 08:27 PM

Try reading the post, if you can read...

is not attacking the person? Fucking hypocrite.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 May 10 - 08:30 PM

Sorry, I should only question your comprehension...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 21 May 10 - 11:06 PM

Fucking hypocrite.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 10 - 11:47 PM

You don't get to rule my communications, BB. My anger at Bush was clearly delineated and appropriate to the circumstances. Bush was not trying very hard to improve conditions.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 May 10 - 12:08 PM

WEST POINT, N.Y. -- President Obama on Saturday offered a glimpse of a new national security doctrine that distances his administration from George W. Bush's policy of preemptive war, emphasizing global institutions and America's role in promoting democratic values.

In a commencement speech to the graduating class at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, the president outlined his departure from what Bush had called a "distinctly American internationalism." Instead, Obama pledged to shape a new "international order" based on diplomacy and engagement.

Obama has spoken frequently about creating new alliances, and of attempts to repair the U.S. image abroad after nearly a decade in which Bush's approach was viewed with suspicion in many quarters.

Unlike Bush, who traveled to West Point in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to announce his American-centered approach to security, Obama on Saturday emphasized his belief in the power of those alliances.

"Yes, we are clear-eyed about the shortfalls of our international system. But America has not succeeded by stepping outside the currents of international cooperation," he said. "We have succeeded by steering those currents in the direction of liberty and justice -- so nations thrive by meeting their responsibilities, and face consequences when they don't."

In his speech -- the ninth wartime commencement in a row -- the commander in chief, who is leading two foreign wars, expressed his faith in cooperation to confront economic, military and environmental crises.

"The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times," he said in prepared remarks. "Countering violent extremism and insurgency; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; preventing conflict and healing its wounds."...

(Washington Post)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 23 May 10 - 12:49 PM

I've been reading Charles Krauthammer's stuff for years and also seen him on TV and what is evodent is that he is a very paranoid person... He is also very arrogant... These are observations and not attacks... Charles has a very narrow view of the world and sees people as inherently evil, his own government (unless it is run by Republicans) as dangerous... Again, not attacks... Just observations...

I think if he were in charge he would do what alot of rather ignorant people think we (the US) should do and that nuke about half the earth... He would nuke Iran in a heartbeat... I mean, seriously nuke them... The fact that in doing so we would kill more people in a matter of 5 minutes than Hitler's boys did in 5 years does not enter into Charles's thinking...

Again, this is not meant as an attack... Just observations...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 May 10 - 12:59 PM

Everybody's political viewpoint seems to essentially revolve around defining who the "bad guys" are and who the "good guys" are....and how to go about defending oneself against "the bad guys", who are always "the other guys". ;-) It is considered quite justifiable to commit mass murder on "bad guys"...

It's a universal form of dementia, and it leads to war, war being an exercise in which you attempt to kill the other side's "good guys" because you think they are the "bad guys", which happens to be exactly what they think about you too.

Krauthammer is, I think, a lot deeper into that form of dementia than the average person, and that makes him quite noticeable.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 23 May 10 - 09:14 PM

Republican mantra: "Government is the problem, not the solution. Put us in charge of it."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 May 10 - 09:45 PM

That's just superficial bla-bla to entice naive conservative voters into going to the polls and voting Republican. It bears utterly no resemblance to what will actually occur when the people who utter that nonsense get elected.

The Democrats have their own set of superficial bla-bla too, of course, but it's a bit different. ;-) They pretend that they will help out minority groups and poor people, end unpopular wars, close prison camps, end torture, and other stuff like that. Why? Oh, to entice naive "liberal" voters into going to the polls and voting Democratic, of course...most of which bears utterly no resemblance to what will actually occur when they get elected.

And they BOTH pretend that they will lower taxes for most Americans.

Two rotten parties. Two sets of lies and propaganda. One bought government.

Oh, by the way.... 2000!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 May 10 - 10:07 PM

Your number is good, but your cynicism is a jade too far, LH.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 May 10 - 10:15 PM

"Charles Krauthammer's stuff for years and also seen him on TV and what is evodent is that he is a very paranoid person... He is also very arrogant... Charles has a very narrow view of the world and sees people as inherently evil..."

             It seems to me like Krauthammer judges the merits of everything on the basis of what is, or what is not good for Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 23 May 10 - 10:20 PM

That too, Rigs... I can't deny that he does trend more toward nukin' Arabs and Moslims...

Yo, mouse... You hit it on the head... The Repubs do run to be "the government" on an anti-government platform???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 May 10 - 11:01 PM

Well, yes, I am terribly cynical about the two deeply corrupt political parties that dominate your country, Amos. But that doesn't mean I see no difference between them. I think the Republicans are generally the worse of the two by a fairly significant margin.

Still, it's like having to choose between Al Capone and Albert Anastasia or Dutch Schulz and Lucky Luciano. Not a very pleasant situation no matter what you do. ;-)

It's sort of like that in Canada too...but on a much milder and less dangerous level, thankfully. (Our political parties are all phony baloney too.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 23 May 10 - 11:34 PM

Sadly, given our system and the way it's set up, short of actual revolution (avert!) we're stuck with one or the other of them in power. Our best bet is to have a mixed government, with one party in the white house and the other in control of congress, or better yet one party controlling the Senate and the other the House.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 24 May 10 - 07:13 AM

Yeah, mouse... A true third party would shake things up and get folks workin' on a fix... I liked the genenarl idea of the LibDems and Conservative in the UK forging a coilition... If I understand it correctly, what the LibDem wanted and may get is representation equal to their share of the votes... What a novel concept!!! You know, representative government...

Yes, that is the way out for US... I mean, if we were to have representative government then I could see Congress as something like this:

Dems 30%
Repubs 30%
Tea Party 15%
Green Party 15%
The Wacko Party 5%
The Even Wackier Party 5%

Hey, now ***that*** would be a Congress where some compromises would have to be made... And the first on I would like would be abolishing the undemocratic fillibuster rule and the "secret hold"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 May 10 - 09:33 AM

What we have had in Canada during my lifetime is a 3-Party to 5-Party system with 2 large parties that trade power back and forth between them periodically, a 3rd party that is a significant player, and now and then a 4rth party that is also a significant player. This has led to a number of "minority" governments where the party in power (one of the 2 big ones) had to share power with the smaller parties in what was effectively a coalition.

A coalition means that more points of view are considered than just one, and it has almost always resulted in more progressive legislation and better government.

Majority governments, on the other hand, are positioned to act as virtual dictatorships until the next election, and that's exactly what they tend to do, because no one can prevent them from doing so. A majority government is an arrogant structure that does whatever the hell it wants to, but a coalition government (minority rule) must share power and decision-making.

What I would prefer to see would be an abolition of political parties altogether, all candidates to represent only themselves and their own point of view, but not beholden to any party structure. A government of such independent individuals, once elected, would form a national legislature. They would sit as a united body, not be divided up into pre-arranged power blocs that are set against each other. They would have to discuss issues as individuals not as members of a party (political gang). Each individual would have his or her own opinion, and express it.

If necessary, a chief executive could be chosen by vote from among those seated members...or by a runoff election by the public. Whichever.

At any rate, I think it would result in a far more sensible government than one that is divided up by competing political parties.

And one last thing: to pass, a piece of legislation would require a 2/3 vote of approval, NOT a bare majority of over 50%.

It would be a lot harder for vested interests to control the politicians in such a legislature than it is in the present party-dominated system...because they wouldn't have ruling party structures in place to control the seated members. They'd have to work on each legislator as a free-thinking individual who represents no one but himself and his constituents.

And if you think about it, that's what the USA had as a government when it began in the revolutionary era. They began without any political parties, and had a legislature of free individuals....and it worked. As it naturally does. The evolution of powerful political parties has, in my opinion, virtually destroyed the democratic form of government, and it has ruined the republic.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 May 10 - 10:26 AM

"Yes, that is the way out for US... I mean, if we were to have representative government then I could see Congress as something like this:

Dems 30%
Repubs 30%
Tea Party 15%
Green Party 15%
The Wacko Party 5%
The Even Wackier Party 5%"




Now THAT I can agree with! Then we might get fewer "Pass it before we tell you what it says" bills.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 May 10 - 10:38 AM

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

Monday, May 24, 2010 Email to a Friend ShareThisAdvertisement
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -18 (see trends).

Following passage of health care, enthusiasm for the president among Democrats soared. Today, however, just 49% of Democrats Strongly Approve of Obama's performance. That's down from a high of 65%. It remains to be seen whether this is a temporary aberration or the beginning of a lasting change.

Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters nationwide favor repeal of the health care law. That's the highest level of support for repeal yet measured.

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, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-four percent (55%) disapprove. The Rasmussen Reports Media Meter shows that media coverage of the President has been 51% positive over the past week.

Just 27% are even somewhat confident that Congress knows what it's doing when addressing that nation's economic challenges. That figure includes only 6% who are Very Confident that Congress knows what it's doing.

Most Americans have "come to believe that the political system is broken, that most politicians are corrupt, and that neither major political party has the answers," observes Scott Rasmussen. Forty-one percent (41%) of voters say that a group of people randomly selected from the phone book would do a better job than the current Congress. In his new book, Scott adds, "Some of us are ready to give up and some of us are ready to scream a little louder. But all of us believe we can do better." In Search of Self-Governance is available at Rasmussen Reports and Amazon.com.

more at:

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 May 10 - 10:40 AM

Published 15:36 24.05.10 Latest update 15:36 24.05.10
Syria: Obama has failed in peace efforts and lost influence in Mideast

Assad's comments come as Obama set to meet with Lebanon PM to raise concerns about alleged Syria-Hezbollah Scud transfer.
By News Agencies

Syrian President Bashar Assad said Monday that the United States has lost its influence in the Middle East due to its failure to contribute to regional peace, in an interview with the Italian newspaper La Repubblica.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 May 10 - 10:45 AM

Real Clear Politics shows otherwise. It includes the Rasmussen poll which our snarly friend has cherry-picked (or bottom-trawled):

RCP Average 5/6 - 5/23 -- 47.9 46.4 +1.5
Rasmussen Reports 5/21 - 5/23 1500 LV 44 55 -11
Gallup 5/19 - 5/22 1547 A 48 45 +3
FOX News 5/18 - 5/19 900 RV 45 46 -1
Associated Press/GfK 5/7 - 5/11 1002 A 49 50 -1
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 5/6 - 5/10 1000 A 50 44 +6
Pew Research 5/6 - 5/9 994 A 47 42 +5
Ipsos/McClatchy 5/6 - 5/9 1016 A 52 43 +9

This shows the national average is 47.9 approval vs 46.4 disapproval and shows further that the real picture is very different than the dark fetid corner of the dungeon from which our snarly friend ferrets out his worm-eaten information.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 May 10 - 10:47 AM

"the dark fetid corner of the dungeon from which our snarly friend ferrets out his worm-eaten information."


So THAT's where Amos has been hiding! the rest of us had no idea...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 May 10 - 11:25 AM

Gentlemen: Ahem! If you could escape from the mental prison of your partisan assumptions...that is, your instinctive loyalties to either the Democrats or the Republicans...and see the political situation without your thoughts colored by prior partisan prejudice...

Ah! If only. It is the only way out of your political impasse.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 May 10 - 02:32 PM

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 24% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-four percent (44%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20 (see trends).

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, 42% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. That is the lowest level of approval yet measured for this president. Fifty-six percent (56%) now disapprove of his performance.

Forty-four percent (44%) say the president is doing a good or excellent job on national security issues while 39% give him such positive marks on the economy. See other measures of the president's performance at Obama By the Numbers. Thirty-four percent (34%) say the president is doing a good job handling the Gulf oil spill while 33% give him poor grades on that topic.

Most Americans have "come to believe that the political system is broken, that most politicians are corrupt, and that neither major political party has the answers," observes Scott Rasmussen. Just 27% believe Congress knows what it's doing when it comes to the economy and 41% say that a group of people randomly selected from the phone book would do a better job than the current Congress. In his new book, Scott adds, "Some of us are ready to give up and some of us are ready to scream a little louder. But all of us believe we can do better."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 May 10 - 02:33 PM

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 May 10 - 02:56 PM

You should see Chongo's daily popularity tracking poll, BB. "Up and down like a whore's panties on payday" would be the expression that best sums it up. One day he's "king of the world". The next day he's in the doghouse.

It keeps his life from getting dull, though. ;=)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 May 10 - 04:03 PM

Bruce:

When you know perfectly well that Rasmussen's poll is one among a dozen, and consistently the most negative one as regards Obama, it is disingeuous to keep referring to it as if it were a fair cross section.

Real Clear Politics provides the average of all major pollsa, and is a more reliable indication of where things stand.

Why pretend?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 May 10 - 04:23 PM

Amos,

"When you know perfectly well that Rasmussen's poll is one among a dozen, and consistently the most negative one as regards Obama, it is disingeuous to keep referring to it as if it were a fair cross section."


Yet YOU insisted on posting only NYT articles,and anti-bush polls, and pretended they represented more than a biased, anti-Bush view. So I see that you have no room to complain, nor do you deserve to have your wishes respected.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 25 May 10 - 05:09 PM

Bruce

So you're saying two wrongs make a right? WTF?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 May 10 - 06:20 PM

Bruce:

Please grow up, man.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 May 10 - 06:33 PM

Mousecrook,

No, I am saying that if it ok for Amops, I reserve the right to do the samne as he did.


NOBODY complained ( save me) when Amos did it, so it must be OK.


Amos,

After you- you have a few years on me, so I will follow your sterling example(s).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 May 10 - 06:48 PM

Oh, now I see. If it is anti-Bush, it is ok- when it is criutical of Obama, it is not allowed.

I guess we can call this affirmative action, and not hold Obama to the standards we would hold Bush to...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 May 10 - 06:52 PM

I dunno, Bruce. Maybe there are important differences between the two cases, and your insistence they are just the same is specious rationalization on your part.

Bush's legacy was utterly destructive, with a few minor exceptions.

Obama's not so much.

If you think I set such a bad example, why are you so bitterly determined to emulate it?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 May 10 - 06:58 PM

Date        Sample        Approve        Disapprove        Spread
RCP Average        5/6 - 5/24        --        47.6        46.4         +1.2

This is the average of eight major polls including your cherry picked one.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 May 10 - 07:06 PM

You obviously set the correct example, with Bush-( according to all you have said) SO WHY CAN'T YOU apply the same rules to Obama? Do you really think him so incompetant that he cannot be judged by the same critical view that YOU used on Bush???


If BUSH was doing what OBAMA is now, YOU would be screaming. Why does Obama get such tender treatment, unless you think him lesser and incapable???

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 25 May 10 - 07:37 PM

I think polls should be banned from Mudcat... They waste bandwidth, 'er whatever this stuff is???

And, bb, I loved the Amos typo, "Amops"...

Yo, Amops... Whaddyathink??? I think it's kinda cool...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 May 10 - 07:40 PM

I have NEVER claimed to be a great typist..

Sorry you can't get into town this Sat. Should be a good evening...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 25 May 10 - 09:06 PM

No, I am saying that if it ok for Amops, I reserve the right to do the samne as he did.

Or, in short, two wrongs make a right. Just clarifying.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 May 10 - 09:33 PM

Amos claimed it was ok for him- so therefore to claim it otherwise, argue with him.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 May 10 - 10:14 PM

Bruce,

I really do want to apologize if my collection of quotes about Bush upset you or seemed biased. I allow as how your support of him upset me, likewise.

But please stop blaming your bad behavior on me.

It isn't true. You know that.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 25 May 10 - 10:46 PM

Amos claimed it was ok for him- so therefore to claim it otherwise, argue with him.

And you claim it's wrong, and you think it's okay for you because it's okay for Amos.

In other words, two wrongs make a right.

This is like pulling teeth.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 May 10 - 11:14 AM

So Amos WAS wrong???

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 May 10 - 11:14 AM

Sestak White House scandal called 'impeachable offense'

'It's Valerie Plame, only bigger, a high crime and misdemeanor'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 25, 2010
8:45 pm Eastern


By Drew Zahn
© 2010 WorldNetDaily



If a Democratic member of Congress is to be believed, there's someone in the Obama administration who has committed a crime – and if the president knew about it, analysts say it could be grounds for impeachment.

"This scandal could be enormous," said Dick Morris, a former White House adviser to President Bill Clinton, on the Fox News Sean Hannity show last night. "It's Valerie Plame only 10 times bigger, because it's illegal and Joe Sestak is either lying or the White House committed a crime.

"Obviously, the offer of a significant job in the White House could not be made unless it was by Rahm Emanuel or cleared with Rahm Emanuel," he said. If the job offer was high enough that it also had Obama's apppoval, "that is a high crime and misdemeanor."

"In other words, an impeachable offense?" Hannity asked.

Aaron Klein's exposé of Barack Obama's notorious connections with extremists and America-haters is scorching the best-seller lists. Order your autographed copy of "The Manchurian President" today.

"Absolutely," said Morris.

The controversy revolves around an oft-repeated statement by Rep. Sestak, D-Pa., that he had been offered a job by the Obama administration in exchange for dropping out of the senatorial primary against Obama supporter Sen. Arlen Specter.

Sestak said he refused the offer. He continued in the Senate primary and defeated Specter for the Democratic nomination.

But Karl Rove, longtime White House adviser to President George W. Bush, said the charge is explosive because of federal law.

"This is a pretty extraordinary charge: 'They tried to bribe me out of the race by offering me a job,'" he said on Greta Van Susteran's "On the Record" program on the Fox News Channel. "Look, that's a violation of the federal code: 18 USC 600 says that a federal official cannot promise employment, a job in the federal government, in return for a political act.

"Somebody violated the law. If Sestak is telling the truth, somebody violated the law," Rove said. "Section 18 USC 211 says you cannot accept anything of value in return for hiring somebody. Well, arguably, providing a clear path to the nomination for a fellow Democrat is something of value.

He continued, citing a third law passage: "18 USC 595, which prohibits a federal official from interfering with the nomination or election for office. ... 'If you'll get out, we'll appoint you to a federal office,' – that's a violation of the law."

Staffers with Sestak's congressional office did not respond to WND requests for comment. But the congressman repeatedly confirmed that he was offered the position and refused and that any further comments would have to come from someone else.

"I've said all I'm going to say on the matter. … Others need to explain whatever their role might be," Sestak said on CNN this week. "I have a personal accountability; I should have for my role in the matter, which I talked about. Beyond that, I'll let others talk about their role."

That's not fulfilling his responsibilities, Rove said. He said Sestak needs to be forthcoming with the full story so "the American people can figure out whether or not he's participating in a criminal cover-up along with federal officials."

The Obama White House has tried to minimize the issue.

"Lawyers in the White House and others have looked into conversations that were had with Congressman Sestak, and nothing inappropriate happened," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has stated.

Gibbs told the White House press corps, "Whatever conversations have been had are not problematic."

And on CBS' "Face the Nation" he said, "I'm not going to get further into what the conversations were. People who looked into them assure me they weren't inappropriate in any way."

But the administration also is taking no chances on what might be discovered.

According to Politico, the Justice Department has rejected a request from Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., for a special counsel to investigate and reveal the truth of the controversy.

The report said Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich confirmed no special counsel would be needed. But the report said Weich also gave no indication that the Justice Department actually was looking into the claims by Sestak.

"We assure you that the Department of Justice takes very seriously allegations of criminal conduct by public officials. All such matters are reviewed carefully by career prosecutors and law enforcement agents, and appropriate action, if warranted, is taken," Weich wrote in the letter.

Issa had suggested that the alleged job offer may run afoul of federal bribery statutes.

He said in a statement to Politico, "The attorney general's refusal to take action in the face of such felonious allegations undermines any claim to transparency and integrity that this administration asserts."

He's also made a decision to raise the profile of his concerns.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 10 - 11:36 AM

You assume there islying going on in the Obama administration. Why does this seem more probable to you than that Sestak himself is lying?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 May 10 - 11:39 AM

I suppose that there are some people- out of delusion, ignorance or sheer bloody-mindedness- that are simply unable to admit to themselves or others that the economic, social, and international shithole the U.S.is currently in in was created by the BuShites (the foundation being laid by Ron Reagan, of course)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 May 10 - 11:46 AM

But the DemiCraps own it now- and have to take responsibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 26 May 10 - 12:42 PM

So Amos WAS wrong???

You didn't read what I said. I said YOU believe that Amos was wrong, and YOU believe it's okay to do what he did because he did it. Therefore YOU believe two wrongs make a right.

This is like pulling fully impacted teeth without tools.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 May 10 - 02:38 PM

"I said YOU believe that Amos was wrong, and YOU believe it's okay to do what he did because he did it. "

How do you know what I believe?



If Amos tells me it is ok, then I have to defer to his judgement- and will complain any time he THEN tells me that what HE did is not allowed by anyone who disagrees with him.

Capish?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 10 - 02:40 PM

Bruce, knock it off. You are embarassing yourself. Furthermore there is a big difference in the kinds of articles I mostly collected on Bush's various malfeasances and thekind of crap being put out by people like Charles Krautsucker.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 May 10 - 03:13 PM

" Furthermore there is a big difference in the kinds of articles I mostly collected ..."

They were by Liberal blowhards rather than by Conservative ones?

Hardly a reason to give them greater credence.

You are embarassing yourself trying to justify your own postings in light of your complaints about mine.

Either BOTH are appropriate, or NEITHER. You get no other choices.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 26 May 10 - 04:36 PM

How do you know what I believe?

Because you told me.

I am saying that if it ok for Amops, I reserve the right to do the samne as he did.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 26 May 10 - 05:47 PM

Yeah, it can't be argued anyother way but to say that the Dems are "responsible" for the mess that Bush left for them to clean up... That goes with the the territory of being the party in power... Yes, you are "responsible"...

However, there is a major difference between "responsible" and "responsible for...

BTW, word on the street is that the Repubs are lookin' for some issues to stand for in the Noevmeber elections and have set up a website to try to get some ideas??? Hmmmmm??? If they don't have any now then exactly why is it that they want to govern again???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 10 - 10:47 PM

Where IS this street you keep talkin' about, Bobert?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 10 - 11:25 PM

This is unfortunately a false dichotomy, Bruce. I am not your justification for your own bad conduct. Suck it up, man. Own what you are doing and stop pretending it is someone else's fault. It's puerile, and you know it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 May 10 - 05:26 PM

WashPo, By Jonathan Capehart | May 27, 2010; 2:30 PM ET

"Obama didn't know MMS chief resigned?!

Let me get this straight. President Obama didn't known whether Elizabeth Birnbaum, the once invisible and now former head of the Minerals Management Service, was fired or whether she resigned? The news broke she was leaving an hour or so before he strode into the East Room of the White House. When a disaster such as the BP explosion happens and the subsequent catastrophe ensues, folks want to see heads roll and want to know the president wielded the ax. That's why Obama's admission that he was clueless on this question was shocking.

Perhaps he was being polite. Not wanting to draw attention to the sacking of an individual the American people didn't realize was even there. But by not proactively announcing Birnbaum's departure and then being caught flat-footed on what happened to her, Obama will fuel the narrative that he is a cool chief executive who is not only aloof but also unaware of the machinations of his own administration.

"The federal government is fully engaged," the president said at the conclusion of the press conference. "I am fully engaged." His ignorance of what happened to the MMS chief undercuts that assertion. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 May 10 - 05:27 PM

"Obama accepts ownership of BP oil spill

Obama didn't take control of the effort to cap and clean up BP's Deepwater Horizon oil spill at today's news conference. He took ownership.

Despite what you might have heard, the president insisted, he's always been in charge: "This notion that the federal government has been sitting on the sidelines and for the last three or four or five weeks, we've just been letting BP make a whole bunch of the decisions, it's simply not true."

While certain members of his administration have tried to rhetorically separate themselves from BP, saying that the government might push BP out of the way, whatever that would mean, Obama refused to indulge in BP bashing. He consistently used the word "we" when describing the government and BP's joint effort. He explained that the government is, by law, in command. But, by law and by necessity, it must rely on BP to provide technological expertise and to stanch the flow of oil. It must have been hard to both accept blame and admit his limitations.

The government has a greater capability to protect sensitive coastline than it does to cap the well, however. So from here on out, this is the president's show. And he admits it. "My job is to get this fixed.... I take responsibility. It is my job to make sure that everything is done."
"
WashPo,
By Stephen Stromberg | May 27, 2010; 2:35 PM ET

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 27 May 10 - 06:43 PM

Word on the street is that if the procedure that BP is doing now doesn't work that Obama is going to suit up in diving gear and take a big plug down there and plug the well himself... That's the way I heard it, anyway...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 May 10 - 06:44 PM

It is kind of typical of this kind of anger-mongering reactionary writer takes an opinion from an earlier article in the same paper--not a fact but an opinion-- that "Obama appeared not to know she had resigned"--and turns it from an opinion into a fact, and then proceeds to build a huge opinionated diatribe on top of it. It is shameful to see column inches being given to such shallow thinking.

I would also remark that Obama's attitude and conduct concerning the oil spill sure beats "Heckuva Job, Brownie" by a country mile.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 27 May 10 - 07:14 PM

Amos-
"It is kind of typical of this kind of anger-mongering reactionary writer takes an opinion from an earlier article in the same paper--not a fact but an opinion-- that "Obama appeared not to know she had resigned"--and turns it from an opinion into a fact, and then proceeds to build a huge opinionated diatribe on top of it. "

........
"But at his news conference Thursday, President Barack Obama said he didn't know exactly how or why Liz Birnbaum departed, or whether she was fired. "I don't yet know the circumstances," he said. "

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37863.html#ixzz0pAsSzsvL
..........................................


Tell me again about "It is shameful to see column inches being given to such shallow thinking."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 May 10 - 07:55 PM

Amos,

Are you now claiming that Obama's statements of what he knows are just opinion, and not fact?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 May 10 - 07:58 PM

"That's why Obama's admission that he was clueless on this question was shocking. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 10 - 08:40 PM

Word on the roof is, the maple seeds taste great! (this report just in from my Red Squirrels...)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 27 May 10 - 08:46 PM

You got some bad reportin', LH... Maple seeds are so bad that even squirrels pass 'um up... Oh, that's right... These are red, as in commie, squirrels... Yeah, commie squirrels will eat anything and say it's good...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 27 May 10 - 09:21 PM

Obama admits he made a mistake -- WHILE STILL IN OFFICE. When did Bush do that? It's nice to have a real human being as president rather than a puppet.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 27 May 10 - 09:49 PM

Not only that, mouse, but at least one head has rolled so far... That never happend with Bush...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 May 10 - 10:45 PM

Bruce:

Sorry, I was reading the earlier WaPo piece in which the quote was "He appeared not to know...". Thank you SO much for correcting my misapprehension.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 10 - 11:03 PM

Whaddya mean, maple seeds are bad, Bobert??? The chimpmunks here seem to love them. Word on the back lawn is you don't know squat about maple seeds. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 May 10 - 01:46 PM

Carville rolls Obama under da bus

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 May 10 - 03:59 PM

Obama's Katrina? NPR

As a thick blanket of ugly crude flows onto beaches and into sensitive marshes in Louisiana, the president and his administration find themselves in deepening water in Washington. While patience with BP wears thin, the White House continues to rely on the oil giant to stop the gusher in the Gulf of Mexico and clean up the mess it's created. Why, critics ask, when BP has already failed repeatedly?

Meanwhile, state and local officials complain bitterly that the federal government's been too slow to send the equipment needed to contain the gigantic spill and too bureaucratic to quickly approve the alternate methods needed to protect the coastline.

Then there are questions about the scandal-ridden federal agency that might have prevented this disaster in the first place. More and more people ask: Is this Obama's Katrina? .....


Yer doin' a good job, Barry.

Section 311 of the federal Clean Water Act:
  
   (A) If a discharge, or a substantial threat of a discharge, of oil or a hazardous substance from a vessel, offshore facility, or onshore facility is of such a size or character as to be a substantial threat to the public health or welfare of the United States (including but not limited to fish, shellfish, wildlife, other natural resources, and the public and private beaches and shorelines of the United States), the President shall direct all Federal, State, and private actions to remove the discharge or to mitigate or prevent the threat of the discharge.
   (B) In carrying out this paragraph, the President may, without regard to any other provision of law governing contracting procedures or employment of personnel by the Federal Government--
     (i) remove or arrange for the removal of the discharge, or mitigate or prevent the substantial threat of the discharge; and
     (ii) remove and, if necessary, destroy a vessel discharging, or threatening to discharge, by whatever means are available.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 May 10 - 04:12 PM

Sawz:

You and BB really deserve each other, being of so kindred a turn of mind.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 May 10 - 04:20 PM

Amos,

What, you mean expecting a Black Democratic president to be judged the same way that you judged a Republican president? I guess that is asking too much...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 May 10 - 04:48 PM

"Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate...
From: Bobert - PM
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 10:52 PM
....
Don't matter if Bush likes the DHS or not... He is the CEO and this was part of his job description and he blew it!!!!

....."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 May 10 - 04:52 PM

"Mary Landrieu: President Obama will pay politically for spill

The La. senator says the president will pay a political price his lack of visibility in the Gulf region during the catastrophic BP oil spill.
AP


Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) said Thursday that President Barack Obama will pay a political price for his lack of visibility in the Gulf region during the catastrophic BP oil spill.

"The president has not been as visible as he should have been on this, and he's going to pay a political price for it, unfortunately," Landrieu told POLITICO. "But he's going down tomorrow, he's made some good announcements today, and if he personally steps up his activity, I think that would be very helpful."

Landrieu's comments came as Obama spoke to reporters in the East Room of the White House, defending his administration's response to the ecological disaster. The president plans to head to the Gulf to inspect the oil spill on Friday.

"Those who think that we were either slow in our responses or lacked urgency don't know the facts," Obama said Thursday. "This has been our highest priority since this crisis occurred."

"The federal government is fully engaged, and I'm fully engaged," Obama said.

But Landrieu, who is seeing her home state's economy decimated by the spill, said she's "absolutely not" satisfied with the administration's response so far. She added, though, that Thad Allen, the former Coast Guard commandant who is overseeing the response to the spill, has support from Republicans and Democrats "across the board."

Obama has come in for bipartisan criticism from Louisiana. Gov. Bobby Jindal, a Republican, has faulted the White House effort, while Louisiana native James Carville, a Democratic strategist who helped run President Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign, has also been critical of Obama's response, recently calling it "lackadaisical."



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37878.html#ixzz0pG9LHxfc
"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 May 10 - 06:58 PM

Of course. What president does not pay a political price when things like this happen? It's guaranteed. No politician wants a major environmental disaster to occur on his watch.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 28 May 10 - 07:23 PM

Well, yeah, bb... Bush did blow it... But Katrine and this oil spill ain't excatly the same critter... Ya' see, Katrina involved deploying techology and resources that we had a 100% working knowledge of how they worked and how to deploy them... I mean, it was rescue, housing, food, medical care, etc... Ain't much rocket surgery involved with dealing with the effects of a hurrican... Lotta will power tho and there's where Bush failed...

The oil spill is unchartered territory... Ain't np "National Respinse Plan", ain't no how=to=book, ain't really no historical equivalent... Yeah, Jimmy Carvelle can jump up and down and ain't gonna mean nuthin' in the real world... Plus, Jimmy hates Obama anyway fro beatin' out Hillary... Everyone knows that Carvelle is a Clintonite...

I mean, what the hell to all these crybabies think Obama can do??? Oh sure, he could have grandstanded... Maybe got a little FEMA trailer and moved to Lousiana and gone out every day and cleaned birds or pitched sand or filled snad bags... Yeah, he could have done that... Wall Street would have loved for him to have done that because it would mean that he wasn't in DC making calls and twistin' arms to bring some sane financial regs...

But, no, Obama sent several cabinet level people to Lousinan and has been in daily contact with them since the oli spill... But anything short of diving down and pluging it himself the Repubs won't be happy... They will try to make political hay out of it and, as per usual, doing a purdy good job...

Problme is that the upcoming elections are more a referendum on the role of the federal government as so far with the oil spill all we've heard outta Bobby Jingle is, "We need more federal government"??? I mean, the Repubs want it both ways... Thay want less government until they need it and then they can't get enough???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 28 May 10 - 07:39 PM

The recent teabagger whinge is that Obama is going to go to Chicago over the Mem Day weekend rather than attend a ceremony at Arlington. This proves he doesn't love his country.

Bush dodging out of his service in the air national guard of course does not prove any such thing about him.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 May 10 - 11:50 AM

Another Bobert Fairy tale: Ain't np "National Respinse Plan"

The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, more commonly called the National Contingency Plan or NCP, is the federal government's blueprint for responding to oil spills and hazardous substance releases. The National Contingency Plan is the result of our country's efforts to develop a national response capability and promote overall coordination among the hierarchy of responders and contingency plans.

The first National Contingency Plan was developed and published in 1968 in response to a massive oil spill from the oil tanker Torrey Canyon off the coast of England the year before. More than 37 million gallons of crude oil spilled into the water, causing massive environmental damage. To avoid the problems faced by response officials involved in this incident, U.S. officials developed a coordinated approach to cope with potential spills in U.S. waters. The 1968 plan provided the first comprehensive system of accident reporting, spill containment, and cleanup, and established a response headquarters, a national reaction team, and regional reaction teams.

§300.110 Establishes the National Response Team and its roles and responsibilities in the National Response system, including planning and coordinating responses to major discharges of oil or hazardous waste, providing guidance to Regional Response Teams, coordinating a national program of preparedness planning and response, and facilitating research to improve response activities. EPA serves as the lead agency within the National Response Team (NRT).

§300.115 Establishes the Regional Response Teams and their roles and responsibilities in the National Response System, including, coordinating preparedness, planning, and response at the regional level. The RRT consists of a standing team made up of representatives of each federal agency that is a member of the NRT, as well as state and local government representatives, and also an incident-specific team made up of members of the standing team that is activated for a response. The RRT also provides oversight and consistency review for area plans within a given region.

§300.120 Establishes general responsibilities of federal On-Scene Coordinators.

§300.125(a) Requires notification of any discharge or release to the National Response Center through a toll-free telephone number. The National Response Center (NRC) acts as the central clearinghouse for all pollution incident reporting.

§300.135(a) Authorizes the predesignated On-Scene Coordinator to direct all federal, state, and private response activities at the site of a discharge.

§300.135(d) Establishes the unified command structure for managing responses to discharges through coordinated personnel and resources of the federal government, the state government, and the responsible party.

§300.165 Requires the On-Scene Coordinator to submit to the RRT or NRT a report on all removal actions taken at a site.

§300.170 Identifies the responsibilities for federal agencies that may be called upon during response planning and implementation to provide assistance in their respective areas of expertise consistent with the agencies' capabilities and authorities.

§300.175 Lists the federal agencies that have duties associated with responding to releases.

§300.210 Defines the objectives, authority, and scope of Federal Contingency Plans, including the National Contingency Plan (NCP), Regional Contingency Plans (RCPs), and Area Contingency Plans (ACPs).
Oil Removals

§300.317 Establishes national priorities for responding to a release.

§300.320 Establishes the general pattern of response to be executed by the On-Scene Coordinator (OSC), including determination of threat, classification of the size and type of the release, notification of the RRT and the NRC, and supervision of thorough removal actions.

§300.322 Authorizes the OSC to determine whether a release poses a substantial threat to the public health or welfare of the United States based on several factors, including the size and character of the discharge and its proximity to human populations and sensitive environments. In such cases, the OSC is authorized to direct all federal, state, or private response and recovery actions. The OSC may enlist the support of other federal agencies or special teams.

§300.323 Provides special consideration to discharges which have been classified as a spill of national significance. In such cases, senior federal officials direct nationally-coordinated response efforts.

§300.324 Requires the OSC to notify the National Strike Force Coordination Center (NSFCC) in the event of a worst case discharges, defined as the largest foreseeable discharge in adverse weather conditions. The NSFCC coordinates the acquisition of needed response personnel and equipment. The OSC also must require implementation of the worst case portion of the tank vessel and Facility Response Plans and the Area Contingency Plan.

§300.355 Provides funding for responses to oil releases under the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, provided certain criteria are met. The responsible party is liable for federal removal costs and damages as detailed in section 1002 of the Oil Pollution Act (OPA). Federal agencies assisting in a response action may be reimbursed. Several other federal agencies may provide financial support for removal actions.

Subpart J Establishes the NCP Product Schedule, which contains dispersants and other chemical or biological products that may be used in carrying out the NCP. Authorization for the use of these products is conducted by Regional Response Teams and Area Committees, or by the OSC in consultation with EPA representatives.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 May 10 - 12:00 PM

CFR 300.317 Establishes national priorities for responding to a release:

The response must use all necessary containment and removal tactics in a coordinated manner to ensure a timely, effective response that minimizes adverse impact to the environment.

All parts of this national response strategy should be addressed concurrently, but safety and stabilization are the highest priorities. The OSC should not delay containment and removal decisions unnecessarily and should take actions to minimize adverse impact to the environment that begins as soon as a discharge occurs, as well as actions to minimize further adverse environmental impact from additional discharges.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 29 May 10 - 12:45 PM

The Rasmussen Poll reported today that it's Tracking Poll for Friday (May 29,2010)shows the following. Twenty-eight percent (28%) of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty percent (40%)Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a presidential approval rating of -12.

Obama has "enjoyed" a steady increase in the number of voters who strongly DISAPPROVE (my emphasis)of his performance since June of 2009.

On the day of his inaguration, Obama enjoyed the following rating:
Strongly Approve: 44%. Strongly Disapprove: 16%.

I think that pretty well sums up what the "Popular Views: the Obama Administration to date is.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 May 10 - 04:58 PM

The election of Obama underscores a point that those who have the talent and ability to get elected may not have the same executive abilities to govern. In Obama's case, this remains to be seen. He could take the reins as did FDR and become one of our best presidents.
At present, he is too compliant with the GOP, Wall Street financiers and his military advisors. He needs to implement a stronger vision that curtails corporate malfeasance,
a useless set of "wars" and a willingness to take on those who adamantly oppose him.
His rhetoric at this point doesn't match his actions but that could change.

At the very least, it's nice to have someone who is articulate and educated in the White House.

Obama, in the words of George Lakoff, needs to embrace "empathy". Guiliani has debased this with his cynical sneering. True democracy cares about the people it serves. If the GOP makes any headway in the next election, this will spell a catastrophe for our country. I hope Obama doesn't alienate his base and those who put him in office.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 May 10 - 06:00 PM

all we've heard outta Bobby Jingle is, "We need more federal government"

From: Bobert - PM
Date: 26 Jul 06 - 09:36 PM

"We need everything you've got..." Memo written to Bush by Gov. Blanco

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 May 10 - 06:07 PM

Anyone else recall Douggie's constant mantra during the tenure of his BuShite heroes that opinion polls were utter nonsense that no-one should pay attention to?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 May 10 - 06:09 PM

Guess Douggie also flunked math- for him 40+28=100

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 29 May 10 - 06:39 PM

So, Greg F., you can add! Can you subtract? The Rasmussen Poll's Daily Tracking involves subtracting the larger number from the smaller one. If you have a problem with subtraction, the figure is -12.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 29 May 10 - 07:45 PM

Yeah, Saws.... Great!!! A two thousand year old plan on what to do with oil spills??? Yeah, that's a grwat starting point... Okay, it was 1968... Whta's the difference... We weren't doing deep water drilling in 1968... But don't let that fact interfer with yer fuzzy thinkin'...

The big diff is that Bush's "National Response Plan" was Bush's... It was some dusty plan in some file cabinet from the dark ages... It was 100% Bush's... Katrina showed that it wasn't a plan at all... Millions of tax dollars down the drain for what??? Zip, is what!!!

But, saws, seein' as you think you know more about everything in the universe about everything in the universe, please tell US where in the 1968 plan it tells US how to stop this deep water leak??? Can ya do that??? I don't think so 'er it would have been done...

Now we learn that BP says the "top kill" hasn't worked??? Geeze, I think BP has become the pathological liein' corportaion of the world... Make Dick Cheney look like a Boy Scout...

Me thinks we need a "top kill" at BP... Maybe with s side order of junk shot...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 May 10 - 09:40 PM

Right you are, Douggie-Boy! The opinion of the other 32% of the population doesn't signify.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

And what about your flip-flop, Douggie?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 29 May 10 - 11:20 PM

Oooh, did Doug change his mind? There's nothing the slavering right hates more than people capable of evaluating evidence.

I'll save you the trouble: mousethief, Fuck off.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 10 - 11:23 PM

Except, Doug that you are cherrypicking the worsty of the cvarious polls and ignoring my oft-cited Real Clear Politics national averages of the national sentiment.

Only to be expected--we are fallible critturs and we project our wishes for good or ill on the world around us.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 30 May 10 - 01:47 AM

Really, Amos? And who died and declared that YOUR source is the super dooper polling service and the only one that can be trusted?

The Rasmussen Poll is a highly respected polling organization whose results are reported by both liberal and conservative media outlets.

Greg F.: If you search online, you probably can find a educational website that will lead you to a source for learning substraction and how to read polls.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 30 May 10 - 01:55 AM

And one for how to spell "subtraction".

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 May 10 - 09:27 AM

The RCP tally sheet, Doug, INCLUDES Rasmussen and six othe rmajor polls.

That's why its better. They are all highly respected yadayada, sure.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 May 10 - 10:46 AM

I'll save you the trouble: mousethief, Fuck off.

Ah, c'mon, Mouse, that's unworthy of you - not once did I direct that phrase at you. I reserve it solely for His Illustrious Eminence.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 May 10 - 10:47 AM

And what about your flip-flop on polls, Douggie?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 May 10 - 11:07 AM

Poll        Date        Sample        Approve        Disapprove        Spread

RCP Average                        5/15 - 5/27        --              47.4        46.1 +1.3
Rasmussen Reports        5/25 - 5/27        1500 LV        48        52         -4
Gallup                              5/25 - 5/27        1547 A        45        47         -2
CBS News                     5/20 - 5/24        1054 A        47        43         +4
Quinnipiac                     5/19 - 5/24        1914 RV        48        43         +5
CNN/Opinion             5/21 - 5/23        1023 A        51        46         +5
NBC News                     5/20 - 5/23        700 A        48        45         +3
FOX News                    5/18 - 5/19        900 RV        45        46         -1
Democracy Corps    5/15 - 5/18        1000 RV        47        47        Tie

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 30 May 10 - 12:41 PM

That's an interesting spread, Amos.

Greg F.: You must live a very stilted life if you never changed your opinion of something. Perhaps that has something to do with your limited (F.O.) vocabulary?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 May 10 - 12:54 PM

Well, Douggie, there's "changing one's mind" and then there's opportunistic, self-serving vicar-of-Bray type bullshit.

Let's wait & see what your expressed opinion of polls is next time there's a BuShite or a Republican in the White House.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 30 May 10 - 03:11 PM

[i]Deo volens[/i] may that be a long, long time.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 May 10 - 06:27 PM

Agreed, Mouse- I'm not saying I'd welcome that eventuality simply to prove a point.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 May 10 - 11:12 AM

Tom Toles, the respected Washington Post cartoonist, offers these remarks:

"Fancy-pantsy sycophancy

Okay, if you're looking for yet another occasion to howl at my cluelessness, here you go.

Obama. Might as well get to him now as later. A commenter or two responded to mentions I've made of President Obama with replies that suggested that it was essentially SELF-EVIDENT what a terrible president he has been. Allow me to differ. I had great hopes for him during the campaign. Now hard reality has had a chance to work its magic at destroying magic, and things look different. I like Obama even BETTER now. I think Obama has a good shot at being the best president of my lifetime. He brings a clarity of analysis to problems that I think is unbeatable. I think he prioritizes problems in order of consequence to the country and has tackled harder stuff than he is given credit for. His execution skills are at least pretty decent, and may prove to be exceptional. Time will tell on that. Interesting that the critique of him has changed from HAPLESS, Jimmy Carter-style, to BIGFOOT, Sasquatch-style, now that he's actually passed some things. FOOL, or MONSTER? Sorry, none of the above, here. The surprise for me is the NO DRAMA part, which I didn't appreciate during the campaign, but I do now. Far enough out on the limb, am I?

Yes, I have my issues with him and will have more, and I reserve the right to disavow some or all of this, in cartoons and otherwise. But here I am, and there you are. Howl away if you like. --Tom Toles
***"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jun 10 - 01:55 PM

WashPo

"Obama, Netanyahu and the Free Gaza flotilla

If the Obama administration had been skillful in managing its relationship with the difficult Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu, it would have some room to maneuver in responding to Israel's disastrous attack on the Free Gaza flotilla. Netanyahu's decision to use military force to stop boats populated with European and American notables, and, even more, the bloody execution of the operation, are indefensible -- and are being described as such today by Israel's own press. If there were no cracks in the relationship with Jerusalem, Obama could join in the criticism, while quietly working to restrain the UN Security Council from a lynch-mob-style response, and without casting doubt on the willingness of the U.S. to defend the Jewish state from a growing multitude of enemies.

But Obama has not handled Netanyahu well. So the White House's cautious initial response to the incident -- even as Israel was being beaten up by its closest friends in Europe -- reflected a deeper dilemma about how much more tension an already strained alliance can bear.

The problem is that Obama has already exhausted his margin for quarreling with Israel -- so much so that a White House session with Netanyahu had been planned for today as a make-up meeting. The session was cancelled, replaced by frantic phone conversations between White House and Israeli officials over whether a common response to the latest crisis was possible.

Hanging over the administration's deliberations are the gratuitous spats with Netanyahu that Obama has blundered into. Twice the president chose to launch pointless and unwinable battles to freeze Israeli settlement construction in Jerusalem. These served only to complicate his Middle East diplomacy, while alienating Israel's supporters in Congress and the Democratic Party.

Just last week, Obama chose to side against Israel in the final deliberations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference. In pursuit of one of the president's most cherished causes, the United States accepted language calling on Israel to join the NPT and supporting a conference in 2013 on a nuclear-free Middle East. Netanyahu's government was left alone in its opposition.

Consequently, the question Israeli officials are asking about the Gaza crisis is "will Israel be alone -- again?" It won't be easy for Obama to answer. Another public rift between the United States and Israel is the last thing the White House needs as it tries to wrest concessions from Netanyahu in Middle East peace talks -- and as midterm elections approach. But defending Israel in and outside the United Nations will risk a rift with Turkey, not to mention Arab states, at the moment when the administration is hoping to win broad support for a new Security Council resolution on Iran.

Obama would be in this bind regardless of what he had done in the last year. But his missteps have made it worse -- and getting out of it will require more diplomatic finesse than his administration had mustered until now.
"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 08:44 AM

No, the REAL problem is that the Obama Administration - like every U.S. administration of the last 60 years- has been way too tolerant of Israel' pig-headedness.

What he should have done, and still should do, is threaten to stop US aid to Isreal unless the government becomes rational & reasonable.

That would probably get their attention, since without continuimng US support, Israel would cease to exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 01:10 PM

I agree, Greg, but the possibility of that happening is nil. The political will in the US just isn't there.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 01:31 PM

"Morris: Obama doesn't have a clue
By Dick Morris - 06/01/10 07:03 PM ET

Conservatives are so enraged at Obama's socialism and radicalism that they are increasingly surprised to learn that he is incompetent as well. The sight of his blithering and blustering while the most massive oil spill in history moves closer to America's beaches not only reminds one of Bush's terrible performance during Katrina, but calls to mind Jimmy Carter's incompetence in the face of the hostage crisis.

America is watching the president alternate between wringing his hands in helplessness and pointing his finger in blame when he should be solving the most pressing environmental problem America has faced in the past 50 years. We are watching generations of environmental protection swept away as marshes, fisheries, vacation spots, recreational beaches, wetlands, hatcheries and sanctuaries fall prey to the oil spill invasion. And, all the while, the president acts like a spectator, interrupting his basketball games only to excoriate BP for its failure to contain the spill.

The political fallout from the oil spill will, indeed, spill across party and ideological lines. The environmentalists of America cannot take heart from a president so obviously ignorant about how to protect our shores and so obstinately arrogant that he refuses to inform himself and take any responsibility.

All of this explains why the oil spill is seeping into his ratings among Democrats, dragging him down to levels we have not seen since Bush during the pit of the Iraq war. Conservatives may dislike Obama because he is a leftist. But liberals are coming to dislike him because he is not a competent progressive.

Meanwhile, the nation watches nervously as the same policies Obama has brought to our nation are failing badly and publicly in Europe. When Moody's announces that it is considering downgrading bonds issued by the government of the United States of America, we find ourselves, suddenly, in deep trouble. We have had deficits before. But never have they so freaked investors that a ratings agency considered lowering its opinion of our solvency. Not since Alexander Hamilton assumed the states' Revolutionary War debt has America's willingness and ability to meet its financial obligations been as seriously questioned.

And the truth begins to dawn on all of us: Obama has no more idea how to work his way out of the economic mess into which his policies have plunged us than he does about how to clean up the oil spill that is destroying our southern coastline.

Both the financial crisis and the oil come ever closer to our shores — one from the east and the other from the south — and, between them, they loom as a testament to the incompetence of our government and of its president.

And, oddly, to his passivity as well. After pursuing a remarkably activist, if misguided and foolhardy, agenda, Obama seems not to know what to do and finds himself consigned to the roles of observer and critic.

America is getting the point that its president doesn't have a clue.

He doesn't know how to stop the oil from spilling. He is bereft of ideas about how to create jobs in the aftermath of the recession. He has no idea how to keep the European financial crisis contained. He has no program for repaying the massive debt hole into which he has dug our nation without tax increases he must know will only deepen the pit.

Some presidents have failed because of their stubbornness (Johnson and Bush-43). Others because of their character flaws (Clinton and Nixon). Still others because of their insensitivity to domestic problems (Bush-41). But now we have a president who is failing because he is incompetent. It is Jimmy Carter all over again.

Who would have thought that this president, so anxious to lead us and so focused on his specific agenda and ideas, would turn out not to know what he is doing?

Morris, a former adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of Outrage, Fleeced and Catastrophe. To get all of his and Eileen McGann's columns for free by e-mail or to order a signed copy of their latest book, 2010: Take Back America — A Battle Plan, go to dickmorris.com. In August, Morris became a strategist for the League of American Voters, which is running ads opposing the president's healthcare reforms."

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/100913-obama-doesnt-have-a-clue

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 01:40 PM

Conservatives are so enraged at Obama's socialism and radicalism...

No need to read further- no point reading an author capable of this degree of idiocy and delusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 01:42 PM

"Obama's socialism?????????"

Don't make me laugh. ;-) The Right (and the center) in America wouldn't know socialism if it fell on them off a 10 story building and landed 3 feet in front of their noses. Obama isn't socialist. And he isn't radical either. He's middle of the road, conventional, a bit right of center. Standard fare, in other words.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 03:10 PM

Anti-Israel sharks sniff O's weakness
Last Updated: 9:15 AM, June 2, 2010

Posted: 3:48 AM, June 2, 2010
Michael Goodwin

In the aftermath of the Gaza flotilla fiasco, the air is thick with nonsense. Chief among the instant myths is that Israel has created a dilemma for President Obama.

Actually, it's the other way around.

The president's appeasement policies helped to create the incident. Israel took the bait, but the trap was set in Washington.

Weakness always begets aggression, and, like clockwork, Obama's repeated signals that he is weakening America's commitment to Israel are emboldening the Jewish state's enemies. From Syria to Iran to Lebanon, from Hezbollah to Hamas and the PLO, the wolves smell blood and are trying to gauge whether they can get close enough for the kill.

see more videos And whether the United States will stop them. That they even dare hope we won't reflects the danger of Obama's demented decisions.

The huge flotilla is the latest example of the open-season mania, with the result that Israel is under international siege -- for defending itself. And, not incidentally, for defending an embargo on Gaza that Washington supports.

Obama says he wants the facts of the incident, but let's hope he also wants the truth, even if it is inconvenient to his worldview.

The first fact is that the flotilla was not really a humanitarian effort. The compassion claim was a fig leaf for the political aim of busting the 3-year-old maritime blockade, as organizers admitted last week.

They knew they would not be allowed to dock in Gaza, but still rejected Israel's offer to unload the goods in Israeli ports and, after inspection, truck them overland. At least a few of the passengers were armed.

"We're trying to break the blockade of the Gaza Strip and tell the world that Israel has no right to starve 1.5 million Palestinians," Greta Berlin, the head of an organization called Free Gaza Movement, said in typical exaggeration to a British newspaper.

Her group's boats were turned away before, but they vowed not to be stopped this time. "The previous boats were making a statement -- these boats will be making a real impact," Berlin said four days before the launch.

Israel, of course, is not exempt from criticism for what was clearly a bungled effort. Incredibly, given what they knew beforehand about the intent of the activists, its military leaders sent in only a handful of lightly armed commandos who were easy targets as they slid down ropes from helicopters.

Yet it's also fair to ask where Obama was while the problem was building. Even if he was too busy with the oil disaster in the Gulf, where was the secretary of state? It was long clear the flotilla had the potential to cause a regional ruckus, but Washington watched it unfold like a spectator.



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/anti_israel_sharks_sniff_weakness_n5AbqK6bk6NHcy6qEWK5jJ#ixzz0piy4d0ge

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 03:48 PM

Ho. Ho. Bruce, I doubt that even Josef Goebbels could have come up with a more ludicrous line of self-justifying doubletalk and sheer, utter nonsense than that to justify his country's right to "defend itself against aggression" in 1939-40. It's tantamount to the wolf complaining that the sheep are going after him.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 06:41 PM

Oh, yeah- the NY Post- Ol' Rupe Murdock the Bullshit King. I wouldn't believe ANY of his rags if they said the world was round.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 07:25 PM

Anybody who thinks Obama is socialist or radical shouldn't be allowed to operate hand tools without a proctor. Power tools are right out.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 07:26 PM

LOL! Well put.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 01:22 PM

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/2/federal-debt-tops-13-trillion-mark/

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:18 PM

Fidel Castro claims Obama lives in fantasy world
By WILL WEISSERT (AP) – 2 days ago

HAVANA — Fidel Castro speculated Wednesday that a nuclear strike on Iran might help President Barack Obama win a second term in the White House and also suggested the United States could attack North Korea.

The former leader of Cuba, who has not been seen in public for nearly four years, also portrayed the U.S. president as a victim of fantasies planted in his mind by sinister advisers.

The column published by Cuban state media floated the idea that a nuclear attack on Iran — perhaps even without U.S. authorization — might help Obama win re-election in 2012.

"Could Obama enjoy the emotions of a second presidential election without having the Pentagon or the State of Israel, whose conduct does not in the least obey the decisions of the United States, use nuclear weapons against Iran?" he asked. "How would life on our planet be after that?"

It's a question he did not answer, nor did he elaborate.

Castro also referred to "the current danger North Korea could be attacked by the United States" because of "the recent incident that happened in that country's waters" — apparently a reference to allegations that North Korea attacked and sank a South Korean warship, killing 46 sailors.

more

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:23 PM

He's probably right. Most American presidents (and other politicians) do live in a fantasy world, don't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:24 PM

Yup- the Federal Debt- created by George W. Bush & the BuShites.

Quoting Fidel now? Ol' BB must be REALLY desperate

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:29 PM

Myanmar's Secret Nuclear Program Revealed

Defector Says North Korea Helping Myanmar Develop Nuclear Weapons Program

24 comments By JIM SCIUTTO
June 4, 2010


With the help of North Korea, Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, has acquired components for a nuclear weapons program, including technology for uranium enrichment and long-range missiles, ABC News has learned.

North Korea may be sharing nuclear technology with Myanmar.A defector from Myanmar -- an army major and deputy commander of a top-secret nuclear facility -- escaped the country with thousands of files detailing a secret nuclear and missile program.

"The purpose is they really want a bomb. That is their main objective," said defector Sai Thein Win, the major who says he visited the installations and attended meetings at which the new technology was demonstrated.

"They want to have the rockets and nuclear warhead," he said.

The dissident group Democratic Voice of Burma commissioned an analysis of the information. ABC News is the only U.S. television network given access to the interviews and documentary evidence.

The pictures and blueprints show missiles, components for uranium enrichment and the secret nuclear facility, located near the city of Maymo.

The defector said that's where Myanmar intends to build a nuclear reactor and enrich uranium for weapons. The regime has long feared an attack by the United States and feels threatened by its own people, who staged an uprising in 2007.

While the program appears to be in its early stages, United Nations experts have studied the report and consider it credible.

U.S. Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., canceled a trip to Myanmar Thursday to study the evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 03:05 PM

I thought Sylvester Stallone had taken care of that little problem already.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 03:48 PM

Actually the debt was around for a lot longer than Bush. Clinton balanced the [i]federal budget[/i]. He didn't pay off the [i]federal debt[/i].

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 09:06 PM

President Barack Obama said on Friday the gain of 431,000 jobs in May is a sign the economy is getting stronger

REUTERS:

President Barack Obama said on Friday the gain of 431,000 jobs in May is a sign the economy is getting stronger, although there will still be ups and downs going forward.

"This report is a sign that our economy is getting stronger by the day," Obama said in remarks to about 50 workers at a large truck garage in Maryland.

"A lot of businesses that were hit hard during this downturn, they are starting to hire again. Workers who were laid off are starting to get their jobs back," he said.

However, Obama said there would be "ups and downs" ahead.

The Labor Department said on Friday payrolls rose 431,000 as the government added 411,000 workers to conduct the U.S. Census, the largest monthly increase since March 2000 and one that marked a fifth straight month of gains.

But U.S. private employers hired fewer workers than expected in May, just 41,000 after rising 218,000 in April, a setback for the labor market recovery, even as temporary Census hiring pushed overall payrolls growth to its fastest pace in 10 years.

Obama acknowledged that most of the new jobs were the Census positions.

"So these are temporary jobs that are going to last until the fall, and that may be reflected in future jobs reports," he said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 09:19 PM

It was the second-worst day of the year for stocks

Washington Post:

Stocks lose 3% following bad May jobs report, more European debt troubles

Stocks dove in a massive sell-off in the last hour of trading, hitting their lowest levels since February. Wall Street responded to a discouraging May jobs report and more European debt troubles, raising concerns about a double-dip recession.

The Dow closed down 3.2 percent at 9,931.37, breaking 10,000. The Dow lost more than 300 points on the day. The index is off 12.5 percent from its April high and all 30 Dow stocks were down today. The Dow closed down 2.3 percent for the week.

The broader S&P 500 closed down 3.2 percent. The S&P is down 12.6 percent from its April high. It closed down 2.4 percent for the week.

The tech-heavy Nasdaq closed down 3.4 percent. It's down 12.3 percent since its April high and is down 1.8 for the week.

All three major indices are now in negative territory for the year.

It was the second-worst day of the year for stocks. Today's losses on the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq were worse than the indices suffered during the "flash crash."

The sell-off is likely being exacerbated by margin calls stop-loss orders, meaning investors' instructions to brokers to sell their stock when it drops to a certain price or has a certain-percentage drop. This creates a snowball sell-off effect.

Hungary is the latest European country to confess to debt problems. The current administration blames the previous one for hiding debt problems and lying about the nation's financial standing. The same was true of the past two administrations in Greece. A Hungarian official called his nation's situation "grave" and said a default is not out of the question.

In addition to adding yet another Euro state to the Continent's debt contagion, some in America feel that looking at Europe is the same as looking in the mirror. They look at deficit problems in states like California and watch state and local governments around the country slash employees and expenses to try to balance their budget.

Meanwhile, even though the national unemployment rate in May dropped to 9.7 percent from 9.9 percent, almost all job growth last month came from the addition of more than 400,000 Census workers -- jobs that will go away later this year. Traders wonder if the private sector is ready to start creating jobs and understand that government-fueled job creation is not sustainable.

All this raises worries that the U.S. could teeter back into a double-dip recession, less than one year out of the worst recession since the Great Depression. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, speaking earlier today on CNBC, raised the possibility of a double-dip recession, which no doubt spooked traders.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 09:22 PM

Right you are Mouse- let's say "The vast proportion of the current Federal debt which was created by Bush & the Bushites."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 09:46 PM

Yeah, this recovery, if it is one, ain't doin' too well...

It's bad when US corporations just push the folks they didn't layoff to work insane hours to keep the profits up, up, up...

Problem is that this ain't Obama's fault.... We have 30 years of corporations writing the rules and neither Obama or Superman himself is gonna change that in a couple years... Took 30 years to get here, ya'll... It wasn't just George Bush, Jr... It was Ronald Reagan who started it, and then Clinton continuin' it and then Bush, Too...

That is reality... If anyone thinks that the corporations are going to do anything now with Obama in the White House then ya'll need to pee in the cup!!! It ain't gonn happen... But the sad part about this is that if Obama hadn't been elected and it was John McCain??? It would be the same mess becaasue there are one shit load of old Republicans that have a shit load of their retirement money invested in Boss Hog, Inc and Boss Hog, Inc is doing his level Boss Hog thing to keep profits high by busting his remaining employees balls to do two people's jobs....

No, what we have here is the perfect storm for Boss Hog, Inc... He loves it like this... He is doing better thah ever and he has his boot on the necks of the working class!!!

Normal ( at least for the last 3 decades)

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 12:48 AM

How prophetic!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 01:54 AM

My wife has started getting emails from recruiters again. She hasn't in over a year.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 08:21 AM

Nice little video, GfS...

Yeah, I'm afraid that is what it make take to get Boss Hog's boot off the working classes' neck... Something like a national strike... It's sad that it comes down to this kinda stuff... Right now, yeah, people are angry but they aren't ready to do anything about it other than vote for new 'n improved corporate puppets... Problem is that that these folks ain't all that improved... Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

But it's also every real... The P-Vine has 3 sons and they all work for various Boss Hog, Inc.s and they are all being exploited and pushed to the brink of exhaustion... I feel so bad for them becuase they are stuck... And their bosses know it... That's what I mean as the "perfect storm" for Boss Hog...

Thanks for the video, however... Maybe I'll send it to them... Nah... They know the deal...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 12:36 PM

You're most welcome, Bobert! That film was made over 20 years ago...and NOTHING has changed, other than the fact we are further down the same road..........an agenda by BOTH parties..to get us more enslaved.....which, by the way, has been my contention ALL ALONG!
Best of luck with the P-Vine, and the yard mowing!

Regards To Ya',

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 01:08 PM

Yup. We're further down the same road, and it doesn't make a whole lot of difference which mob of criminals you elect. They don't work on your behalf, they work for their major sources of funding: Big Business.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 04:07 PM

Obama loses the Left: suddenly, it's cool to bash Barack

Europe still worships him and Washington's Obamatrons remain smitten, but former supporters are turning on the President, writes Toby Harnden.

Toby Harnden
Published: 3:07PM BST 05 Jun 2010


President Barack Obama presents Paul McCartney with the Gershwin Prize for Popular Song at the White House Photo: AP Well, at least he's still got Sir Paul McCartney. At the White House last week, the 67-year-old crooner was gushing in much the same manner as his own groupies did at Shea Stadium in 1965. "I'm a big fan, he's a great guy," McCartney told American critics of President Barack Obama. "So lay off him, he's doing great."

Later, McCartney serenaded the First Lady with a rendition of Michelle and, receiving a prize from the Library of Congress, took a cheap shot at President George W Bush that was as unfunny as it was unoriginal. "After the last eight years, it's great to have a president who knows what a library is." Bush. Doesn't read books. Stupid. Geddit?

The problem for the President is that even if the former Beatle does speak for billions, the overwhelming majority of those are overseas. Polls show that around 10 per cent of those who voted for Obama in 2008 now disapprove of his performance and the heavy turnout of young people and black voters among the 69 million who back him will not be repeated again.

McCartney's banalities were an example of a transatlantic dissonance that is all too apparent these days. Whereas Europe is stuck in November 2008 and still hopelessly in love with Obama, Americans have got over the historic symbolism of it all and are now moving on as they live with the reality.

That reality has now begun to dawn on some of Obama's natural constituency - Hollywood and the Left. The "no drama Obama" demeanour that served him so well on the campaign trail is now becoming a liability.

Bemoaning Obama's passivity after the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the director Spike Lee thundered: "He's very calm, cool, collected. But, one time, go off! If there's any one time to go off, this is it, because this is a disaster."

This is the same Spike Lee who once described Obama's election as a "seismic" change that represented "a better day not only for the United States but for the world".

The ladies of The View, the liberal-dominated morning talk show moderated by Whoopi Goldberg, spent a lot of time last week sympathising with Mrs Obama about how difficult it must be to argue with a husband who never shows any fire or emotion.

Even the liberal chattering classes are deserting Obama. Maureen Dowd of the New York Times jeered that his "Yes we can" slogan had been downgraded to "Will we ever?", while fellow colunnist Frank Rich blasted his "recurrent tardiness in defining exactly what he wants done".

Perhaps Obama's toughest critic over the BP oil slick has been James "Rajin' Cajun" Carville, the mastermind of Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign and one of those Democrats who represents the beating heart of the party. He blasted Obama's "political stupidity" and "hands off" attitude, concluding: "It seems the President is madder at his critics than he is at BP."

His point was proved when Robert Gibbs, Obama's hyper-aggressive spokesman, responded: "I don't think James understands all of what we're doing. I don't think James understood the facts." Carville is a Louisiana native who had spent more time viewing the oil-soaked coastal wetlands than anyone in the White House.

It is an irony of Obama's presidency - which came into being because he was the unBush - that it shares some of the worst traits of his predecessor's administration. Among these are insularity and a blinkered arrogance.

The young Texans who seemed genetically incapable of viewing any criticism of George W Bush as less than treason may have gone but a similar cult has replaced them. The Obamatrons who now populate Washington have iPads under their arms and greet each other with fist bumps. Earnest, geeky types, they look upon anyone who does not worship Obama with pity – such a being must be too stupid or bigoted to know better.

Obama has never been wracked by self-doubt and he is unusually self-contained for a politician. He seems not to need people or reassurance. In office, this is dangerous – he sometimes seems to be living in a cocoon.

The White House's attempts to deal criticisms of Obama's detachment have been comical. First there was Obama's own cringeworthy (and doubtless bogus) anecdote about his 11-year-old daughter Malia asking: "Did you plug the hole yet, Daddy?" Then there was Gibbs illustrating Obama's passionate concern for the people of the Gulf by relating that he had said "damn" and exhibited a "clenched jaw".

Perhaps their biggest problem is that it was not just McCartney's dyed hair and 1960s songs that seemed so retro. His adulation of Obama struck the wrong chord because few outside the White House bubble are in that place any more. It is now permissible – even fashionable – to have a go at the man once hailed as the Messiah.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7805775/Obama-loses-the-Left-suddenly-its-cool-to-bash-Ba

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 04:39 PM

Bruce, you know that old expression?..."familiarity breeds contempt". It happens to virtually all presidents that their early popularity declines steeply as their term in office moves interminably on and grim reality sets in.

You live in fantasy land anyway (your country does, I mean). Why be so surprised when the fantasies are not matched by the realities?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 07:41 PM

Hey, here's the deal with Obama... If he were to suit up with an Oz tank and dive down and stop the oil leak the Repubs would ask why he didn't do it earlier... If he were to stay in Lousianna for the next week helping to get the barrier built of cleaning birds or whatever the Repubs would say he's dodging his Washington, D.C. job... Now he does purdy much the same as every other president before him has done in time of troubles of peace in keeping things vibrant in the White House and he is criticized for that???

I mean, give us a break, bruce... Yer smarter than to buy into pure unaltered partisan bull, aren't ya???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 08:02 PM

His contention is that if you can do it to Bush, then why shouldn't he do it to Obama? ;-)

My contention is that those two political parties are a disease that is destroying your country.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 08:33 PM

Nah, LH... Other than the really stupid stuff that Bush did, like the wars and the tax cuts no one from the left gave a shit if he wanted to have Leonard Skinnard or George Jones play at the White House...

If you'll archieve the left's bill of particulars during the Bush years I doubt if you'll find one single complaint about who he had play music at the White House...

So this ain't tit-4-tat... That's Repub bullfeathers... They would liike to portray the left as these whiners who laid the wood to Bush at every trurn... That is mythology... We didn't like his economic policies and his wars... That's about it on our list... Not this constant criticism about stupid stuff like who played music at the White House...

Sheesh!!!

Beam me up, Scotty... Even LH is preaching Republican talking points!!!

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 09:33 PM

"The vast proportion of the current Federal debt which was created by Bush & the Bushites."

Over an 8 year period. The Obama administration is racking it up 3 1/2 times faster

According to http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/hist07z1.xls

The national debt at the end of 2000 was $5,628,700,000,000

The national debt at the end of 2008 was $9,986,082,000,000

It increased $5,446,727,500 over 8 years or $544.673 billion annually

The national debit at the end of 2009 was $11,875,851,000,000, an increase of $1,889,769,000,000 in one year.

3.46 times faster than the rate of the previous administration

2010 estimated debit= $13,786,615,000,000, an increase of $1,910,764,000,000 in one year.

3.5 times faster than the rate of the previous administration.

2011 estimate $15,144,029,000,000 up $1,357,414,000,000

2012 estimate $16,335,662,000,000 up $1,191,633,000,000

2013 estimate $17,453,482,000,000 up $1,117,820,000,000

2014 estimate $18,532,303,000,000 up $1,078,821,000,000

2015 estimate $19,683,285,000,000 up $1,150,982,000,000


Total estimated debit increase over 7 years $9,697,203 or $1,385,314,714,286 annually.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 09:44 PM

Of course the Bushies ratcheted up the debt in a time of economic growth and good times. Obama is borrowing to pay the bills they left.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 10:22 PM

Not only that, mouse, but Obama has gotten unfair blame for his 1st year-in-office deficits... Problem is that an incoming president doesn't set his first year budget... That is done by the last guy...

But nevermind facts... There are so mamy fuzzy math boobie traps that Bush set for his predessor that Oral Roberts wouldn't have stood a chance of navigating them...

Throw in two very costly wars and Obama (or McCain) would have had their hands full cleanin' up after Bush's pretzel-fest...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 10:37 PM

Bush's pretzel-fest...

How dare you say that? I'm choking with rage.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 10:38 PM

Saturday, June 05, 2010

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -17

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 10:59 PM

Ah, but Bobert...do you remember this page?

Bush or Chimp?

"I sure as heckfire do", to quote the obnoxious life insurance guy (Ned Ryerson) from "Groundhog Day"... ;-) Everybody here was cracking up over it...well, almost everybody except for a few very annoyed Conservatives and Chongo (who thought it was insulting to chimpanzees...).

The rank and file here thought that the "Bush or Chimp" joke was hilarious, and so did I....but today I came across this unexpectedly while looking for something else on Google:

The shoe is on the other foot now.   It is the FIRST picture that comes up on the Google list if you do a search for images of Michelle Obama!

The Left thought it was funny to portray Bush as a chimp. The Right now thinks it's funny to portray Michelle Obama as a chimp. If you were either George Bush or Michelle Obama, you probably wouldn't find it too funny to see yourself portrayed in this fashion so your political opponents can laugh at you. Would you?

We laugh when the joke is on the other side. But then the joke returns and hits someone on our side and it's not seen as funny at all anymore, is it?

What did they say in that old proverb? Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Or if they do, they should be ready to shrug off the stones that come flying back their way.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 11:00 PM

Americans are dissatisfied with both major political parties, but the public's approval of the Democratic Party is at its lowest level ever, a new CBS News poll shows.

Favorable views of the Democratic Party dropped 20 points in the past year to 37 percent, according to the poll, conducted May 20 - 24. Last month, the party's favorability rating stood at 42 percent.

Fifty-four percent of Americans have a negative view of the Democrats, the poll shows.

Republicans have a similarly low favorability rating at 33 percent. That figure, however, is up from 28 percent - the historic low the party received last June. Fifty-five percent of Americans have a negative view of the Republican Party.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20005961-503544.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Seventy-seven percent of Americans now disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job - the highest ever in a CBS News poll.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 11:10 PM

Sheesh...and then there's this one:

Another notable person ridiculed as a chimp....


So now it's the Iranians, George Bush, and Michelle Obama who've been treated in the same demeaning manner by people who don't like them. How about that, eh? Immaturity is equally popular with all major political constituencies, it seems.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 01:43 AM

Mouser: "....Obama is borrowing to pay the bills they left."

Borrowing, faster than you are bringing in, is like fucking for virginity!

Waving,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 02:33 AM

And that's exactly the message everyone is given in the credit-based society. "Buy now...pay later." Later meaning...maybe never.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 03:36 AM

Yeppers! Ironic, how some people get down on the government for being so far in debt.....as if they, themselves are NOT!

As one, who has lived within my means, I only owe my monthly utilities! When I see the hypocrisy, of one guilty party, pointing at another guilty party and calling the kettle black(Disclaimer: NOT a racial slur!), I think that entitles me to a rather unique perspective. I fear for my country, and the citizens of it, that debt, that they did NOT agree to, by contract, is being heaped upon them. Now they might go berserk, because they, themselves will find it harder to get credit!!!!

Snap now, and avoid the rush! This might turn into something very ugly, before its over...which I believe most folks DO NOT want to see...and yet they all get behind the agenda, that is bringing it about!!...Go figure!

Just a personal observation: The system is set up to create debt for all, because who you owe, controls you!.....but then, that is a personal choice we all make at one time or another!

Once again, it's our personal morals that keep us free...not expectations that it's 'somebody elses' job!!!!!!

Why not a re-distribution of morality????

Respectfully,
GfS

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 09:31 AM

I find it interesting that the deficit hawks come outta the woodwork every time there is a dem in the White House but crawl back in their holes when the Repubs control it... It also interesting to look at which political party tends to be the big spenders...

So now we have all these Repubs complaining about the deficits... These deficits where predicted 3 years ago based on irresponsible spendiong by the Repubs and the tax cuts, again by the Repubs...

Now we are faced with the realities of their fiscal mismanagement and they want to blame Obama... Let's get real here for just one minute... These problems were the boobie traps that Bush left for the next administartion regardless of which party won the '08 elections... That is the real story here...

Also in the area of "real story"... Other than flat-earth economists most every other economists says that with a very weak economy this is not the time to take more money out of circulation... The private sector isn't spending and so, at least until it does, the government is going to have to... In other words, these economists, Paul Klugman being one, say that if the government takes on the deficit by reducing spending that the economy will crash...

But, hey, lotta Repubs would love for the economy to crash... That would mean they could get the same fiscally irresponsible knuclkeheads back in power that created this mess in the first place...

But nevermind that stuff... It's called "critical thinking" and it's alot easier to appeal to people's base emotions with slogans like, "I pay my bills so the government should, too"... Well, that isn't exactly a slogan 'cause it won't fit on a bumper sticker but that is what the deficit hawks want people to think... Eevn if thinking that and electing people who think like that will mean a collapse of the economy, like who cares??? Right??? Shit happens...

Beam me up, Scotty... The deficit hawks want the economy to crash...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 10:57 AM

Sawz:

Here are the real numbers. Rasmussen is notoriously low when the whole set of polls is taken into account.

Poll                       Date        Sample                        Approve        Disapprove        Spread
RCP Average        5/15 - 6/5        --                       47.3               46.4         +0.9
Rasmussen        6/3 - 6/5        1500 LV               46        54         -8
Gallup               6/2 - 6/4        1547 A              46        47         -1
CBS News        5/20 - 5/24        1054 A              47        43         +4
Quinnipiac        5/19 - 5/24        1914 RV              48        43         +5
CNN/Op         5/21 - 5/23        1023 A              51        46         +5
NBC News        5/20 - 5/23        700 A            48        45         +3
FOX News        5/18 - 5/19        900 RV              45        46         -1


You can look the m up any time right here anytime you feel like being a little fair and balanced, Sawz.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 04:22 PM

Fifty-five percent of Americans have a negative view of the Republican Party.

Only 55%? Big bunch of folks aren't awake or paying attenthion then, for damn sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 05:08 PM

In Canada, I think it's about 95% who have a negative view of the Republican Party. ;-) To be generous...maybe 85%...certainly not less than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 05:53 PM

The Times-Picayune June 05, 2010

Dear Mr. President:

As you visit us today for the third time since the Deepwater Horizon started gushing oil into the Gulf of Mexico, the people of Louisiana have questions that must be answered.

Obama Louisiana VisitDavid Grunfeld / The Times-PicayunePresident Barack Obama checks for tar balls washed ashore at Port Fourchon Beach last Friday. The President visited the Gulf Coast of Louisiana to assess the latest efforts to counter the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill.We're already reeling from the loss of thousands of fishing industry jobs. We now could see an estimated 20,000 oil-services jobs vanish due to your six-month federal moratorium on deepwater exploratory drilling. That could do even greater damage to the economy than the well-chronicled fishing industry losses.

Louisianians understand the imperative for improved safety on drilling rigs. The carelessness that caused the disaster, the fumbling response by industry and government, and the damage to our waters and our coast must never recur, here or elsewhere.

But we need to know what you are prepared to do to prevent catastrophic damage to our battered economy.

It is not clear, Mr. President, why it will take six months to determine what went wrong on Deepwater Horizon and how to remedy safety deficiencies. The joint hearing by the Coast Guard and the Minerals Management Service already has highlighted several existing tests and safety procedures that might have prevented the blowout. There have already been nearly a dozen oil spill-related hearings on Capitol Hill.

In announcing the mission of the White House oil spill commission this week, you said, "We owe all those who've been harmed, as well as future generations, a full and vigorous accounting of the events that led to what has become the worst oil spill in U.S. history." Fair enough, but the commission's work must be focused and efficient. And the panel ought to include a resident of Louisiana, with firsthand knowledge of our economy.

We also need to know, Mr. President, whether you support legislation to give Gulf states our rightful share of offshore oil revenues now instead of in 2017. These are vital resources for our imperiled coast. During your visit last week, you did not publicly take questions from Louisianians. A local reporter's question about the revenue-sharing proposal earned a "we'll get back to you"-response from a White House spokesman. There was no followup.

Your visit is appreciated, Mr. President. But visiting Louisiana is not the same as listening to us and answering our questions.

When you were here on May 2 you talked about the possibility that the oil gushing from BP's well could "jeopardize the livelihoods of thousands of Americans who call this place home." It is doing exactly that. Now we need you to keep the damage from getting any worse.

Much has been written about Americans' loss of confidence in their government and about the disaster's collateral damage to your administration. But ultimately, the administration will be judged on what is within its power, including your ability to assess the physical and economic damage to our communities and to ease their suffering.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 06:05 PM

Down 20% in one month:

Public Opinion of Democratic Party at All-Time Low

    Americans are dissatisfied with both major political parties, but the public's approval of the Democratic Party is at its lowest level ever, a new CBS News poll shows.

    Favorable views of the Democratic Party dropped 20 points in the past year to 37 percent, according to the poll, conducted May 20 - 24. Last month, the party's favorability rating stood at 42 percent.

    Fifty-four percent of Americans have a negative view of the Democrats, the poll shows.

    Republicans have a similarly low favorability rating at 33 percent. That figure, however, is up from 28 percent - the historic low the party received last June. Fifty-five percent of Americans have a negative view of the Republican Party.

    Seventy-seven percent of Americans now disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job - the highest ever in a CBS News poll.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 06:44 PM

The Rasmussen numbers on RCP are not up to date so how are they fair and balanced? I think you need to try some fair and balanced yourself.

Obama is now at 46% approve to 54% disapprove in the Rasmussen poll.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 06:59 PM

That's terrible! I wonder if he'll got out into the garden and commit ritual suicide when he hears about it? ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 07:17 PM

Hmmm..Nobody asked me, in a poll...I don't like either one of the corrupt jerks!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 10:13 PM

Polls are for losers...

Who gives a flying fig about them??? They are so distorted that in some people minds they *are* the news??? Yeah, that is some messed up thinkin', all right...

So Obama ain't emotional enough??? Get over it!!! You wants see some emotional people then come to the south and observe these redneck... They is some seriously emotional people... Mostly over sports or tractor pulls but they can get downright emotional... Kinda stuff that gets you in, ahhhhhh, friggin' wars...

No, ya'll... We don't need an emotional president at this point... We need a smart one... We've tried it the other way with 3 emotional ones in a row and it just ain't workin' fir us...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 10:16 PM

No, make that 4 in a row... I forgot Daddy Bush who perfected the anti-intellegent-people play... Still works on about 20% of the population even though they've had 20 some years of it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 10:40 PM

Hero to zero Obama may not save the world after all

06 June 2010

TALK of the New Politics in Britain, at its most inflated, is understated compared to the millenarian, "Millions now living will never die" hysteria that swept the United States on 20 January, 2009, the day of Barack Obama's inauguration as President.
That was little more than 16 months ago, but it seems like another age. Never has any US politician's reputation crumbled so quickly.

Obama's position is beyond dire. According to Rasmussen's latest ratings, just 25 per cent of Americans "strongly
ADVERTISEMENT
approve" of Obama's performance, while 41 per cent "strongly disapprove". His presidential approval rating is -16. His ratings for honesty and for being firm and decisive have plummeted. Nor is this simply a backlash from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill: as long ago as last November, Obama had reached a point where fewer than half of Americans thought he would make the right decisions for the country. Even then he had negative ratings on the economy, Afghanistan, Iraq, unemployment, illegal immigration, the federal budget deficit – and on health care, his supposed flagship policy.

What's to like? is the evident response of a formerly infatuated electorate to Obama's car-crash presidency. On his current showing, he could not win an election against George W Bush; but it is not Obama who is up for election – it is his hapless Democrat colleagues who have a rendezvous with the voters at the Congressional elections in just five months. Psephologists have been making much of the fact that black voters, the only constituency among whom the President's popularity remains high, are inflating his otherwise low rating in the Rasmussen surveys by an estimated seven points.

So what? is the layman's natural response: they are real voters and their votes are as good as anyone else's. The pointy-head polling analysts, however, are not indulging in dismissive racism, but trying to establish the underlying realities of the Congressional elections. Traditionally, a president's personal rating is assumed to read across to the House and Senate contests. At national level, it is a basic guide to the relative prospects of the Democrat and Republican parties. If, however, one clearly identifiable demographic within the polling data – in this instance black voters – is registering an anomaly in the shape of a popularity spike, it is possible to analyse its electoral significance.

The US population is approximately 75 per cent white, 13 per cent Hispanic and 12 per cent black. The Hispanics are in tune with the majority of the electorate, since Obama's popularity among them has tumbled by 20 per cent. So the Democrats must rely on black voters. The bad news for the Democrats, as they well know, is that black voters are heavily concentrated in a limited number of electoral areas. There are 31 congressional districts with a black population of more than 40 per cent; altogether, there are 132 districts where the black population is above the national average. Against that, there are 303 districts where the numbers of black voters are less than the national average, including 177 where fewer than 5 per cent of the population are black.

It is an electoral situation vaguely comparable to the disadvantage suffered by the Liberal Democrats in Britain under the 'first past the post' system, compared to PR. It means, in bald terms, that the prospects for the Democrats in the Congressional elections are even worse than Obama's low poll ratings would suggest. He is dragging his party down with him: the number of declared Democrats in the United States is now at its lowest figure since Rasmussen began tracking it eight years ago. The imagined jewel in the crown, Obama's health care law, has turned into a millstone: beyond resenting it, 60 per cent of Americans today actively want to repeal it.

Another problem for Democrat candidates is that the black voters whom they are hoping will come to their rescue do not share their values or social agenda. This was demonstrated when homosexual marriage in California was repealed by referendum on the day Barack Obama was elected, ironically as a consequence of the increased black voter registration that organisations like Acorn had promoted as part of the Obama campaign. The kind of issues that float the boats of Nancy Pelosi and white liberals in Washington sink like a stone among the black electorate.

Obama's foreign policy, from day one, was an excursion into humiliation and impotence. Now his cack-handed, cantankerous reaction to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill ("I've seen rage from him," reported White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, referring to the President's "clenched jaw" at meetings) has further discredited a president who was never more than a soundbite-emitting hologram. From The One to zero in just 16 months - the myth has ended.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 10:42 PM

And before that it was Ronnie Raygun who was neither emotional nor smart.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 11:09 PM

Bobert 06 Jun 10:
Polls are for losers...

Who gives a flying fig about them??? They are so distorted that in some people minds they *are* the news??? Yeah, that is some messed up thinkin', all right...


Loser Bobert 25 Feb 07:

The polls I am referring to are really a combination of several non-partisan polling organizations that I pay some attention to including the New York Times, the Washington Post and even the network polls.


Loser Bobert 13 Jul 05:

But I'm gonna go on record of predictin' another 9-11 event in just over a year becuase the Repubs will be in desperate need for one and if they are goina stand any chance of holding the White House, after this dismal 8 years of theivery and lies, they can't do it without another 9/11... Keep in mind that the week before 9/11 Bush had the lowest approval rating of any president since such polls have been taken....


Loser Bobert 22 Feb 07:

It wasn't until the public opinion polls reached 60%

---

By the way Bobert, what happened to your prediction of "another 9-11 event in just over a year"

Way over due isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 11:12 PM

If you want a really emotional president, you need someone like this man:



The emotional approach to holding high office.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 11:28 PM

Sheet fire, Saws... Why not go back to stuff I wrote in the 60's, man??? I mean, you are graspin' at straws here taking stuff outta the entire contexts of stuff that was written 5 years ago under different circumstances... I was beginning to think that maybe Joe Offer had sent you off to Betty Ford to get over yer addiction to me but...

...guess not... Either that or Betty Ford didn't stick with ya'...

No matter, Saws, you are obsessed and so, hey, I guess I should be flattered... I mean, if you were some nice 50s-ish women folk singer then maybe but having you obsessed with me??? Don't do much for me...

___________________________________________________________________

Now for everyone else... You know, the folks who have a life and aren't obseessed with me let me pose this question:

Is the United Sates on it's way down???? And if so, is there really anything that Obama can do to change that???

I mean, lets just take our situation and give it a good shakin' to get the dust off it... We are part of a global economy... We consume way too much of the percentage of it's products and resources... We are bogged down in one war after another... Our working class is going backwards... Our poverty rates are increaing... Our corporations are so invested in off shore tax loopholes and off ashore production that they hardly look like American corporations... We have 5% of our population controlling 80% of the wealth... I mean, the list goes on and on...

So, regardless of Obama, can the US survive itself??? That is the real question... Maybe I'll come around tomorrow night and start a thread on that topic alone... It's not fair to put this all on Obama... He's more like the the guy who runs the last leg in a relay race and the other bozos have so stunk up the joint that no matter what he does it won't be enough...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 11:46 PM

Now, THIS is emotion!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 11:55 PM

Correction:

I said the Approval of the Democratic party dropped 20% in one month.

Wrong.

The favorable rating of the Democratic party fell 20% from 57 percent to 37 percent in one year.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 12:35 AM

Great video post, Little Hawk! Cracked me up!

Sawzaw, It's been my experience on here, that those who are sold out socialist do not comprehend facts. They are more into promoting their illusion!...and believing their own press....even when they just make it up!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 01:32 AM

Bobert:

"A two thousand year old plan on what to do with oil spills???"

Dear Bobert:

This has been updateD regularly. The last revision I see is :


Oil Pollution Prevention; Non-Transportation Related Onshore and Offshore Facilities

[Federal Register: May 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 94)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 27443-27448]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16my07-16]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 112
[EPA-HQ-OPA-2006-00949; [FRL-8315-1]
RIN 2050-AG36

Oil Pollution Prevention; Non-Transportation Related Onshore and
Offshore Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.


And you accuse me of fuzzy thinking????

You said there was no plan. There is a plan. You were wrong but too much of an ego freak to admit when you are wrong. Do you have a big basket to carry your head around in? Not stupid but just to belicose lazy to find out what you are talking about before you shoot off your mouth.

There has been a plan since 1968 , 42 years , not 2000 years but don't let that interfere with your fuzzy "I am always right" thinking. Where's the Bobert fan club when you need um?

No doubt you will devise some sort of task for me to do to prove you are right to weasel out of admitting your are wrong.

If the plan does not cover exactly the situation, that is Obama's fault. He is the one that called for offshore drilling a short while back. Didn't he for-see what might happen and require an update to the National plan to cover it?

Too busy rocking with Sir Paul, kissin ass with foreign governments and servin up the Wagu while children starve to do the hard job he asked for, said he could do and promised he would do: protect the American people.

It's more like the American people have to protect him from being a failure or they get called racists.

All this ongoing genetic engineering could unleash something bad like a plague that no one knows how to stop or like that perfect energy source thing they are trying to perfect in Europe which some say could create a black hole.

Where is the plan for dealing with those contingencies?

What? No plan? Who is responsible?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 01:42 AM

The thing that some say could create a black hole is the Large Hadron Collider. It is not an energy source, it is a tool for learning about subatomic particles. This makes me wonder, concerning things in your posts I don't know a lot about, if they're just as messed up as this is. Probably so.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 08:27 AM

For the last timr, Saws... I am a writer... If I say a 2000 year old plan it is obvious to any one with a funtional brain that I am taking some "poetic license"... Look that up in yer Funk and Wagnal...

Doesn't much matter, tho... Yje point is that a 40 year old plan ain't exactly grounds for the oil companies to get up on their high horses and proudfully pump their chests as if to say, "Hey, we got it covered"...

As for this being on Obama??? Yeah, yer right... Obama should have corrected 30 years of corporate corruption on his first day in office!!! Yep, he should have just declared martial law and had the National Guard round up every CEO of a Fortune 500 company and he should have issued executive orders to undo the 3 decade old Reagan Revolution... Yes, that's what he should have done... Right???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 08:35 AM

Sawz,

You are indeed a piece of work, trying to blame Obama for the offshore drilling catastrophe, when it is matter of plain record that large oil interets under Cheney are the forces that oushed this solution for years, and these same oil managers are the ones who overrode the safety processes in place and ignored danger signs to hurry up the oil production.

Talk about needing a basket for your head, aux barricades, mon vieux.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 08:37 AM

As you visit us today for the third time since the Deepwater Horizon started gushing oil into the Gulf of Mexico, the people of Louisiana have questions that must be answered.

Well now, the good "People Of Louisiana" have stood steadfast for unregulated, unbridled Capitalism, lower taxes, less government** and unlimited oil exploration.

In the words of the Alaskan Tea-Bimbo: "How's that workin' out for them?"

( ** less government until something happens and they come crying and whining for the government to do something toot sweet and damn the cost, that is)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 01:03 PM

Yeah, Amos... I think we are finally seein' just what a piece of crap "energy plan" that Cheney and his oil buddies put together behind closed doors... Problem is that alot of this stuff got snuck into law with executive orders and signing statements that people really didn't have a clue had occured and now it takes a lot of hassle (and time) to undo the harm... Not to mention that the Repubs flat out don't want to give Obama any victories between now and the election... Hmmmmmmm??? Seems that sandbagging and runnin' out the clock are about the only things that I can see that the Repubs have any level of expertise...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 01:12 PM

Obama should have corrected 30 years of corporate corruption on his first day in office!!! Yep, he should have just declared martial law and had the National Guard round up every CEO of a Fortune 500 company and he should have issued executive orders to undo the 3 decade old Reagan Revolution... Yes, that's what he should have done... Right???

Sigh. If only!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 09:20 PM

Mouser, That was a rather extreme hostile, and violent post! I think you need to spend more time on the instrument!..and I've said that, in support of you, as well.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 09:26 PM

Yo, GfSer... That was my post that mouse was quoting... And, for the record, I spend way too much time with my various instruments...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jun 10 - 11:02 AM

Bobert: "...And, for the record, I spend way too much time with my various instruments..."

OHH! Is that why yout lawn is over grown??

Wink,

Gfs

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Jun 10 - 11:36 AM

Excuuuse me Mr Poet but it has been 496 days since Obama took office.

What has he corrected? He hires corporate fat cats like the ones he supposedly is battling. Mr fatcat Soros that was so active in getting him elected made over a Billion last year. Warren Buffet? Richest man in the world at times.

You accuse others of fuzzy thinking but you grant yourself a license to telescope 496 days into one day and expand 48 years into 2000 years. Distortion of facts is OK for you.

I guess a functional brain, rubberized. pickled in 'shine and THC is capable of stretching the truth like that while facts and common sense bounce off like bullets bouncing off of Superman.

Obama is clearly to big to fail in your opinion and your task is to bail him out at any cost.

I told myself We should give him a chance. He got his chance.

Bottom line:
A. There is a plan.
B. It has been updated regularly to cover offshore oil spills.
C. You were wrong when you said there was no plan.
D. Your ego prevents you from admitting you were wrong.
E. A sensible person would admit when they are wrong and earn more respect.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Jun 10 - 12:47 PM

Ahhhh, talk about distortions, Saws... Exactly when did you give Obama any chance to succeed??? Oh, that's right... You told yourself... Hmmmmmm??? Must have some personality disorder 'cause seems that all you've done is give the man the blast here in Mudville??? Like what's that about??? BTW, do you hears voices in yer head that no one else hears???

BTW, Part B... You have been doing well since yer last visit to Betty Ford but seems that you have fallen off the wagon yet again... Think it might be time for you to get back in there for a little refresher...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jun 10 - 01:16 PM

Perhaps Sawz would like to detail for us how the plan he believes covered the whole subject of offshore drilling safety is supposed to be applied int he face of wilful disregard by speed and profit hungry execs, and a giant hole in the sea bottom unleashing thousands of gallons of raw oil?

Does he have a remedy for the situation that was dumped on the nation (and the President) by his well-beloved Chenyites?

Nooo?


Hmmmmmmmm.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Jun 10 - 01:39 PM

Ahhhh, how many Obama apologists have ever heard of the "National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan"???

(Hmmmmmm, Sawz, none holdin' up their hands...)

Oops thar's Bobert wif his hand up in tha air.

Bobert?

Ain't np "National Respinse Plan"

Hey, give Bobert an A for attendance.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 03:05 PM

"06/09/2010

Left-Wing Icon Daniel Ellsberg
'Obama Deceives the Public'

REUTERS
Daniel Ellsberg, legendary leaker of the "Pentagon Papers" in 1971, still has a bone to pick with the White House. In an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE, the 79-year-old peace activist accuses President Obama of betraying his election promises -- in Iraq, in Afghanistan and on civil liberties.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Mr. Ellsberg, you're a hero and an icon of the left. But we hear you're not too happy with President Obama anymore.


Daniel Ellsberg: I voted for him and I will probably vote for him again, as opposed to the Republicans. But I believe his administration in some key aspects is nothing other than the third term of the Bush administration.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: How so?

Ellsberg: I think Obama is continuing the worst of the Bush administration in terms of civil liberties, violations of the constitution and the wars in the Middle East.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: For example?

Ellsberg: Take Obama's explicit pledge in his State of the Union speech to remove "all" United States troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. That's a total lie. I believe that's totally false. I believe he knows that's totally false. It won't be done. I expect that the US will have, indefinitely, a residual force of at least 30,000 US troops in Iraq.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What about Afghanistan? Isn't that a justifiable war?

Ellsberg: I think that there's an inexcusable escalation in both countries. Thousands of US officials know that bases and large numbers of troops will remain in Iraq and that troop levels and bases in Afghanistan will rise far above what Obama is now projecting. But Obama counts on them to keep their silence as he deceives the public on these devastating, costly, reckless ventures.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: You doubt not only Obama's missions abroad but also his politics back home in the US. Why exactly are you accusing the president of violating civil liberties?

Ellsberg: For instance, the Obama administration is criminalizing and prosecuting whistleblowers to punish them for uncovering scandals within the federal government …

SPIEGEL ONLINE: … Such as the arrest, confirmed this week, of an Army intelligence analyst for leaking the "Collateral Murder" video of a deadly US helicopter attack in Iraq, which was later posted online at WikiLeaks.

Ellsberg: Also, the recent US indictment of Thomas Drake.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Drake was a former senior official with the National Security Agency (NSA) who provided reporters with information about failures at the NSA.

Ellsberg: For Obama to indict and prosecute Drake now, for acts undertaken and investigated during the Bush administration, is to do precisely what Obama said he did not mean to do -- "look backward." Of all the blatantly criminal acts committed under Bush, warrantless wiretapping by the NSA, aggression, torture, Obama now prosecutes only the revelation of massive waste by the NSA, a socially useful act which the Bush administration itself investigated but did not choose to indict or prosecute!

Bush brought no indictments against whistleblowers, though he suspended Drake's clearance. Obama, in this and other matters relating to secrecy and whistleblowing, is doing worse than Bush. His violation of civil liberties and the White House's excessive use of the executive secrecy privilege is inexcusable.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Why would Obama reverse himself?

Ellsberg: He's a good politician. He said what he needed to say to get elected, and now he's just taking advantage of the office. Like any administration before, his administration caters to the profits of big corporations like BP and Goldman Sachs -- even though I think BP won't get off that easily this time. His early campaign contributions, the big corporate contributions, came from Wall Street. They got their money's worth.

In fact, during the campaign of 2008, three candidates were backed by Wall Street: Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain. If you look at the rhetoric, the most promising was John Edwards. Too bad he turned out to be a jerk.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But Obama has been very verbal about his criticism of Wall Street.

Ellsberg: His actions are totally uncoupled from his public statements. I don't even listen anymore. He has turned 180 degrees. Another example: His promise to filibuster a law giving the phone companies legal immunity for any role they played in the Bush's domestic eavesdropping program. Then he not only voted not to filibuster it, he also voted for the law -- against the wishes of his backers.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Do you think that will backfire for the Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections?

Ellsberg: I don't think what Obama is doing is the best way to get votes. But it's the best way to get campaign contributions.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: You were the ultimate whistleblower. In 1971, you leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times, revealing that the government was well aware the Vietnam War couldn't be won. You changed history but were vilified and prosecuted for it. Would you still do it today?


Ellsberg: I wouldn't wait that long. I would get a scanner and put them on the Internet.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Would that still have the same impact?

Ellsberg: If the Pentagon Papers came online today all at once, the government wouldn't be tempted to enjoin it. Back then, we got this long duel going between newspapers and the government. In the end, 19 newspapers ended up putting up parts of the documents, day after day after day. It created this ongoing scandal. I don't think it would have the same impact online as having it in the Times. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 03:07 PM

OPINION JUNE 9, 2010 The Alien in the White House

The distance between the president and the people is beginning to be revealed.

By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ

The deepening notes of disenchantment with Barack Obama now issuing from commentators across the political spectrum were predictable. So, too, were the charges from some of the president's earliest enthusiasts about his failure to reflect a powerful sense of urgency about the oil spill.

There should have been nothing puzzling about his response to anyone who has paid even modest critical attention to Mr. Obama's pronouncements. For it was clear from the first that this president—single-minded, ever-visible, confident in his program for a reformed America saved from darkness by his arrival—was wanting in certain qualities citizens have until now taken for granted in their presidents. Namely, a tone and presence that said: This is the Americans' leader, a man of them, for them, the nation's voice and champion. Mr. Obama wasn't lacking in concern about the oil spill. What he lacked was that voice—and for good reason.

Those qualities to be expected in a president were never about rhetoric; Mr. Obama had proved himself a dab hand at that on the campaign trail. They were a matter of identification with the nation and to all that binds its people together in pride and allegiance. These are feelings held deep in American hearts, unvoiced mostly, but unmistakably there and not only on the Fourth of July.

A great part of America now understands that this president's sense of identification lies elsewhere, and is in profound ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class. He is the alien in the White House, a matter having nothing to do with delusions about his birthplace cherished by the demented fringe.

One of his first reforms was to rid the White House of the bust of Winston Churchill—a gift from Tony Blair—by packing it back off to 10 Downing Street. A cloudlet of mystery has surrounded the subject ever since, but the central fact stands clear. The new administration had apparently found no place in our national house of many rooms for the British leader who lives on so vividly in the American mind. Churchill, face of our shared wartime struggle, dauntless rallier of his nation who continues, so remarkably, to speak to ours. For a president to whom such associations are alien, ridding the White House of Churchill would, of course, have raised no second thoughts.

Far greater strangeness has since flowed steadily from Washington. The president's appointees, transmitters of policy, go forth with singular passion week after week, delivering the latest inversion of reality. Their work is not easy, focused as it is on a current prime preoccupation of this White House—that is, finding ways to avoid any public mention of the indisputable Islamist identity of the enemy at war with us. No small trick that, but their efforts go forward in public spectacles matchless in their absurdity—unnerving in what they confirm about our current guardians of law and national security.

Consider the hapless Eric Holder, America's attorney general, confronting the question put to him by Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas) of the House Judicary Committee on May 13.

Did Mr. Holder think that in the last three terrorist attempts on this soil, one of them successful (Maj. Nidal Hasan's murder of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, preceded by his shout of "Allahu Akbar!"), that radical Islam might have played any role at all? Mr. Holder seemed puzzled by the question. "People have different reasons" he finally answered—a response he repeated three times. He didn't want "to say anything negative about any religion."

And who can forget the exhortations on jihad by John Brennan, Mr. Obama's chief adviser on counterterrorism? Mr. Brennan has in the past charged that Americans lack sensitivity to the Muslim world, and that we have particularly failed to credit its peace-loving disposition. In a May 26 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Mr. Brennan held forth fervently, if not quite comprehensibly, on who our enemy was not: "Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is just a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind, and as Americans we refuse to live in fear."

He went on to announce, sternly, that we do not refer to our enemies as Islamists or jihadists because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam. How then might we be permitted to describe our enemies? One hint comes from another of Mr. Brennan's pronouncements in that speech: That "violent extremists are victims of political, economic and social forces."

Yes, that would work. Consider the news bulletins we could have read: "Police have arrested Faisal Shahzad, victim of political, economic and social forces living in Connecticut, for efforts to set off a car bomb explosion in Times Square." Plotters in Afghanistan and Yemen, preparing for their next attempt at mass murder in America, could only have listened in wonderment. They must have marvelled in particular on learning that this was the chief counterterrorism adviser to the president of the United States.

Obama Resells Health Law to Seniors Lincoln Bucks Wave Against Incumbents The Blagojevich Drama Debuts Showdown on Fund Taxes Long after Mr. Obama leaves office, it will be this parade of explicators, laboring mightily to sell each new piece of official reality revisionism—Janet Napolitano and her immortal "man-caused disasters'' among them—that will stand most memorably as the face of this administration.

It is a White House that has focused consistently on the sensitivities of the world community—as it is euphemistically known—a body of which the president of the United States frequently appears to view himself as a representative at large.

It is what has caused this president and his counterterrorist brain trust to deem it acceptable to insult Americans with nonsensical evasions concerning the enemy we face. It is this focus that caused Mr. Holder to insist on holding the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in lower Manhattan, despite the rage this decision induced in New Yorkers, and later to insist if not there, then elsewhere in New York. This was all to be a dazzling exhibition for that world community—proof of Mr. Obama's moral reclamation program and that America had been delivered from the darkness of the Bush years.

It was why this administration tapped officials like Michael Posner, assistant secretary of state for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Among his better known contributions to political discourse was a 2005 address in which he compared the treatment of Muslim-Americans in the United States after 9/11 with the plight of the Japanese-Americans interned in camps after Pearl Harbor. During a human-rights conference held in China this May, Mr. Posner cited the new Arizona immigration law by way of assuring the Chinese, those exemplary guardians of freedom, that the United States too had its problems with discrimination.

So there we were: America and China, in the same boat on human rights, two buddies struggling for reform. For this view of reality, which brought withering criticism in Congress and calls for his resignation, Mr. Posner has been roundly embraced in the State Department as a superbly effective representative.

It is no surprise that Mr. Posner—like numerous of his kind—has found a natural home in this administration. His is a sensibility and political disposition with which Mr. Obama is at home. The beliefs and attitudes that this president has internalized are to be found everywhere—in the salons of the left the world over—and, above all, in the academic establishment, stuffed with tenured radicals and their political progeny. The places where it is held as revealed truth that the United States is now, and has been throughout its history, the chief engine of injustice and oppression in the world.

They are attitudes to be found everywhere, but never before in a president of the United States. Mr. Obama may not hold all, or the more extreme, of these views. But there can be no doubt by now of the influences that have shaped him. They account for his grand apology tour through the capitals of Europe and to the Muslim world, during which he decried America's moral failures—her arrogance, insensitivity. They were the words of a man to whom reasons for American guilt came naturally. Americans were shocked by this behavior in their newly elected president. But he was telling them something from those lecterns in foreign lands—something about his distant relation to the country he was about to lead.

The truth about that distance is now sinking in, which is all to the good. A country governed by leaders too principled to speak the name of its mortal enemy needs every infusion of reality it can get.

Ms. Rabinowitz is a member of the WSJournal's editorial board.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 03:38 PM

AP:Sanctions unlikely to stop Iranian nuclear drive
Jun 9 02:18 PM US/Eastern
By GEORGE JAHN
Associated Press Writer

VIENNA (AP) - Washington calls the latest U.N. sanctions on Iran a diplomatic victory, a show of unity by the world's big powers and a powerful way to prevent the country from making nuclear weapons.
Iran says the sanctions are an unfair attempt to keep it from developing a peaceful civilian energy program.

Whatever Iran's ultimate goal, it is clear that, like three previous sets of sanctions, the new measures are unlikely to crimp a nearly mature nuclear program that can be turned to both peaceful purposes and making atomic weapons.

The new sanctions authorize countries to inspect cargo to and from Iran; strengthen an arms embargo by banning transfers of more types of conventional arms and missiles; expand restrictions on Iran's access to nuclear technology; add more institutions to a financial sanctions watch list and urge "vigilance" in doing business with any organization linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guard.

But because many aspects of a civilian nuclear program can also serve military purposes, Iran already has most of what it would need to make a weapon. And the cost of getting China and Russia to approve the new sanctions was the removal of provisions that would have really hurt Iran, such as an embargo on Iranian oil or a ban on gasoline sales.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, in its newest tally last month said Iran was now running nearly 4,000 uranium-enriching centrifuges and had amassed nearly 2.5 tons of low-enriched uranium that can be used for fuel, once Iran's first reactor goes on line, which is planned for some time this year.

That's also enough for two nuclear bombs if enriched to weapons-grade levels. Iran recently began enriching to higher levels for what it says will be research reactor fuel.

The process is turning out less than weapons-grade uranium. If Iran should decide to pursue a weapon, however, it would take less work to turn such higher-enriched feedstock into fissile warhead material.

It will be hard to keep Iran from obtaining more nuclear technology. Many of the companies and entities mentioned in the new sanctions list have already been subject to sanctions and Iran has found ways in the past to circumvent the penalties or create cover companies to procure items on its behalf

"I don't think anybody thinks these particular sanctions are going to trigger Iran to give up its nuclear program," said Sharon Squassoni, a nuclear proliferation expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Secret Iranian nuclear activities were first revealed eight years ago when an Iranian dissident group provided evidence of a nascent government program of uranium enrichment—the technology that can make both nuclear fuel and fissile warhead material.

Iran resisted years of calls to permanently stop enriching, prompting a December 2006 U.N. Security Council resolution that called for member nations to prevent the supply, sale or transfer of all materials and technology that could contribute to Iran's nuclear activities.

It was too late. Building on black market components and know-how, Iran already had most of what it needed to maintain—and expand—its enrichment capacities. And clandestine deliveries of equipment continued despite the sanctions—as reflected in dozens of convictions worldwide of people found guilty of nuclear smuggling to Iran.

Subsequent U.N. resolutions in March 2007 and March 2008 repeated demands that Iran come clean on unexplained aspects of its nuclear program that hardened suspicions it might interested in nuclear arms.

But Iran refused—and continued expanding enrichment.

"Sanctions won't stop Iran from continuing its nuclear, missile and space program. It may create some obstacles but Iran can find ways to go around it," said Abbas Pazooki, an Iranian commentator.

Iran says that despite its oil reserves it needs nuclear energy to guarantee its future economic sustainability.

After the U.N. vote, Iran's U.N. Ambassador Mohammad Khazaee accused the United States, Britain and their allies of abusing the Security Council to attack Iran.

"No amount of pressure and mischief will be able to break our nation's determination to pursue and defend its legal and inalienable rights," Khazaee said.

Western intelligence reports say it is clear that Iran is interested in at least achieving the ability to produce a bomb, even if it has no specific plans to produce it at the moment. The reports from the U.S., Israel, France, Britain and other nations assert that Iran has experimented with most other key aspects of warhead production and delivery.

Gen. James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress recently that if and when Iran decides to build its first bomb, it could amass enough highly enriched uranium to do so in as little as 12 months.

An International Atomic Energy Agency document meant to be read by only a handful of the agency's top officials and leaked to The Associated Press last year expanded on some of that intelligence. It cited Iran experts at the U.N. nuclear monitor as believing that Tehran already has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and worked on developing a missile system that can carry an atomic warhead.

It was the clearest indication yet that those officials share Washington's views on Iran's weapon-making capabilities and missile technology—even if they have not made those views public. And because the agency is generally seen as impartial, the findings added to concerns about Iran's nuclear goals

In that document, IAEA officials assessed that Iran worked on developing a chamber inside a ballistic missile capable of housing a warhead payload "that is quite likely to be nuclear."

_ That Iran engaged in "probable testing" of explosives commonly used to detonate a nuclear warhead—a method known as a "full-scale hemispherical explosively driven shock system."

_ That Iran worked on developing a system "for initiating a hemispherical high explosive charge" of the kind used to help spark a nuclear blast.

Iran did not comment on the report.

Whatever their efficacy, the latest sanctions may serve Iran's leadership in their drive to rally domestic support by depicting international opposition to its nuclear drive as an attack on the country.

"If you think that by making fuss and propaganda you can force us to withdraw you are wrong," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a home crowd last month. "The Iranian nation will not withdraw one inch from its stance."

In Vienna, International Atomic Energy Agency officials say that Iran recently served notice that it would further cut back on cooperation with the U.N. nuclear monitor if new sanctions were adopted.

That would reduce the outside world's already narrow window on Iran's nuclear program.

___

Associated Press Vienna Bureau Chief George Jahn has reported on Iran's nuclear program since 2002

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 07:11 PM

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 07:47 PM

(yawn)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 08:19 PM

Ditto on both the "Zzzzzzzzzzzzz" and the "(yawn)"...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 09:22 PM

So it's now back to, ahhhhhh, Obama...

Some interesting reading over the last couple days...

Pat Buchannan says Obams should come out and put a major blast on BP???

Other folks say that in doin' so this would show that Obama is somekinda angry black man... You know, feeding into old sterotypes... TRhe boogieman...

I'm with the "other folks"... If Pat Buchannon thinks that Obma needs to rant then let Buchannon step up and do the ranting gainst the Big Boys in Obama's place...

BTW, looks as if Rand Paul is supporting BP... We a;; know that the govrenment is evil... Right???

And we have a woman in Nevada running agasinst Harry Reid who wants to end Social Seurity and wants to bring back prohibition???

Life is gettin' stranger and stranger by the day...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 10 - 10:13 AM

'World News' Political Insights: President Obama Seeks Control of Sticky Storyline

White House Wakes Up Late to Political Fallout of Oil Spill -- Plus an Energy Bill That's Still Stalled

ANALYSIS By RICK KLEIN
WASHINGTON, June 13, 2010


Can Obama clean up oil and his image among voters?President Obama is now reacting to the BP oil mess in precisely the way he said he didn't need to. After weeks of insisting that bringing rhetorical heat on BP executives wouldn't get anything done, that's just what he's starting to do.

Now, a president who's known for his cool is looking for butts to kick. He's meeting with the same executives whose direct input he said he didn't think he needed, as his top aides telegraph growing frustration with their erstwhile partners at BP.

Nearly two months into the environmental calamity in the region, he's making his fourth visit to the Gulf region -- this time, spending an overnight and the better part of two days.

He's capping it all by using one of the loudest megaphones a president possesses: a prime-time address Tuesday night, from the Oval Office.

Why the shift? The White House is beginning to realize that the political fallout of the oil spill is very real -- and holding office for a year and a half makes it harder to blame the previous administration for evident shortcomings.

Just as the president and his top aides didn't fully grasp the scale of environmental fallout, they didn't comprehend the degree to which the response to the incident has evolved into a test of presidential leadership.

The president himself has voiced growing frustration over what he sees as a media-constructed storyline. Yet his actions now, in turning up the rhetorical heat and the personal involvement, play into that narrative.

Little if anything the president says or does this week will do much -- to quote the president on what he's indicated he thinks the American people really want -- to "plug the damn leak." But the time for making friends is over.

"I don't consider them a partner," White House senior adviser David Axelrod said on "Meet the Press" today, when asked about the White House relationship with BP executives. "They're not social friends. They are not -- I'm not looking to make judgments about their soul. I just want to make sure that they do what they're required to do."

Losing Energy
Backers of comprehensive energy and environmental legislation had hoped that the incident in the Gulf would refocus national attention on their cause, fueling a new push toward Senate action on a long-delayed comprehensive bill.

The BP oil spill has indeed scrambled the politics of energy -- but almost certainly not enough to get the cap into cap-and-trade.

Senate Democrats on Thursday will meet to discuss a path forward on an energy bill, and the likeliest path will involve dropping the environmental end of the policy checklist, and focus instead on renewable-energy incentives.

A much-watched vote last week laid bare the stubborn politics surrounding these issues in the Senate. Six Democrats voted with Republicans in a failed bid to strip the EPA of the power to regulate carbon emissions.

Backers of a sweeping approach to energy that involves caps on emissions are caught in a paradox involving the fallout of the BP spill. As President Obama himself realized when he endorsed further offshore drilling just a month before the rig explosion, the only way to get Republicans and moderate Democrats on board for a comprehensive bill is with significant drilling expansion.

In BP's wake, that's simply not going to fly. That means any efforts to impose meaningful limits on greenhouse gas emissions will have to wait at least another year -- and probably longer than that, given the likelihood of Republican pick-ups in the midterm elections this year.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Jun 10 - 10:45 AM

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Jun 10 - 12:53 PM

I completely agree that Obama hasn't been out there pumping his chest like Bush used to do... In some ways, that's a good thing... But in this entertainment mentality society in which we live where news programs are greared more toward entertainment and less toward news I reckon that Obama is gonna have to do some compromisin'...

I understand that he is going to address the nation tomorrow night on the oil spill... That's a start but only a start... He needs to, at the ver least, watch a couple Bush reruns where Bush stuck out his chin (and chest) and acted like he had just scored the winning touchdown in the Super Bowl... Theh Obama needs see what parts of Bush's braggin' that he could borrow... Needs to find a happy medium to keep the entertainment crazed public somewhat happy... As well as, ahhhh, enetertained...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jun 10 - 01:42 PM

If only the public had gone for REAL change and elected Chongo. If only!   ;-)

(Chongo got lucky, though. They didn't. He has no idea just how lucky he is!)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Jun 10 - 01:57 PM

They had a choice between a chimp, a chump and a champ, and they picked the champ.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Jun 10 - 05:36 PM

Yeah, right, LH... In yer dreams... Chongz would have allready emptied a couple hundrdd clips of live ammo at various and sundry folks... Heck, maybe the guy who runs the MiniMart/PB station down the street...

Plus, Chongzer woulda dropped a nuclear bomb down the pipe and blown the entire Gulf of Mexico off the map...

Nah, ol' hillbilly real happy that neither Chongz 'er myself won the election...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Jun 10 - 10:36 PM

This

http://www.natedsanders.com/ItemInfo.asp?ItemID=29679

brings to mind the "TeaBagger/Birther/Obama The Socialist" crowd & reminds us that these right-wing loonies have been around for quite a while.

Question is, why are wackoes currently awarded any measure of respect which they rightfully were not in the past?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Jun 10 - 08:14 AM

It's a sad fact, Greg, that the American people have become what they used to crticize the Brits for becoming: a tabloid nation... I remember a time when you couldn't go a week without a decent doumentary on the TV... Those have disasppeared because they were educational and not entertaining... People don't want to know anything and thus you have a dumbed down population that is only interested in sensational entertainment... The more sensationak, the better and thus: loonies get alot of press time...

And in the words of the late Walter Cronkite, "And that's the way it is"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 07:28 AM

Obama vs. press freedom

By Dick Morris - 06/15/10 05:22 PM ET

Jon Leibowitz, the chairman of Obama's Federal Trade Commission, is at the epicenter of a quiet movement to subsidize news organizations, a first step toward government control of the media. In our book, 2010: Take Back America — A Battle Plan, we reported that he had commissioned a study to examine plans for a federal subsidy for news organizations. Among the measures under consideration are special tax treatment, exemption from antitrust laws and changes in copyright laws.

Now Leibowitz has begun to pounce. A May 24 working paper on "reinventing" the media proposes that the government impose fees on websites such as the Drudge Report that link to news websites or that it tax consumer electronics such as iPads, laptops and Kindles. Funds raised by these levies would be redistributed to traditional media outlets.

While Leibowitz distanced himself from the proposals for the taxes, calling them "a terrible idea," his comments appear to be related only to the levies proposed in the working paper. Nobody is commenting on the other part of his proposal — a subsidy for news organizations.

By now, the Obama MO should be clear to all. As he has done with the banks, AIG and the car companies, he extends his left hand offering subsidies and then proffers his right laden with regulations. Should the government follow through on Leibowitz's ideas and enact special subsidies and tax breaks for news organizations, it will induce a degree of journalistic dependence on the whims of government not seen since the days when the early presidents bestowed government advertising on favored periodicals.

Is it too difficult to imagine that the Democrats might pass laws favoring news organizations, only to question — as former White House communications director Anita Dunn did — whether or not Fox News is a news organization or an "arm of the Republican Party"? We can see a future in which news media are reluctant to be too partisan or opinionated for fear that they would endanger their public subsidy.

Once such a subsidy is extended to news organizations, every company in the business must have it. Otherwise, the competitive advantage for the subsidized companies would prove too steep an obstacle to overcome.

In all the attention that has been given to the idea of an Internet tax on news aggregation sites and on tech equipment — trial balloons that would obviously be shot down — very little attention has been focused on the expenditure side of the proposal — the subsidy of news organizations.

But The Wall Street Journal reported six months ago that Leibowitz had commissioned a study to determine "whether the government should aid struggling news organizations which are suffering from a collapse in advertising revenues as the Internet upends their centuries-old business model." Among the steps under consideration are changing "the way the industry is regulated, from making news-gathering companies exempt from antitrust laws to granting them special tax treatment to making changes to copyright laws."

These are exactly the kind of subsidies that could and would trigger government oversight and control.

Look at how radio stations squirm when their licenses are up for renewal before the FCC. We can imagine news organizations pulling their punches in order not to antagonize the hand that feeds them.

The Leibowitz study, and the subsidy proposals that are likely to emerge from it, represent a chilling threat to the First Amendment and to our civil liberties.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 07:30 AM

MSNBC Trashes Obama's Address: Compared To Carter, "I Don't Sense Executive Command"


Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Howard Fineman react to President Obama's Oval Office Address on the oil spill. Here are the highlights of what the trio said:

Olbermann: "It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days."

Matthews compared Obama to Carter.

Olbermann: "Nothing specific at all was said."

Matthews: "No direction."

Howard Fineman: "He wasn't specific enough."

Olbermann: "I don't think he aimed low, I don't think he aimed at all. It's startling."

Howard Fineman: Obama should be acting like a "commander-in-chief."

Matthews: Ludicrous that he keeps saying [Secretary of Energy] Chu has a Nobel prize. "I'll barf if he does it one more time."

Matthews: "A lot of meritocracy, a lot of blue ribbon talk."

Matthews: "I don't sense executive command."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 08:04 AM

Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Fallout from the Spill

Our new Louisiana poll has a lot of data points to show how unhappy voters in the state are with Barack Obama's handling of the oil spill but one perhaps sums it up better than anything else- a majority of voters there think George W. Bush did a better job with Katrina than Obama's done dealing with the spill.

50% of voters in the state, even including 31% of Democrats, give Bush higher marks on that question compared to 35% who pick Obama.

Overall only 32% of Louisianans approve of how Obama has handled the spill to 62% who disapprove. 34% of those polled say they approved of how Bush dealt with Katrina to 58% who disapproved.

While the poll results indicate a lot of unhappiness with the President, ultimately BP is getting the largest amount of blame from voters in the state. 53% of voters say they're angriest at the oil company to 29% who say their greatest unhappiness is with the federal government. And 78% say BP has the greatest responsibility for cleaning up the spill to only 11% who say that onus lays with the federal government. 44% think BP CEO Tony Hayward should be fired to 29% who think he should not and 26% who are not sure.

One thing the oil spill has not done is created a spike of opposition to offshore drilling in Louisiana. 77% of voters still support it with only 12% against. Only 31% say the spill has made them less inclined to be in favor of drilling while 42% say it hasn't made a difference to them and 28% say they're now stronger in their support.

If there's any 'winner' in this unfortunate event it's Governor Bobby Jindal. 63% of voters approve of the job he's doing, the best PPP has found for any Senator or Governor so far in 2010. There's an even higher level of support, at 65%, for how he's handled the aftermath of the spill.

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/06/fallout-from-spill.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 08:06 AM

Well, yeah, MSNBC seems to the the lone leftie media outlet... Problem is that it is greatly outnumbered by the rightie ones...

But thank God for MSNBC... At least when more moderate and curious people ask me where I get some of my information I can tell them to check out the Rachael Maddow Show which, interestly enough, at least a couple of my frineds who had never heard of MSNBC, are now watching...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 09:16 AM

a majority of voters there think George W. Bush did a better job with Katrina than Obama's done dealing with the spill.

1. Tinfoil sales must be way up in Louisiana.

2. Louisiana never did spend much per capita on education.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 09:23 AM

Yup. Dick Morris- a paid Faux News hack & proud TeaBagger. Right up there with Glenn & Rush & the Birther crowd.

Please.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 09:27 AM

Greg F.

Since you accepted the NYT biased editorials on Bush, you have nop reason to complain.

Your comment has been noted, and ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 01:51 PM

Scofular Views: the Edema Confabulation

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 02:14 PM

BB: Since you accepted the NYT biased editorials on Bush, ...

1.If you have any documentation for this statement, please provide same. (Or I can save you the trouble: No, you don't.)

2. If you have any evidence the TIMES editorials contained unsubstantiated statements or errors of fact, please provide, as above.

[ NB: There is ample incontrovertable evidence that a substantial proportion of Faux News' output & that or its operatives is just that. Beck & Rush? Please.]

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 02:41 PM

I get bemused by all this horsepucky about Obama not generating the emotions people want him to show and similar rot. Exactly what is it he should be doing that he is not?

During the Katrina catastrophe there were a thousand suggested actions Bush should have taken he did not.

Who's got a list of the things Obama has missed taking steps on? Hmmmm? This kind of emotional vacuity is just hot air and right-wing tubthumpery.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 04:33 PM

This kind of emotional vacuity is just hot air and right-wing tubthumpery.

No shortage of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 01:46 PM

Washington
President Obama is "more popular overseas in many countries than he is at home," says Andrew Kohut, President of the Pew Research Center.

Skip to next paragraph
Related Stories
Does Obama's global popularity matter ?
Obama charisma? China keeps it in tight check.
Obama is Mr. Popular around the globe
.Mr. Kohut spoke at a Monitor-sponsored breakfast for reporters to discuss a new Pew Global Attitudes Project survey which canvassed 24,000 individuals in 22 nations. While 65 percent of those Pew surveyed in the US had a lot or some confidence in President Obama, 90 percent of those in Germany, 87 percent of those in France, and 95 percent of those in Kenya had confidence in him. The lowest popularity rating for the president came in Pakistan where only 8 percent had confidence in him. (The full report is at www.pewglobal.org)

In addition to the findings about Mr. Obama's popularity, the exhaustive report found opinions of the United States have remained much more positive than they were for much of George Bush's term in office.

Former Senator John Danforth, a co-chair of the Pew project, questioned whether Mr. Obama's popularity translates into anything concrete for the US. " For a former politician to see a politician retain popularity is really a wonder. There is no doubt that president Obama has done that," Senator Danforth said at the breakfast.


(Christian Science Monitor)

(As to the argument of what value thismay have, all I can say is I am delighted with the change from the Bush years when Americans abroad pretended to be Canadians in order to duck the obloquoy associated with W.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 01:48 PM

Bobert: You get your information from the Rachael Maddow show?

That 'splains a lot.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 02:15 PM

And You, Douggie-Boy, get your information OUT OF THIN AIR!

Explains even more.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 02:26 PM

Try the Racheal Maddow show, Dougie...

No don't...

You'll find it boring because it isn't all hysteria like the folks you watch... Plus, it deals with factual information... No sir, I don't think you'll like that either... And Rachael is gay so I reckon the show has struck out in yer book...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 05:48 PM

She's gay? Well, better than being depressed, right? Although there are a fair number of reasons to be depressed these days if you're a political commentator, I think it's always best to look on the bright side. ;-)

I just listened to her speech that she says Obama should have given. Damn good speech! Too bad she isn't president, eh?

Now, tell me...why is it that neither one of you guys can spell "Rachel"?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 06:28 PM

Well, as fir me??? I'm lexdexic and don't spell too good either...

As fir Doougie... I mean, the guy's a hundred, LH... It's a wonder he can even turn on a computer...

And, yeah, the speech was good...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 06:59 PM

I acktshally enjoy yer lexdexic spelling, Bobert. I've become fond of it. I just thought it was kind of funny that both you AND Doug spelled her name wrong...but in 2 different ways! ;-D It figures. You guys just can't agree on anything, can you?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 07:26 AM

Well, ahhhhh, Dougie and I do share an apprciation of fine art... Okay, maybe we don't but I think that Dougie was involved as a mauseum administrator, 'er somethin' like that... Of course, being an administartor of a museum or gallery doesn't mean you have an apprciation of the arts but I sent him a print of one of my pen-np-ink drawings and he said he liked it??? But then again, I sent one to Kat and I think she is an appreciator of fine art and she liked it, too...

Other than that??? Ahhhh, nah.... We prolly don't agree on much...

But is is a respectfull disagreement... I mean, Dougie can't help it that he's a knothead... It's in his DNA to be knothead...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 09:27 AM

I think that Dougie was involved as a mauseum administrator...

Yup- the Creation Museum in Petersburg, KY.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 08:39 PM

Is that right, Greg???

BTW, folks... Seems as if the media is trying it's hardest to paint Obama into a corner over the oil spill... There haven't been any positive articles, even in the commie Washington Post, that have anything positive to say about how his administartion has handled the oil spill???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 09:33 PM

What do you expect his administration to do that it hasn't done?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 10:43 PM

Strap on the tanks and go down and personally plug the hole and and suck up all the oil with his ObamaOilSucker-TM which takes oily water and turns it into wonderful water where all the fish are happy...

Anything less means that the Repubs have all the answers??? Yeah, go figure that one... But that seems to be the the deal... People are still pissed off from the economy that the repubs left... Now they are pissed that the government can't stop the oil leak...

Obama oughtta call George and say "Screw this job... You messed it up and I'm sending the Acme Movers to come get your stuff because I'm going back to Chicago and let you clean your messes up..."

I mean, lets get real here... This ain't about political parties as much as it is about this very subtle campaign to discredit perhaps the best president since Jimmy Carter... I understood what happened to Carter... 12% interets rates (not his fault), OPEC and IRAN (not to mention the botched rescue)... But there's nothin' that makes a whole lotta sense with Obama... He hasn't ****caused**** any of the problems he is facing...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 11:52 PM

He's black. He's not Republican. Times are hard and people need a scapegoat. People are falling on hard times who have believed all their lives that it's just the lazy and feckless people who lose their homes, go unemployed for months, etc. -- so now it happens to them, they are incapable of overturning their previous belief that the poor are that way because they deserve to be -- so they look for some other reason for their new-found misfortune (since obviously it can't be because THEY are unworthy of continued success).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 12:02 PM

"Obama's thuggery is useless in fighting spill

By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
June 20, 2010
   
Thuggery is unattractive. Ineffective thuggery even more so. Which may be one reason so many Americans have been reacting negatively to the response of Barack Obama and his administration to BP's Gulf oil spill.

Take Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's remark that he would keep his "boot on the neck" of BP, which brings to mind George Orwell's definition of totalitarianism as "a boot stamping on a human face -- forever." Except that Salazar's boot hasn't gotten much in the way of results yet.

Or consider Obama's undoubtedly carefully considered statement to Matt Lauer that he was consulting with experts "so I know whose ass to kick." Attacking others is a standard campaign tactic when you're in political trouble, and certainly BP, which appears to have taken unwise shortcuts in the Gulf, is an attractive target.

But you don't always win arguments that way. The Obama White House gleefully took on Dick Cheney on the issue of terrorist interrogations. It turned out that more Americans agreed with Cheney's stand, despite his low poll numbers, than Obama's.

Then there is Obama's decision to impose a six-month moratorium on deepwater oil drilling in the Gulf. This penalizes companies with better safety records than BP's and will result in many advanced drilling rigs being sent to offshore oil fields abroad.

The justification offered was an Interior Department report supposedly "peer reviewed" by "experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering." But it turned out the drafts the experts saw didn't include any recommendation for a moratorium. Eight of the cited experts have said they oppose the moratorium as more economically devastating than the oil spill and "counterproductive" to safety.

This was blatant dishonesty by the administration, on an Orwellian scale. In defense of a policy that has all the earmarks of mindless panic, that penalizes firms and individuals guilty of no wrongdoing and that will worsen rather than improve our energy situation. Ineffective thuggery.

And what about the decision not to waive the Jones Act, which bars foreign-flag vessels from coming to the aid of the Gulf cleanup? The Bush administration promptly waived it after Katrina in 2005. The Obama administration hasn't and claims unconvincingly that, gee, there aren't really any foreign vessels that could help.

The more plausible explanation is that this is a sop to the maritime unions, part of the union movement that gave Obama and other Democrats $400 million in the 2008 campaign cycle. It's the Chicago way: Dance with the girl that brung ya.

Or the decision to deny Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's proposal to deploy barges to skim oil from the Gulf's surface. Can't do that until we see if they've got enough life preservers and fire equipment. That inspired blogger Rand Simberg to write a blog post he dated June 1, 1940: "The evacuation of British and French troops from the besieged French city of Dunkirk was halted today, over concerns that many of the private vessels that had been deployed for the task were unsafe for troop transport."

Finally, the $20 billion escrow fund that Obama pried out of the BP treasury at the White House when he talked for the first time, 57 days after the rig exploded, with BP Chairman Tony Hayward. It's pleasing to think that those injured by BP will be paid off speedily, but House Republican Joe Barton had a point, though an impolitic one, when he called this a "shakedown."

For there already are laws in place that insure that BP will be held responsible for damages and the company has said it will comply. So what we have is government transferring property from one party, an admittedly unattractive one, to others, not based on pre-existing laws but on decisions by one man, pay czar Kenneth Feinberg.

Feinberg gets good reviews from everyone. But the Constitution does not command "no person . . . shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law except by the decision of a person as wise and capable as Kenneth Feinberg." The Framers stopped at "due process of law."

Obama doesn't. "If he sees any impropriety in politicians ordering executives about, upstaging the courts and threatening confiscation, he has not said so," write the editors of the Economist, who then suggest that markets see Obama as "an American version of Vladimir Putin." Except that Putin is an effective thug."



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obama_s-thuggery-is-useless-in-fighting-spill-96684389.html#ixzz0rVIwGUpD

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 12:20 PM

Thuggery, BeeBee?

"an American version of Vladimir Putin"/

Fer chrissake gimmie & everyine else a fuckin' break & go back to whatever planet you & Mr Barone are from.

Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 12:24 PM

"The Washington Examiner is a free daily newspaper published in Springfield, Virginia, and distributed around Washington, D.C. and its suburbs. It is owned by Denver businessman Philip Anschutz, one of the world's richest men."

Obviously an unbiased source and worth every penny it costs to obtain.

Oh, and BeeBee - take Anschutz with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 12:36 PM

GregF,

Your silence when critical editorials were presented here about Bush, from the NYT, andequally biased source, show me that you have no basis for your comments.

Have a nice day.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 01:55 PM

The opposite of "thuggery" is what we saw Exxon do afetr the Valdez oil spill which was to sandbag and try to duck responsibility... I'd like to see all these so-called conservatives go down to Louisiana and Mississippi and tell the folks down there whoes lives been ruined that they think that it would be best just to leave it to BP to determine how it wants to handle these folk's losses...

I really don't understand the thinking here of this new and very much unimproved brand of conservatism where corporations are permited to foul everyone elses land, water and air without any means of stopping them or making them pay for the damages they are leaving in their wake to higher profits... Imean, it's kinda like the folk who decide that the landfill is too far a drive so they just throw their old worn out TVs and mattresses on the side of the road... Same mentality and it seems that if the "dreaded government" tells folks they can't do that that this crop of conservatives will be the first to apologize to the guy who gets busted for thowing his worn out shit out on the side of the road???

beam me up, Scotty... The new Conservatives want Boss Hog to trash our planet...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 02:35 PM

Your silence when critical editorials were presented here about Bush, from the NYT...\

1. Your evidence for this assertion, BB? None? Thought so.

2. The NY Times is not a wholly-owned propaganda organ of a single demented individual & his hired hacks, unlike the Washington Examiner.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 03:03 PM

Show me ONE comment you posted about how unfair the propaganda against Bush was, or remain a bigotted asshole.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 03:47 PM

Focus the attention on how evil Obama is (which we already knew, because he's black and we don't like his birth certificate), instead of on how BP is or is not reacting to the mess it made. Typical right-wing ploy.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 03:58 PM

So, mousecrook, because he is black we should not subject him to the same criticism that was given to A WHITE PRESIDENT???

You don't think him capable of dealing with what Bush had to put up with??? Affirmative action is such a nice way to say he's not good enough to be held to the same standards a "white" would be.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 04:02 PM

Bruce,

That's horsep[ucky. No-one said he should not be subject to objective criticism on actual issues.

You know, if you keep waving your arms like that you'll be able to FLY to the Getaway...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 04:07 PM

"No-one said he should not be subject to objective criticism on actual issues"


So, you admit that YOUR postings about Bush were NOT actual issues? Since you keep telling me that just because YOU criticised Bush about something I do NOT have the right to criticise Obama for the same level of incompetance.


How many days did it take for Bush to visit NO? And how many days before Obama deigned to go to the Gulf? Yet Bush was roundly criticised, and you give Obama a pass.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 05:25 PM

If I recall, when Obama did visit, it was rejected by the Right as a "photo op". There really is no pleasing some people.

Other than standing in Louisiana and looking good, what do you think Obama should be doing? I have a hard time getting an answer to this question when put to the nattering nabobs.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 05:30 PM

Guys! This thread would not even exist had not Amos started a very long running thread about Bush called:

BS: Popular Views: the Bush Administration

Bearded Bruce didn't like that thread. He felt it was an unfair partisan attack on the president of the time. (in his opinion)

His reaction was to do the very same thing to Obama after Obama got elected. ;-) His reasoning: "if they can do it to me I can do it back to them"

I predict, therefore, that this thread will last about as long as the Bush thread did, unless Obama only gets 4 years in office, and then it'll last half as long as the Bush thread did.

I can hardly wait.... (rolling my eyes)

Just think, Amos, you could have avoided this ever happening, just by the simple remedy of not hitting "submit" when you started that thread about Bush. ;-D

But it's too late now! The polecat is out of the bag.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 05:34 PM

The polecat? You mean Mr. Clinton? Oh wait, that's tomcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 05:36 PM

Show me ONE comment you posted about how unfair the propaganda against Bush was....

I don't recall any threads regarding anti-Bush propaganda, but I would of course have been against any lies or untruths regarding Bush and the BuShites, as I would be about anyone.

There were, however, a considerable number of threads and postings taking issue with Bush's lies, malfeasance in office, criminally stupid actions and statements (e.g. "Mission Accomplished", general ineptitude, violations of the Constitution and of the Geneva Convention, and the like. However, these were not "propaganda" but issues concerning matters of fact.

Your "hero" and his handlers screwed up, big time. Get over it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 05:55 PM

Grrr! Snarl! Hiss! (the debate goes merrily on...)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 06:05 PM

And Grrr! Snarl! Hiss! right back atcha. Take that, Boyo!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 06:26 PM

Why shouldn't the debate go on, LH???

Hey, these are some very difficult times for the country and the planet in general and debate will get us closer to solutions than just nuttin' up... I mean, ya' got get in there and mix it up... That's how stuff does change for the better... And, of course, if the wrong side outframes the correct side, the worse...

I just find it incrdulaous that the ***new 'n improved (not)*** conservatives think that the answer to the problems we face as a result of 30 years of deregulation and wink-wink on enforcement of the few regs that have survived is to deregulate even more??? I mean, it's kinda like lookin' at the poor guy dieing and ordering up more leeches??? It's just increduluous that this is what the Tea Party and the conservative movement are all about???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 06:38 PM

Naw, Bobert ya gots to deregulate even more and CUT TAXES EVEN MORE- even tho the American taxpayer is paying the lowest rate since just after WWII and the country is going broke.

Idiocy incarnate.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 07:19 PM

Oh, yeah? How about....

THIS!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 04:49 PM

Judge halts Obama's oil-drilling ban

By Stephen Dinan
2:23 p.m., Tuesday, June 22, 2010

A federal judge in New Orleans halted President Obama's deepwater drilling moratorium on Tuesday, saying the government never justified the ban and appeared to mislead the public in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Judge Martin L.C. Feldman issued an injunction, saying that the moratorium will hurt drilling-rig operators and suppliers and that the government has not proved an outright ban is needed, rather than a more limited moratorium.

He also said the Interior Department also misstated the opinion of the experts it consulted. Those experts from the National Academy of Engineering have said they don't support the blanket ban.

"Much to the government's discomfort and this Court's uneasiness, the summary also states that 'the recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.' As the plaintiffs, and the experts themselves, pointedly observe, this statement was misleading," Judge Feldman said in his 22-page ruling.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the administration will appeal the decision, and said Mr. Obama believes the government must figure out what went wrong with the Deepwater Horizon rig before deepwater drilling goes forward. Still, the ruling is another setback as Mr. Obama seeks to show he's in control of the 2-month-old spill.

Democrats and Republicans from the Gulf states have called on the president to end the blanket moratorium, saying it is hurting the region.

Oil company executives told Congress last week they would have to move their rigs to other countries because they lose up to $1 million a day per idle rig, and said there are opportunities elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 07:13 PM


Democrats and Republicans from the Gulf states have called on the president to end the blanket moratorium, saying it is hurting the region.

Assholes. Ain't hurting the region half as much as the oil spill. I suppose they want more environmental catastrophes & then they can piss & moan that the government isn't doing enough to help them.

Beam me up, Scotty..........

And Buy A Hummer For Jesus. WWJD? (What Would Jesus Drive?)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 08:14 PM

It may take 200 years for the Gulf to get back to where it was 2 months ago... 6 friggin' months to put some sensible regs in place seems like chump change...

Hey, I don't give a rat's ass what Governon Jinglebells wants... Last I checked he ain't the president of the entire country...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 08:52 PM

Who cares if another gusher opens up in the bottom of the sea because we don't know how as well as we thought we did to do it as safely as we need to? Drill, baby, drill. The ocean will repair itself eventually. Just as the entire planet will repair itself when our idiotic species finally does itself off. I hope they work out that "artificial intelligence" thing soon. Because "natural" intelligence isn't doing us much good right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 09:19 PM

Yeah, mouse.... Seems as if intellegence is in short supply these days... But, hey... Corporate profits are up!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,mandatory8
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 06:50 AM

Hope is a pretty abstract campaign promise. I held my nose when I voted for the guy, knowing that any difference between he and john Mccain wasn't their voting record. I think he's proved to be a lying sack of ____, But if he ever gets this country out of iraq, afghanistan, packistan, Iran, georgia etc. I'll climb on the band wagon.
By the way, Judge Martin L.C. Feldman is heavily invested in the oil industry,(would you expect different in Louisiana?) so the feds will probably shut down drilling in the gulf.
How high will gas go then?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 07:50 AM

Normal... The judge shoulda recused himself but, no... He had to go and grandstand... Another Tea Partier in a black robe... No shortage of 'um these days...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 08:50 AM

Imagine My Surprise.....

---------

Judge who nixed drilling ban has oil investments

By CURT ANDERSON and MICHAEL KUNZELMAN, Associated Press
Last updated: 8:16 a.m., Wednesday, June 23, 2010

NEW ORLEANS -- The Louisiana judge who struck down the Obama administration's six-month ban on deepwater oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico has reported extensive investments in the oil and gas industry, according to financial disclosure reports. He's also a new member of a secret national security court.

Feldman's 2008 financial disclosure report -- the most recent available -- also showed investments in Ocean Energy, a Houston-based company, as well as Quicksilver Resources, Prospect Energy, Peabody Energy, Halliburton, Pengrowth Energy Trust, Atlas Energy Resources, Parker Drilling and others. Halliburton was also involved in the doomed Deepwater Horizon project.

Feldman did not respond to requests for comment and to clarify whether he still holds some or all of these investments.

Feldman is a native of St. Louis and former Army captain in the Judge Advocate General Corps who was appointed in May to a seven-year term on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, according to court records.

The court meets secretly to consider government requests for wiretaps in national security cases, such as those involving foreign terrorist groups.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,mandatory8
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 11:31 AM

I don't know about other parts of the country, but in Austin, the tea parties have been fairly spontaneous and not affiliated to any party, (no Sara Palins or other jackasses looking for a crowd). But there's a false assumption people make that if they hear something on Fox news or read it in the New York Times that its true. About all the corporate media does these days is pit one group off against another. But look, just because you got screwed by the republicans doesn't mean you're not getting screwed by the Democrats.
If I got anything for my federal taxes I wouldn't mind them being wrenched from me by threat of force, but all I've gotten is a police state and wars. I see corporations and the rich paying less and the government's only paying on the interest, its not paying down nothing.
So, if you enjoy paying higher taxes and support your government killing brown people around the world, make fun of the protesters and pay away, in fact if you enjoy it so much, pay mine too. Actually you might have to, I'm unemployed because of policies enacted by both parties, who think they work for foreign governments.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 12:05 PM

One more thought about Ooobama: When you hear or read "Obama said...." what does that mean? it means he said something, and thats all.
He said we should "revisit NAFTA", he said he'd get troops out of Iraq, he and Holder said they want to "revisit Miranda warning", and I find this to be the quintessential one, he told the DEA to back off medical marijuana raids in the states that have legalized it. Why not? the federal government has no constitutional right to be involved in that anyway, unless its coming in over international borders. Well, they've ignored him, and the Bush appointed head of the DEA, who is still in that position, has even extended warnings to the VA about medical marijuana. (The DEA has been so corrupt, by the way, congress has shifted a lot of their duties to the FBI). So whats he do about it? Fire her a__? No, he just nominated her for another term in that job. Something's wrong with that boy's head.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 01:35 PM

If I got anything for my federal taxes...

Oh, please- don't play the mindless prat.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 02:01 PM

he said he'd get troops out of Iraq

He made a timeline for this and the repuglickin's screamed bloody murder.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:25 PM

LIttle Hawk:

In your obsessive "everything is equal to everything" thinking you have missed some important differencesa between my thread and Bruce's undiscriminating imitative efforts. For one thing, I was not imitating anyone, and I even posted some positive comments about W on the rare occasion when he deserved them. For another the country was in a much deeper hypnotic state under Bush than it has been under Obama,, largely because of the heavy-handedness of the Bush regime's chief oligarchs such as Cheney and Rove.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 04:22 PM

You must be joking, right, Amos? I was not for a moment implying that your effort in your original thread about Bush IS equal to Bruce's effort in this kneejerk reaction TO your original thread....

I was saying that Bruce himself (and only Bruce himself) thinks it is an equal situation! Therefore he is filled with righteous commitment to a (verbal) war that would be better not fought at all...

And accordingly, what I was implying was merely this: that the rest of you should stop rising like eager fish to the bait that BB is tossing on the waters, stop wasting your energy arguing with him (which is futile and won't change anything), and perhaps find something more interesting and productive to do with your time. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 08:48 AM

Stimulus: The big bang is over - CNNMoney.com July 2, 2010

The job market and economy need a serious jumpstart, but the stimulus program likely won't be able to do it.

This summer will be the peak of the $787 billion stimulus program in terms of creating jobs and pumping money into the economy. In fact, the Obama administration is calling it the Summer of Recovery because more than 30,000 miles of highways are being improved, more than 2,800 water projects have been started and 120,000 homes will be weatherized.

After that, it will be a downhill slide for stimulus even as the economy is expected to continue sputtering.

"It's very hard to discern any impact," said Brian Bethune, chief U.S. financial economist for IHS Global Insight.

Shifting to stimulus projects:

When it was passed in February 2009, the nation's largest stimulus program focused on sending aid to struggling state governments, providing tax relief and augmenting the safety net for the unemployed and low income.

Some 57% of tax benefits and 60% of entitlement money has already been paid out, according to federal data. But only 43% of the funding for contracts, loans and grants has gone out the door.

Now, however, the focus is shifting to infrastructure and other projects that will drive job growth, according to the administration. For instance, President Obama Friday will announce 66 new stimulus-funded broadband projects nationwide that officials says will create about 5,000 jobs immediately and spur long-term economic development.

The Recovery Act's greatest impact lies ahead, according to the administration.

"As the summer heats up, it is becoming clear that it could quite possibly be the most active season yet when it comes to recovering our economy," wrote Deputy Housing Secretary Ron Sims on a White House blog in June. "There are Recovery Act-funded projects breaking ground across the country that are creating quality jobs for Americans and economic growth for businesses, large and small. This summer is sure to be a Summer of Economic Recovery."

The White House credits the stimulus program with funding between 2.2 million and 2.8 million jobs so far. That figure is derived from a mathematical formula based on the money that's flowed out the door. Officials say at least 3.5 million jobs will be created or retained by year's end, which was the president's original goal.

But it's nearly impossible to know how many people actually owe their employment to stimulus. Recipients of Recovery Act contracts reported that 682,370 jobs were funded in by stimulus in the first quarter, but that figure isn't cumulative and covers only a portion of the total stimulus package.

Struggling economy:

Bethune, however, says that the government's projections are overly optimistic. Though he agrees that the Recovery Act has juiced the economy, he feels it's closer to a 1 percentage point increase in the gross domestic product in the first quarter, rather than that 2.5 to 2.9 percentage point hike estimated by the White House's Council of Economic Advisers.

"Just look at the number of jobs we created over the past four quarters," he said. "There haven't been a lot."

Unemployment slid to 9.5% in June even as 125,000 jobs were lost. The vast majority of those losses, however, were temporary Census workers. Private sector employers added 83,000 positions.

There are several factors hampering the Recovery Act, experts said. A primary one is that states' budgets are in such bad shape that they continue to shed jobs and slash spending despite stimulus infusions.

Also, contractors have to jump through many government hoops to get stimulus funding, said John Slye, principal analyst at Input, a market research firm for government contractors. That's one reason why a relatively small percentage of project funding has been distributed.

"It's taking agencies so long to get this money out into the economy," he said.

Though stimulus funds were meant to bridge the gap until the private companies started hiring again, employers have been reluctant to add to their payrolls.

In the construction sector, for instance, spending fell 8% in May compared to a year ago, even though stimulus-funded work picked up. Private non-residential construction sagged 25%, according to an analysis of Census Bureau data by the Associated General Contractors of America.

The stimulus infrastructure funds will largely run out by the end of 2010, said Ken Simonson, the association's chief economist. He's very concerned that this will result in a long-term decrease in construction activity.

"There's no pretending that stimulus will drive the economy or replace the private sector," said Simonson. "I still think the economy will keep growing, but I have less confidence now than a few months ago."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 08:57 AM

Well, ya know, if the State and Local Governments keep killing off 3 jobs for every one the Federal Stimulus creates, probably not gonna make much progress.

Take it up with Arnie in CA, Patterson in NY & the rest of the damn fools.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 12:39 PM

Ah so the main problem with the stimulus is that it's running out. That's hardly an argument that it was a bad idea. Quite the opposite, I'd say.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 07:22 PM

Yeah, mouser, the right complains that there is too much government when they want to get elected and once in power make the Dems look like Scrooge when it comes to spending so the right has absolutely no credibilty when it comers to having even the basics of Econ 101...

Now as fir the stimulis... Most non-flat-earth economists back when it was being debated and passed said it was too small to get the economy into recovery... So can I get a chorus of "Duhhhhs" now that what they said is showing to be true???

But back to the righhties... They have poisoned the waters for a 2nd stimulis because they are content in seeing the economy in the crapper if it means they can get back in power and mess it up even worse...

That's the entire ball of wax that the Dems need to hammer home... We just can't afford more emotional-flat-earthers runnning the show... That is exactly why we are in this mess...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 11:40 PM

Hear hear, Bobert. From your lips to God's ears. Pity the flat-earthers are more interested in being contrary and hating Obama than actually helping the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 08:11 PM

""Hear hear, Bobert. From your lips to God's ears. Pity the flat-earthers are more interested in being contrary and hating Obama than actually helping the country.""

Yes! And you can't even send 'em all out of the country to Iraq, or Afghanistan, in case they fall over the edge.


Oh!.....I don't know, though...............!

Do T.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Jul 10 - 01:05 AM

"let's review a little history:

The day the Bush administration took over from President Bill Clinton in 2001, America enjoyed a $236 billion budget surplus"

Not history, Horseshit.

There were never any surpluses. It is a myth.

The deficit grew every year thst Clinton was in office.

The growth decelerated in the year ended Sep 2000 but It increased with the $133 billion deficit budget that Clinton handed to GWB.

Clinton handed a growing deficit to GWB.

  Fiscal Year.Year Ending.....National Debt...........Deficit
    FY1994.....09/30/1994.....$4.692749 trillion.....$281.26 billion
    FY1995.....09/29/1995.....$4.973982 trillion.....$281.23 billion
    FY1996.....09/30/1996.....$5.224810 trillion.....$250.83 billion
    FY1997.....09/30/1997.....$5.413146 trillion.....$188.34 billion
    FY1998.....09/30/1998.....$5.526193 trillion.....$113.05 billion
    FY1999.....09/30/1999.....$5.656270 trillion.....$130.08 billion
    FY2000.....09/29/2000.....$5.674178 trillion.....$17.91 billion
    FY2001.....09/28/2001.....$5.807463 trillion.....$133.29 billion

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Jul 10 - 08:43 AM

Bogus stats, Sawz, but then again you are the Bogus-Stats King of Mudburg...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jul 10 - 09:57 PM

That's funny. I've always heard that Clinton left a budget surplus--one of the firsts within recent times--which Bush proceded to start flushing down the toilet.

Someone's not keeping up.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Jul 10 - 07:58 AM

It's all in the stats, Don... Clinton did leave a surplus but it was based on "annual" budgets, meaning that the government took in more than it spent *that year*... The deficits are cumulative, however, and include interets on the overall debt... In other words, all of the previous defifits going back forever are included in the stats... That's why Sawz stats are bogus... There is no way any president could not only produce a surplus and pay off the national debt, too... That is not possible...

As for the deficits we are seein' now??? They were all projected three years ago when Bush was president... That's what I mean when I talk about the boobie traps that Bush left for the next administration...

Bush is kinda the president that keep on giving... Or, in this case, taking...

Even worse is the pure and simple fact that in the "real world* (which BTW the Sawz of the world have little or no undertanding) that not only is the the US going to have to increase taxes but so are alot of other countries... I mean, it was a nice ride for the wealthiest among US but that party is over...

(But Boberdz... Isn't that what Dems do every time they come into power???)

Well, seems like that is a pattern... But it ain't like the Repubs leave them much choice...

(But Boberdz... The voter are "mad as hell" and will punish anyone who raises their taxes...)

Well, yeah... That's probably true... The alternative is bankruptcy...

(No, Boberdz... Just cut spending and all will be fine...)

Don't work that way... What you gonna cut??? Social Security... Medicare??? Fine, if that's what ya'll want to do then get out there and say it... It would be nice to know how ya'll gonna deal with the deficit without cutting very popular programs that have been with US for most of our lives... Hey, I'd at least respect ya'll righties if you'd just say what ya'll would cut... That would show some level of sincerity.... Boneheaded??? yeah, but sincerely boneheaded...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jul 10 - 01:32 PM

One wonders how some of our older conservatives, who are so adamant about cutting "entitlements," will respond when and if the gummint stops sending them their monthly Social Security checks.

(Thinking particularly about one of our older conservative Mudcatters who is passionately opposed to single payer national health care, saying that his health care coverage is more than adequate:    Medicare and the Veteran's Administration.)

Don Firth

P. S. Some folks seem to have great difficulty making simple and obvious connections.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jul 10 - 02:21 PM

Try not to confuse Douggie with facts, Don. He simply can't handle 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Jul 10 - 02:21 PM

Well, Don, that is exactly what the Repubs are hopin'... They want to run out the clock between now and the election so that the voters will think they are votin' in Repubs who will:

*protect everyones entitlements

*not raise taxes but cut them

*fight the deficts and...

*create jobs

Of course the logical discussions won't occur... You know, like would ya'll mind tellin' the voters how ya'll plan on doing these things???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Jul 10 - 03:32 PM

Bobert the cyber bully and stalker does not have any numbers of his own to present so he uses ad hominem attacks to prove his fraudulent claims.

You can plainly see that the national debt grew every year. It is data, not stats. It is hard numbers, not conjured up "information".

If Bobert could produce any proof that the deficit shrank, he could prove his point.

But he does not have any hard evidence so he prefers to attack the person rather than the facts.

You can view the facts here and here.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Jul 10 - 04:21 PM

I don't need no stinkin' "other facts", sawz...

First of all, as for me being a "stalker"...

Sawz wrong again... Reality is that you hqave stalked me from one web sitre to another using various handles... You, my friend, are the stalker... Alwaays have been and prolly always will be...

Secondly, here's the reason that your stats are bogus: They are comparing apples and oranges... The stat that you keep away from is the one that makes yer guys look tyerrivbly fiscally irresponsible and that stat is the actual anual budgets... Not paying off the national debt... All administartions have had to "service" that debt... That's a constant... The fact is, as I pointed out but you don't seem to want to get, is this: the national debt is not the same as an anual budget... And anual budget take two factors into account: 1. Spending and 2. Revenue... If during a year there is more revenue than spending then you have a surplus... That is what Clinton turned over to Bush...

But you don't give a rat's ass about that because it deosn't fit yer "narrow view" of the real world... You'd rather take the Republican bogus stat and run with it...

(Oh, but Boberdz... That sounds like cyber bullying...)

It does??? What??? Pointing out a bogus argument??? That really bullyin'??? Geeeze...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 13 Jul 10 - 09:59 AM

Statistics is the formal science of making effective use of numerical data relating to groups of individuals or experiments.

Data is factual information.

Bobert cannot recognise facts. He calls a fact a Stat and cannot produce any facts of his own.

Facts according to the US Treasury, not stats:

 Clinton budget FY2000 09/29/1999 through 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion  $17.91 billion deficit
  Clinton budget FY2001 09/29/2000 through 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion deficit

These facts can only indicate one thing, Clinton handed a growing budget deficit to Bush, not "surpluses".

If I am wrong and Bobert is correct, he could produce some facts.

Instead of facts he makes personal attacks and claims to be a victim.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jul 10 - 12:33 PM

Lessee:

Reform health care? Yeah, we got a good start on that.
Economic Reform to prevent Wall Street stastrophes? YEah, definitely got a handle oin it, mafde it happen in spite of enormous lobbying pressures.
Push BP hard until they shut down their goddamed leak? Done.
Push revitalization of US economy with stimulus, alternative energy programs, etc.? Well underway.

Seems to me our boy's doing pretty well in SPITE of the muckraking, stop-him-at-all-costs righty campaigns which have made every stage three times as hard as it oughta be.

Looks like he's also moving closer to unwinding Bush's Folly in Iraq, as a bonus; nothing like saving American lives to piss off the hard-core righties. So I guess he's making it happen despite the worst the RNCers have been able to heave at him.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jul 10 - 12:40 PM

Passing Financial Reform for contemplation.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Jul 10 - 05:41 PM

Obama Has Shot 41 Rounds of Golf as President

by Keith Koffler on July 16, 2010, 3:30 pm

President Barack Obama has played a remarkable 41 rounds of golf since becoming president, easily outpacing his predecessor and possibly damaging his ability to portray himself in 2012 as a populist advocate of average folks.

With the excursions lasting on average at least five hours, the president has devoted a total of more than 200 hours to golf, not counting time spent on the White House putting green. That's the equivalent of twenty five eight-hour work days, or five work weeks spent smacking golf balls.

The former community organizer's 41 trips around the links – a standard of recreational activity well beyond the budgets of most Americans – compares to only 24 total outings for former President George W. Bush, according to statistics compiled by White House chronicler Mark Knoller of CBS News. Bush, whose golf outings were used to help deride him as a callow, lazy, rich boy, played his 24th and last round on Oct. 13, 2003, saying he was ending the practice out of respect for the families of Americans killed in Iraq.

Since the April 20 explosion that killed 11 rig workers and started the Gulf oil spill, Obama has teed up seven times, according to White House Dossier's count. This includes back to back sessions April 23 and 24 while on vacation at the Grove Park Resort & Spa in Asheville, NC, just days after the crisis began.

Obama's focus on golf borders on obsession. Startled reporters follow him out to the course in the motorcade in the broiling Washington heat and then wait in the air conditioning while he puts in 18 holes. Rarely does he play any less.


http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2010/07/16/obama-played-41-rounds-golf-president/

...................................................................


I guess he has to do EVERYTHING that Bush did, only more so.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jul 10 - 07:27 PM

Only much better.

Jaysus, BB, you're kinda wheezing with the scraping of the barrel here.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Jul 10 - 07:29 PM

I seem to recall a certain critism of Bush for playing golf...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Jul 10 - 08:06 PM

Yer wrong again, Saws... But then again we'd hate to see you break yer perfect string of being wrong...

Just go to "http://www.cbo,gov/bedget/data/historical.pdf"... BTE, the "cbo" in that sire stands for Congressional Budget Office... Not some loonie rightwingnut site...

So Obama plays golf??? Where??? Does he got on Air Force One, like Bush spent half of his presidency going off to Crawfor, or maine, or whatever... Or does Obama play locally in the DC area??? Big difference... How many days vacation did Bush take a year??? 3 or 4 hunnert??? He was always gone... Hey, not that I minded him being gone... Less stuff for him to mess up when he was gone...

(But, Boerdz... He had plenty of fols around DC to mess up for him...)

Yeah, he did... IO was wondering how he screwed up as much stuff as he did with spendin' so little time in DC...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Jul 10 - 08:15 PM

yeah, and then there was Ike....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jul 10 - 10:57 PM

The issue with Bush was not the playing of golf, but the excess of vacations he took while continuing to fuck up everything he touched. I guess we should have been grateful to see him on vacation except his henchmen back at the White House were even worse.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Riginslinger
Date: 17 Jul 10 - 10:11 PM

But then, of course, Obama has henchmen too, like Eric Holder, who really fuck things up.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Jul 10 - 10:25 PM

What, Rigs??? You get a parkin' ticket today???

In these times of Repubs trying to blame anything that happens to them on, horrors, Obama, or his "henchmen" (???) reality passes them by...

Please elaborate on just how Eric Holder ahs been elevated to "henchmen", por favor...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Riginslinger
Date: 18 Jul 10 - 08:22 AM

Holder is trying to destroy the country by filing suit against the state of Arizona for trying to enforce the immigration laws.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Jul 10 - 09:20 AM

What exactly IS a "hench", anyhow?? and how do Pres. Obama's men get hold of one?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jul 10 - 09:35 AM

Yeah, Rigs, he is... How exactly is that going to destroy the country??? I mean, "destroy the country" sounds alot like Tea Party thinkin'... You a member of the radical fringe loonies, Rigs???

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beeliner
Date: 18 Jul 10 - 09:45 AM

Holder is trying to destroy the country by filing suit against the state of Arizona for trying to enforce the immigration laws.

Rig, I assume that you are an American, did you study the Constitution in school?

Immigration is a FEDERAL responsibility. What will AZ want to do next, print its own money?

The federal government certainly has a problem with illegal immigration, stepping up enforcement would cost a lot of money, which might endanger your next tax cut.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jul 10 - 12:55 PM

Lotta states trying out these power plays... Arizon with immigartion... Lousiana with trying to build levees... Virginia sueing over health care reform...

The one thing, however, that all these states have in common is that they didn't turn down an stilulis money... Here in Virginia the new Republican governor, Bob McDonald i boasting about the state showing a surplus... But when you take the money that Virginia got from the feds then their ain't no surplus???

Yeah, funny thing about the federal government... Lotta folks into bashin' it (mostly 'cause they don't like Obama) but they got their hands out for more federal cash???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Riginslinger
Date: 18 Jul 10 - 01:07 PM

"Rig, I assume that you are an American, did you study the Constitution in school?"

             And the federal government is responsible to defend the borders. Of course, if it refuses to do that somebody has to. That's probably why Eric Holder wears a Hitler mustache.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jul 10 - 04:05 PM

If Obama pushes back from his desk in the Oval Office and takes a ten minute coffee break or steps out for a minute to take a leak, there are dozens of mean-spirited twits with nothing more consrtuctive to do than caterwaul and squawk about it.

Bloody brainless. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jul 10 - 05:22 PM

Yeah, I don't recall any of us so-called Bush-bashers ever complaining about him going on vacation or complaining about where he went... These Obama bashers are olympic quality bashers that make us so-called Bush-bashers look like Boy Scouts...

If they had a clue just hoe pathetic they look and sound maybe they's stop with this absolute childish behavior... Nah, there's a reason why they act like children... Their brains never developed...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 05:07 AM

According to the UK press, the Democrats are starting to back away from Obama.....the left think he's a sell-out and the right think he's a Communist......I wont say I told you so, but if you want "change", first YOU have to change, start to think about how you are trapped in the one party system.

You want change? first you have to be united.....the banner is irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 08:41 AM

The only thing that will make US change, Ake, is $5 a gallon petro...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 09:18 AM

"Given the latest data indicating weak growth and strikingly high unemployment, the administration is rightly concerned that business negativism is suppressing the confidence necessary for increased investment and job growth.

This poisonous dynamic between Washington and business must be fixed. Both sides should make adjustments, but the business community — of which I am a proud member — especially needs to make efforts to mend this relationship. Yes, the administration has made some mistakes. But, on balance, its actions have supported business.

So before leveling such fierce criticism, corporate America should remember the president's actual record. First, Mr. Obama inherited an economy teetering on the brink of depression. Immediately upon taking office, he forged a $787 billion economic stimulus program, and is wisely trying to expand it now. Was this program perfect? Of course not. But it has been effective. Every serious economic model indicates that it contributed to recovery.

Second, at that same time, the credit markets were in tatters and simply not functioning. The administration submitted the biggest banks to confidence-building stress tests. It skillfully invested in financial institutions, kept the mortgage markets afloat and undertook other creative initiatives to solidify the financial industry. These have worked more quickly and more successfully than anyone predicted. The system is healthy again.

All this has led directly to a turnaround in corporate profits, share prices and liquidity. Profits have increased 41 percent since President Obama was elected. And the Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen 28 percent over the same period. These are strong results.

Third, the president made the courageous decision to put General Motors and Chrysler through bankruptcy. As a result, both survived and, today, G.M. in particular is coming back fast — along with its hundreds of suppliers. Moreover, taxpayers are likely to recover the full value of their investment in the company.

Fourth, Mr. Obama has made big progress toward restoring America's standing around the world. Two years ago, it stood at a historically low point, and multinationals were encountering resistance in penetrating foreign markets. The president's reframing of our global priorities and values has returned the United States to pre-eminence — and is starting to ease our way to opening new markets abroad.

A top issue for these business groups, and properly so, is education policy. That's because a better educated work force is a more productive one. So far, this administration has an unorthodox and outstanding record on education, a notable illustration of this is its Race to the Top initiative, which rewards the most reform-minded states with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of federal grants. Perhaps leading businesses could work with the White House to match these awards at least in part. ..."

Roger ALtman, investment banker, in the NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 11:41 AM

Bobert:
"Yeah, I don't recall any of us so-called Bush-bashers ever complaining about him going on vacation or complaining about where he went... "


Short memory.

Many of us do rememmber YOU in particular, and other Bush-bashers in general, complaining about his vacations, and his gof games, and his trips, and anything else he did.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 12:14 PM

Yeah, Amos... The Repubs just can't bring themselves to admit that alot of the stuff that Obama has done has worked out fine for the economy and for alot of businesses...

The Repubs also are back to talkin' about more tax cuts for business in the hopes that that will bring about more jobs??? This is an insane idea... First of all, American business are flush with cash now... Estimates of $1.7 to $1.8T cash just sitting in their accounts... Secondly, the Repubs want to reduce the deficit??? How ya' gonna do that with even less revenue??? This is insane Reagan/Bush voodoo economics...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 12:22 PM

OK then, BeeBee, why dontcha cite some examples?? Thgere's several search options for ya- lets see 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 12:26 PM

Amos....."Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?"


Our Health and Education services are being hived off to market forces....people are being thrown out of work everywhere...govt spending is being slashed....pensions are being raided....we are up to our necks in debt to pay for the crimes of Capitalism....and this cunt wants to reset it!!

We do really deserve all we get...how can we be so stupid?
Is it because we all have a little something to lose? Like Robert burns's mouse "Oor we bit heap o'leaves an stibble, has cost us mony a weary nibble, an' we're turned oot tae for aw oor trouble fae hoose an' haw.
Tae thole the winters sleety dribble an' cranreuch cauld!

So few real radicals among us....Its the mirage of evolution..... not revolution, for the "Liberals"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Jul 10 - 08:02 AM

Revolution won't work here in the syayes, Ake... The government is too well armed... We learned that in the 60s... So, we are screwed...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jul 10 - 03:32 PM

Bob......I have a vision of a bare breasted Sarah leading the people to the barricades...   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jul 10 - 09:18 AM

"like Bush spent half of his presidency going off to Crawfor, or maine, or whatever... Or does Obama play locally in the DC area??? Big difference... How many days vacation did Bush take a year??? 3 or 4 hunnert??? He was always gone... Hey, not that I minded him being gone... Less stuff for him to mess up when he was gone...

(But, Boerdz... He had plenty of fols around DC to mess up for him...)

Yeah, he did... IO was wondering how he screwed up as much stuff as he did with spendin' so little time in DC...
"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Jul 10 - 09:25 AM

""I have a vision of a bare breasted Sarah leading the people to the barricades...   :0) ""

I swear he's certifiable.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jul 10 - 01:25 PM

WASHINGTON – "President Obama signed landmark legislation today that tightens Wall Street rules and establishes a new consumer financial protection bureau to help protect borrowers from abusive lending practices.

Coming nearly two years after the bank bailouts of 2008, it is the Democrats' centerpiece response, intended to prevent another credit and mortgage crisis like the one that caused the stock market meltdown and current economic recession.
"These reforms represent the strongest consumer financial protections in history," Obama said, just before he signed the bill. "There will be no more tax-funded bailouts. Period."

The legislation establishes an array of new rules that will allow the government to play a stronger watchdog role over financial markets and the practices of individual banks, and gives it greater power to intervene when a bank is on the verge of collapse.

The legislation has a mouthful of a name: the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, named for Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, and Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

Obama, Dodd, and Frank were joined today at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington by nearly 400 people who the White House says were instrumental in passing the legislation, including consumer advocates, business leaders, and state and local officials. " (Boston Globe)

---

Wow...progressives making progress, while the stinkers make stinks and the obstructionistas make obstructions. What a planet...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jul 10 - 06:44 PM

Oh great!.....if we keep makin' progress like this, they'll soon be able to pull the old money trick again!

No obstructions allowed in the game of "rob the poor"

"The legislation establishes an array of new rules that will allow the government to play a stronger watchdog role over financial markets and the practices of individual banks, and gives it greater power to intervene when a bank is on the verge of collapse."

Dont you realise that capitalist govt and the financial institutions are joined at the hip?
The last thing any of them want is meaningful regulation.
The financiers want profit, and the govt wants growth
Regulation gives neither.....this is a capitalist economy, at the end of the day, all that matters is short term thinking and £$£$£$£$.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 08:32 AM

I think, like lots of stuff, it will come down to enforcement... We have seen what happens when the reguators and the regulatees get too chummy with what has occured in the Gulf of Mexico...

As fir a bare breasted Sarah Palan??? Bring her on... Might of fact, if she wants to shed the skirt too, so be it... Not too sure that will bring about any revolution but...

...nevermind the revolution... At least no one will get shot...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 05:19 PM

Dear Amos:

Here's your fair and balanced right here Amos.

   .....Poll...............Date.......Sample.Approve..Disapprove 
  RCP Average..........7/7  - 7/21..............46.6...47.4 
  CNN/Opinion Research.7/16 - 7/21.....1018 A....47.....50 
  Gallup...............7/19 - 7/21.....1547 A....46.....46 
  Rasmussen Reports....7/19 - 7/21.....1500 LV...44.....55 
  Quinnipiac...........7/13 - 7/19.....2181 RV...44.....48 
  FOX News.............7/13 - 7/14......900 RV...43.....48 
  Time.................7/12 - 7/13.....1003 A....49.....45 
  CBS News.............7/9  - 7/12......986 A....44.....44 
  Bloomberg............7/9  - 7/12.....1004 A....52.....44 
  ABC News/Wash Post...7/7  - 7/11.....1288 A....50.....47 

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 05:46 PM

Bobert:

After correcting your link to http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf I arrive at a page with lots of numbers.

Exactly what numbers or column of numbers are you referring to?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 06:09 PM

You know perfectly well, saws...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 12:08 PM

Blowhard Bobert:

I gave you the specific numbers and a link to the site where they could be found. The site in the US Treasury Department, headed by Geithner appointed by Obama.

Are you capable of doing the same or do you rely on bullying to prove things?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 12:31 PM

Blowhard Sawz:

I gave you the specific website, which BTW is the Congressional Budget Office, that disproved yer mythology that Clinton did not lave office with a budget surplus... You seem to use numbers over and over and over in yer posts but you claim that you can't understand the numbers that CBO has on annual deficits and supluses??? Imean, let's get real here, pal... You just don't wnat to accept the truth about Clinton leaving a surplus becuase you and yer righties would rather play games with the numbers using national debt... Find an economist and had him or her expalain the difference 'cause while the rest of us understand the concept of annual surplus (or deficit) it seems pout of reach for you... Maybe a square peg, round hole thing...

And me pointing out that you are wrong ain't bullyin'... It's just pointing out that you are wrong...

BTW, cyber-stalkin' is bullying and we know who has done that, don't we???

Like they say, "He who lives in galss houses shouldn't throw stones"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 05:16 PM

Bobert:

"you claim that you can't understand the numbers that CBO has on annual deficits and supluses???"

First of all I had to correct the link you posted. Budget is not spelled bedget and there are no commas in URLs. I never made any such claim. That is your projection like when you falsely say somebody wants to kill somebody else.

So after making up for that part of your lack of knowledge I see several pages of numbers.

After courteously asking you to identify the specific numbers that you claim proves your point, like I did, you sarcastically claim I already know in an effort to cover the fact that you do not know.

As usual you cannot provide the specific information to support your claims. Rather, you bully and blame your inabilities and lack of knowledge on someone else. Then in a further attempt to cover up for your lack of knowledge, you assign your moral responsibility to someone else. I am supposed to consult with an economist.

By the way I gave a specific website too. It was the US Treasury department. Does the CBO have more credibility that the Treasury? Does the Treasury post "Republican bogus stats" Why would Tim Geithner's department do that?

If you make a claim and can't point out the specific facts to support it, you are a blowhard. Making an inaccurate link to many pages and not being able to point to some specific numbers does not consitute pointing out specific facts.

If you put your moral and ethical responsibility to provide something specific to back up your claims on others, you are a blowhard.

It you claim you are a victim in order to avoid backing up your claims, you are a blow hard.

Most importantly, anyone that never admits when they are wrong is a blowhard.

For example, I am still waiting for the evidence to support your claim that: "That's what Obama did... He bought a "beater", refurbrished it the best he could and over a hundred people been flyin' on that sumabich ever since" or your admission that you were wrong.

I hate to use the word blowhard, it is against my policy of not making harsh accusations like calling people a liar, but it is the only way I can get any meaningful response.

As for stalking, I responded to Amos's "history lesson" about the "Clinton surpluses" without making any personal attacks and you jumped in telling everybody my stats are bogus, making an ad hominem personal attack and claiming I am the "Bogus-Stats King of Mudburg"

Typically, you rhetorically characterize facts issued by the US Treasury department as "stats", Republican bogus stats from a "loonie rightwingnut site" Really? Tim Geithner's loonie rightwingnutsite?

You specifically target my posts and try to discredit me as a person. Is that stalking or bullying or both?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 09:56 PM

Maybe you'd like to explain why George W used the thr surpluses as one of his reasons for wanted the tax cuts??? Hmmmmmm???

Like I have pointed out, you would recognize a fact if it bit you on yer butt...

I mean, you are hopelessly eaten up with mythology... I mean, even the mainstream Repubs ain't no where are far out of the relm of reality as you are...

But, hey, the right is into lieing these days so have it... They are amusin'...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 03:18 PM

E.J. Dionne writing for the Washington Post says:

"...at least Cameron cared enough about reducing his country's deficit that alongside the cuts, he also proposed an increase in the value-added tax from 17.5 percent to 20 percent. Imagine: a fiscal conservative who really is a fiscal conservative.

That could never happen here because the fairy tale of supply-side economics insists that taxes are always too high, especially on the rich.

This is why Democrats will be fools if they don't try to turn the Republicans' refusal to raise taxes on families earning more than $250,000 a year into an election issue. If Democrats go into a headlong retreat on this, they will have no standing to govern.

The simple truth is that the wealthy in the United States -- the people who have made almost all the income gains in recent years -- are undertaxed compared with everyone else.

Consider two reports from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. One, issued last month, highlighted findings from the Congressional Budget Office showing that "the gaps in after-tax income between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the middle and poorest fifths of the country more than tripled between 1979 and 2007," the period for which figures are available.

The other, from February, used Internal Revenue Service data to show that the effective federal income tax rate for the 400 taxpayers with the very highest incomes declined by nearly half in just over a decade, even as their pre-tax incomes have grown five times larger.

The study found that the top 400 households "paid 16.6 percent of their income in federal individual income taxes in 2007, down from 30 percent in 1995." We are talking here about truly rich people: Using 2007 dollars, it took an adjusted gross income of at least $35 million to get into the top 400 in 1992, and $139 million in 2007.

The notion that when we are fighting two wars, we're not supposed to consider raising taxes on such Americans is one sign of a country that's no longer serious. Why do so few foreign policy hawks acknowledge that if they lack the gumption to ask taxpayers to finance the projection of American military power, we won't be able to project it in the long run?

And if we are unwilling to have a full-scale debate over whether nation-building abroad is getting in the way of nation-building at home, we will accomplish neither.

Our discussion of the economic stimulus is another symptom of political irrationality. It's entirely true that the $787 billion recovery package passed last year was not big enough to keep unemployment from rising to over 9 percent.

But this is not actually an argument against the stimulus. On the contrary, studies showing that the stimulus created or saved up to 3 million jobs are very hard to refute. It's much easier to pretend that all this money was wasted, although the evidence is overwhelming that we should have stimulated more.

Then there's the very structure of our government. Does any other democracy have a powerful legislative branch as undemocratic as the U.S. Senate?

When our republic was created, the population ratio between the largest and smallest state was 13-to-1. Now, it's 68-to-1. Because of the abuse of the filibuster, 41 senators representing less than 11 percent of the nation's population can, in principle, block action supported by 59 senators representing more than 89 percent of our population. And you wonder why it's so hard to get anything done in Washington?

I'm a chronic optimist about America. But we are letting stupid politics, irrational ideas on fiscal policy and an antiquated political structure undermine our power. ..."

---

I think he's onto something.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 07:33 PM

Yeah, Amos... I just finished readin' this about a half an hour ago (printed version)... Some really good stuff in there about how little the rich have been payin' of late in taxes as compared to not-so-far-distant-years...

Also, E.J. is right on the money on the broken Senate...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 01:04 PM

I am still waiting for someone to explain why the deficit grew every year, per the US Treasury Departments numbers while some people claim there was a surplus.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 01:10 PM

>>I am still waiting for someone to explain why the deficit grew every year, per the US Treasury Departments numbers while some people claim there was a surplus. <<

Because George W Bush, upon seeing the projected surplus, bought off millions of voters by offering them a $300 rebate if he got elected.
Once he paid out that one time bribe the surplus was unobtainable.

Then he instituted billions in Tax cuts and spent billions more without showing it in the budget.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 01:13 PM

The Congressional Budget Office reported a budget surplus in 2000, the last full year of Clinton's presidency. You shouldn't confuse a budget year with the running total of deficit or national debt.

Growth in the national debt slowed to a crawl when Bill Clinton was president, especially considering the three Republican administrations before and after him.

09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38

But then take a look at the Bush years, and see how utterly ridiculous it would be for a Republican to criticize President Clinton's budget record.

09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 01:19 PM

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.

"Eight years ago, our future was at risk," Clinton said Wednesday morning. "Economic growth was low, unemployment was high, interest rates were high, the federal debt had quadrupled in the previous 12 years. When Vice President Gore and I took office, the budget deficit was $290 billion, and it was projected this year the budget deficit would be $455 billion."


President Clinton announces that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 is the largest in U.S. history         Instead, the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion this year alone.

This represents, Clinton said, "the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States."

"Like our Olympic athletes in Sydney, the American people are breaking all kinds of records these days. This is the first year we've balanced the budget without using the Medicare trust fund since Medicare was created in 1965. I think we should follow Al Gore's advice and lock those trust funds away for the future," he said.

...

"The key to fiscal discipline is maintaining these results year after year. We need to put our priorities in order," Clinton said.

The president's news comes as lawmakers on Capitol Hill continue to wrestle with the fiscal year 2001 budget numbers. The new budget year begins October 1, and work has been completed on only two of the 13 annual spending bills, as the Republican-led Congress and the White House remain at odds over spending allocations.

"I am concerned, frankly, about the size and last-minute nature of this year's congressional spending spree, where they seem to be loading up the spending bills with special projects for special interests, but can't seem to find the time to raise the minimum wage, or pass a patients' bill of rights, or drug benefits for our seniors through Medicare, or tax cuts for long-term care, child care, or college education," Clinton said.

"These are the things that need to be done and I certainly hope they will be and still make the right investments and the right amount of tax cuts," Clinton said.

Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Oklahoma, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said the GOP wants 90 percent of the surplus used for the debt. In a CNN interview, he said the other 10 percent should be used to "take care of a lot of priorities we have, like prescription drugs, making sure that our education needs are met, making sure some of our national security needs are met, and doing that while at the same time protecting the Social Security surplus and the Medicare surplus."

That approach would be in lieu of tax cuts, which "we can't do this year because the president vetoed it," Watts said.

Clinton unveiled the new numbers in a statement at the White House before departing for fund-raising events in Dallas and Houston.

"This is part of our fiscal discipline to reduce the debt with the federal surplus," said one White House official who asked not to be identified. Reducing the debt, the official said, has "real effects for real Americans." It means lower interest rates for mortgages, car loans and college loans, and leads to an increase in investment and more jobs."

It is the third year in a row the federal government has taken in more than it spent, and has paid down the debt. The last time the U.S. government had a third consecutive year of national debt reduction was 1949, said the official.

The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 was $122.7 billion, and $69.2 billion for fiscal year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the first since 1957, allowed the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in national debt."

(CNN, 2000)

---

Sorry for the long article. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 01:36 PM

Yo, Saws... Take a colege economics course... It will do you a world of good...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 01:49 PM

"...And then thereÕs Glenn Beck. HeÕs on a crusade to convince the lemmings of Foxland that President Obama is governing under the principles of Black Liberation Theology, a Ògrave perversionÓ of Christianity in which Òminorities are saved in the sense that white people constantly confess and repent of being racist and meet the economic demands of minorities via the redistribution of wealth as a consequence of, in some form or another, reparations.Ó What? Oh, Glenn.

I have to say, I donÕt know how these Fox viewers do it. Listening to a Beck argument is like living in an M.C. Escher drawing Ñ fantastical illusions that defy logic and strain the brain.

Blacks, stunned by this new topsy-turvy world of racial politics, continue to rally around Obama. In opinion polls, they consistently rate ObamaÕs performance and policies highly, I suspect as much out of solidarity as conviction.

Whether the president likes it or not, heÕs the nexus of this debate. I, for one, think that he should stand up and redirect it from the negative to the noble. There will be some grumbling to be sure, but there already is.

ItÕs your choice, Mr. President. I say stand up Ñ for America, for common humanity, for civil discourse. To paraphrase the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., they canÕt ride your back unless itÕs bent."

Charles Blow in the NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 11:19 PM

NYT Editorial excerpted:

"Americans are right to worry about the deficit. They must also demand that their elected representatives do more than rail about the problem and begin a serious debate about the policy choices ahead. Here are some of the key issues that must be considered:

HOW DID WE GET HERE? When President Bill Clinton left office in 2001, the government had run surpluses for three straight years. By the time President George W. Bush left the White House, the government had run deficits for seven straight years, and the Congressional Budget Office projected a 2009 deficit of over $1 trillion.

Much of the deterioration resulted from huge Bush-era tax cuts, which left the nation chronically short of revenue, especially when it had to pay for two wars. And because the budget was already in bad shape when the financial crisis hit in late 2008, the necessary spending to rescue the system only deepened an already deep deficit. Unchastened, Republicans Ñ joined by a few Democrats Ñ are now determined to dig the hole even deeper by calling for all of the Bush tax cuts to be extended beyond their scheduled expiration at the end of this year.

WHAT ABOUT THE STIMULUS? The deficit has risen further under President Obama, to about $1.4 trillion this year, as the White House has tried to contain the recession it inherited.

The $862 billion economic stimulus, enacted by the Obama administration and Congress in 2009 along with subsequent aid, like extended jobless benefits, prevented a bad situation from becoming much worse, by supporting consumer demand at a time when private sector demand had collapsed. More help is needed. So far, stimulus accounts for an estimated 15 percent of the deficit in 2009, 28 percent in 2010 and 14 percent in 2011."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 07:37 AM

Well, Amos... The Repub strategy this year is to make the election about racism... Yeah, I know, seein' as they have so many voters who suffer from the stuff it doesn't make sense but the strategy has Karl "Dirty Tricks" Rove written asll over it...

Huh???

Yeah, Rove would always take his opponentsd strength and attack it... Remember Senator McClellan??? Viet Nam vet, badly wounded and lost his legs and one arm for his country... The "Dirt Tricks" Repubs took that reality and turned it around on him and portrayed him as soft on defense???

So the Repubs are going to try the same play on the Dems this year...

Gonna, Boberdz???)

No, in all actuality their campaign is in full swing...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 10:13 AM

A typical comment and the reason Obama is upside down in the fair and balanced polls":

"When Obama was elected I had hoped he would step up to the plate an assume some responsibility, instead he acts like an immature 5 year old with his whining and sniveling and blaming others! Mr. President..You have majorities in both houses, if you can't get your
bills passed take a closer look at who's not supporting you!!!"


Boo Hoo Hoo my Democratic majority won't pass my bills so I am going to blame "the" Republicans.

Do they think they have the right to stand up for their principles just like the Democrats?

Yeah. Some Democrats can vote no and that is their right but a Republican does not have the same rights as a Democrat.

Don't they know there are two separate standards for judging Democrats and Republicans?

Democrats can vote any way they want but Republicans have to vote the way the Democrats want them to vote or they get the blame for the Democrats that voted no.

Life is easy when you can blame others for your own inabilities. Sniff. Victimhood is better than leadership any day.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 11:09 AM

It's the 60 vote threshold for gettin' anything thru the Senate that is preventing majority rule here and not specifically the Dems because, unlike the discipline the Repubs show with their locksteppedness, the Dems are a little more independent minded...

No boohoo... Just the facts and, oh, how I can't wait until the Repubs find themselves in that kinda majority 'cause, believe you me, the Dems will not forget this complete obstructionist Republican political ploy... What goes around comes around...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 12:26 PM

Sawz:

You can snark all you want, pal, but you are totally ignoring the issue of obstructionism. There are bills being thwarted by Republicans that they supported as good policy under the Bush brand. This is not standing up for ideals or principles, except the principle of wanting power above all else. It is institutionalized insanity, and your Republican bed-mates are generating it. Come clean, dude.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 03:10 PM

The Repubs no longer care what is good for the country, Amos... It's all about what is good for them... They miss the power and they miss the front teet...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 05:06 PM

"Dems are a little more independent minded"

And that is the reason Obama's bills are not gettimg passed.

They have the majority and the majority rules.

How can you blame it on the minority? That is ass backwards, illogical thinking.

The Dems cannot get together and pass it so they whine about the Republicans.

Boo Hoo Hoo, mean old Lock step Republicans. They won't make up for our inability to agree on things.

Snif. We are victims. Snivel Snivel Whine It's all somebody else's fault.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 08:30 PM

That's some purdy funny stuff, Saws... Here, pee in the cup...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 08:40 PM

How's your fair and balanced coming today Amos?

President Obama Job Approval

RCP Average 7/13 - 7/31   Approve 45.0 Disapprove 49.7

OOOOOps, Obama has slipped even further underwater.

You and Bobert need to bail faster.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 08:49 PM

Ain't no bailin' on my end, Saws, 'cause I am on the correct side of humanity and what is the right things that governemnt should be doing to help its people... So, no bailin' here nor will ther ever be any...

Typin'??? Folkin' A... You wearin' these fingers out with all yer BS today... I don't know what got into ya', son, but I think you need to pee in this cup...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Aug 10 - 07:38 PM

The Senate confirmed Elena Kagan to a seat on the Supreme
Court on Thursday, giving President Obama his second
appointment to the high court in a year, and a political
victory as the Senate neared the end of its business for the
summer.

Ms. Kagan, a former dean of the Harvard Law School and a
legal adviser in both the Clinton and Obama administrations,
was approved by a vote of 63 to 37 after hearings and floor
debate that showcased competing views of Democrats and
Republicans about the court, but exposed no significant
stumbling blocks to her confirmation.

She becomes the fourth woman ever named to the court, and
will join two other woman currently serving, including
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the first Obama administration
nominee, who was confirmed almost exactly one year ago.

---

ANother milestone on the path to recovery.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Aug 10 - 07:49 PM

33% womenz now, Amos... Hey, that's a start... Me and the Wes Ginny Slide Rule was talkin' last night and the WGSR said that it had figured that once womenz make up 51% of the government that two things is gonna happen... First, we won't be havin' no more wars and second...

... them womenz is gonna kick our butts... Make us do cookin', laundry and other womenz work...

I mean, it'd be nice not to have these endless wars but, sheet fire son, if we gotta start doin' all that womenz work I might reconsider on the war thing...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 05 Aug 10 - 08:48 PM

Interestingly, the court is now made up entirely of Catholics and Jews. No Protestants, no atheists, no Wiccans. Still not entirely representative. But we've come a long way, baby, on gender inclusion and to a lesser extent ethnicity.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Aug 10 - 11:24 PM

Bobez:

I yam already cooking--easy duty. But I'm not rebuilding hotels or ploughing a back forty just now, so it's an easy trade.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Aug 10 - 07:30 AM

Well, I'm down to ploughin' the back forty, myself as the hotel project is in financial limbo... So I recokn I could be drafted to do far more womenz work than I've done in the past... Next thing ya' knmow I'd be askin' the P-Vine if I could borrow some of her clothes 'er watchin' Food TV... Not sure I'm ready fir that...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Aug 10 - 12:01 PM

Christopher S. Rugaber, AP Economics Writer, On Friday August 6, 2010, 11:20 am

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Companies showed a lack of confidence about hiring for a third straight month in July, making it likely the economy will grow more slowly the rest of the year. The unemployment rate was unchanged at 9.5 percent.

Private employers added a net total of only 71,000 jobs in July, far below the 200,000 or more jobs needed each month to reduce the unemployment rate.

The modest gains were even weaker when considering a loss of government jobs at the local, state and federal levels in July that weren't temporary census positions. Factoring those in, the net gains were only 12,000 jobs, according to the Labor Department's July report Friday.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Aug 10 - 12:08 PM

Consumer spending is down then that translates into fewer new jobs... Plus we allready know that the wealthy are hoarding a pile of cash which further messes with any potential recovery...

Sounds like the feds are going to have to do some heavy lifting with more stimulis or we'll be looking at a very long, painfull recovery, if not another recession... 2% growth ain't gonna cut it...

Right, Saws???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Aug 10 - 12:19 PM

Oh Bummer. People's fallin off the bandwagon faster'n tha WGSR can add'em up.


Amos's fair and balanced says Obama is down again:

RCP Average 7/13 - 8/5 - approve 45.0% - dissaprove 50.0%

I realize that being that President has got to be the toughest job there is but people have over hyped Obama and he has made too many promises that he can't keep.

He asked for the job. He said he could do the job and he got the job.

He had the vast majority behind him but now that has eroded away.

I don't see any room for whining about anything.

The main problem is where are the jobs?

Jobs is job#1 but he has higher priorities.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Aug 10 - 12:29 PM

Of course he can't keep his promises... The Senate Repubs won't let him and they know how difficult it is for the Dems to get all of their 60 members to walk lockstep...

And guess what??? Even if every leading economist in the universe told the Repus in the Senate that more stimulis is needed to prevent another recession the Repubs wouldn't go along with it???

(But, Boberdz... The Repubs want to fight the deficit...)

They do??? Geeze, din't seem to bother them when they were runnin' the show... What gives???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 01:03 PM

"how difficult it is for the Dems to get all of their 60 members to walk lockstep"

Why is that? Why are "the Republicans" responsible for that and not "the Democrats"?

Double standard at work. Democarts are not to be held responsible for their own actions. Their responsiility is to place the blame for their own actions on others.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 01:21 PM

Amos: "Looks like he's also moving closer to unwinding Bush's Folly in Iraq, as a bonus; nothing like saving American lives to piss off the hard-core righties. So I guess he's making it happen despite the worst the RNCers have been able to heave at him."

Is this another of your history lessons? It reminds me of the old country expression "you are full o' shit as a Christmas turkey"

Try a little reality for a change Amos. Obama has done nothing but follow Bush's plan, the plan that he originally opposed and that he said would not work.

1/10/07 " I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse. I think it takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there. So I am going to actively oppose the president's proposal. … I think he is wrong, and I think the American people believe he's wrong."

1/14/07 "We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality -- we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground."

10/22/06 "Given the deteriorating situation, it is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve, and we have to do something significant to break the pattern that we've been in right now." (NBC's "Meet The Press,"

1/28/08 "And finally, tonight we heard President Bush say that the surge in Iraq is working, when we know that's just not true. Yes, our valiant soldiers have helped reduce the violence. Five soldiers gave their lives today in this cause, and we mourn their loss and pray for their families.

But let there be no doubt – the Iraqi government has failed to seize the moment to reach the compromises necessary for an enduring peace. That was what we were told the surge was all about. So the only way we're finally going to pressure the Iraqis to reconcile and take responsibility for their future is to immediately begin the responsible withdrawal of our combat brigades so that we can bring all of our combat troops home.

But another reason we need to begin this withdrawal immediately"

Listen to the broken promises made in this post election speech yourself.

Amos: Before you go off on one of your rhetorical attacks, just explain in common factual terms how Obama has done anything other than abandon his own plan of immediate withdrawal from Iraq, infact broken his promise of immediate withdrawal from Iraq, in favor of the existing Bush plan.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 02:15 PM

I doubt the notion that he is following a Bush plan, Sawz, and if the withdrawal was delayed by the situation on the ground, I am not surprised. Where is the Bush plan of which you speak?

But the larger issue here is that the insane policies of the Bush administration sent far more men to their death than 9/11 ever took from us. You kinda miss the big picture, if you see what I mean.

The question of whether the surge worked as promoted or whether it was the awakening within the ranks of the Iraqi people that made the difference remains open to debate. You may notice, also, that some Iraqis really don't want us to leave.

It was a serious policy error to invade Iraq and cost us millions of dollars, thousands of lives and an untold price in broken minds.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 03:14 PM

Ha-da-ba-dum...ba-dum...ba-da-dum....
Ha-da-ba-dum...ba-da-dum...daaaaa...

(humming a little tune to myself)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 04:17 PM

Ah, a rapier-like wit accompanied by an asbestos-like sense of relevance...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 06:17 PM

It's a wonder I haven't been nominated to run for president of the USA by now, isn't it? ;-) Chongo has, of course, but that's another matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 07:44 PM

Hang in there, LH... Yer time will come...

Yo, Amos... Check out yer post aboove on the dollars amount spent on Iraq... Not that "millions" isn't also correct but...

As for the surge, I doubt if one person in ten, other than Amos and myself, could tell you what it was about other than "more boots on the ground"... "More boots on the ground" is the moronish answer that really has nothin to do with the components of the surge...

Yo, T... No government in Iraq... Sunnis and Shittes squabbling... The US ending it's combat operations today... Hmmmmm??? What could be next???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Aug 10 - 06:47 PM

Recent Tweet:

BarackObama

As a presidential candidate, I pledged to bring the Iraq war to a responsible end. That's exactly what we're doingÑas promised, on schedule.
9:21 AM Aug 2nd via HootSuite

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 12:08 PM

Amos: I asked you first:

"explain in common factual terms how Obama has done anything other than abandon his own plan of immediate withdrawal from Iraq"

If you know anything about the subject matter you brought up, you should certainly know what he has done differently.

You are the Mudcat historian aren't you?

"I will promise you this, If we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am President, it is the first thing I will do."

"Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was.
The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year _ now,"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 01:23 PM

Well, Sawz, you can beat that li'l tin drum until the cows come home. If GWB had spent a little more time learning about things he might have avoided some of the insanity with which he forced BHO to deal. You call it a broken promise as though all he had to do was click his heels in the Oval Office and make a wish.

The fact is, he had a helluva lot of bullshit from your admirable Repub dingbats AND he had a LOT more access to on the ground intell once he won the election. So it seems he was smart enough to use new information and deal with the situation accordingly. Whyncha find something real to complain about?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 01:58 PM

Come on my friend, sounds pretty real to me .....answer the man's questions.

Shucks, Mr Obama doesn't even support your holy grail of "GM" does that make him as bad as me?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 02:55 PM

What he did is acquire more information and recast his prediction based on the information he then had, Ake. This is one aspect of what is called sane thinking. As I said, if GWB had used a modicum of it it would have saved thousands of lives.

Casting it in terms of broken promises is just partisan bullshit, and yes, it is unreal.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 03:12 PM

Amos,

"he had a LOT more access to on the ground intell once he won the election. So it seems he was smart enough to use new information and deal with the situation accordingly. "

You mean that once he knew what Bush knew, he made the SAME decisions that Bush did, and acted the same way as Bush did when YOU jumped around demanding Bush's impeachment???


Too bad YOU don't have that level of honesty, that you claim Obama has.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 03:20 PM

No, dingbat, I do not. Not only have you scurrilously put words in my mouth and then mocked me for them, which is both crude and ill-tempered of you, but you suffer from the same illogic as your comrade in obfuscation, Sawz, in this regard.

There is a WORLD of difference. Bush failed to analyze false information and instead acted on it to placate his mad-minded drooling base, with very destructive results.

Obama spoke from a reasonable assessment of available information and changed when he had new information. If Bush had done that you would have heard him saying "I was wrong, and I'm responsible for the erroneous vasis on which I ordered troops into Iraq." Not a damn peep of that sort. Funny, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 04:39 PM

Yeah, the situation as of November 2008 and the siutation as of November 2002 are not similar in many respects... Obama made his corrections based on current information... Bush mad his decisons based on cowboy politics...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 02:01 PM

"Whatever Gibbs said, liberals still like Obama
With the controversy still simmering over Robert Gibbs' slam on the "professional left," the Dem firm Public Policy Polling offers a reality check on what liberals think of Obama. They overwhelmingly approve:

On the national poll we'll release this week 85% of liberals approve of the job Obama is doing to 12% disapproving. 88% support his health care plan looking back with only 7% opposed.

Not only are those numbers good, but they're steady. Obama's favor with liberals hasn't been on the decline. In May his approval with liberals was 87/10. In February it was 81/15. In November it was 87/4. Even as his ratings have declined overall he's stayed in that sort of mid-80s range with liberal voters.

The volume of the voices of liberals who don't like Obama is much greater than the volume of their numbers, which probably means Robert Gibbs shouldn't let the select few get him so irritated.

This bears out what other polls have found. It suggests that Gibbs was right when he said that rank and file liberals still like Obama, and some will point to this as proof that Obama's liberal critics don't speak for the left and just get attention because they have big megaphones.

But there may be another conclusion to be drawn here. If criticism of the White House from the left isn't meaningfully depressing Obama's support among liberals, than what's the harm? Seems to me that the liberal rank and file are capable of listening to left-leaning opinionmakers taking issue with various aspects of the Obama presidency without concluding that they should stop supporting the president entirely.

In other words, liberal voters appear capable of keeping two ideas in their heads at the same time. First, Obama does not always live up to their expectations, whether or not he should bear the blame for this unfortunate reality. And second, this isn't grounds to abandon him ...".

(WaPo Blog)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 09:30 PM

Hey, I'm a liberal... Okay, more on the commie-lib side (lol) and I like Obama... Im think he's doing all he can... Hey, these are some very messed up circumstances...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 01:39 AM

"85% of liberals approve of the job Obama is doing to 12% disapproving"

Huh???? How the heck does one determine, when doing such a poll, who is really a "liberal"? What are the criteria? Where does it begin and end? Is it just based on what the person says they are (which might or might not be true) or do all liberals in the USA have a large blue "L" printed on their foreheads and wear blue ties and drink Perrier? ;-) What the heck IS an American liberal, really???? How do we determine that? Who decides? And does he or she resemble a liberal in most other places? Maybe not! And if so, how much?

Polls are such nonsense. Most of them, I think, are quite carefully planned ahead of time, worded in just the right way to elicit the kind of response the pollster hopes to get.

Both the Right and the Left are guilty of using polls in that fashion.

It reminds me of that ridiculous old ad "9 out of 10 doctors prefer Camels (cigarettes)"   Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 05:02 AM

Commie-"lib"?

Shurely shome mishtake...(ed)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 09:17 AM

Okay, ake... Howz about socialist-lib??? Any better???

And yeah, LH... Polls are so rediculous... Let me word the questions and I could get you a 50% approval for Hitler in Isreal... I mean, the entire polling industry is just what you said: BS...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 06:45 PM

"By JEFF BATER And DARRELL A. HUGHES

The U.S. government spent itself deeper into the red last month, paying nearly $20 billion in interest on debt and an additional $9.8 billion to help unemployed Americans.

Federal spending eclipsed revenue for the 22nd straight time, the Treasury Department said Wednesday. The $165.04 billion deficit, while a bit smaller than the $169.5 billion shortfall expected by economists polled by Dow Jones Newswires, was the second highest for the month on record. The highest was $180.68 billion in July 2009.

The government usually runs a deficit during July, which is the 10th month of the fiscal year. So far in fiscal 2010, the government spent $1.169 trillion more than it made. That figure is about $98 billion lower than during the comparable period a year earlier.

For all of fiscal 2009, the U.S. ran a record $1.42 trillion deficit. Fiscal 2010 might run a little higher—the Obama administration sees $1.47 trillion.

Wednesday's monthly Treasury statement said U.S. government revenues in July totaled $155.55 billion, compared with $151.48 billion in July 2009.

Spending was higher, totaling $320.59 billion. July 2009 spending amounted to $332.16 billion.

Year-to-date revenues were $1.75 trillion, compared with $1.74 trillion in the first 10 months of fiscal 2009. Spending so far in this fiscal year is $2.92 trillion, versus $3.01 trillion in the prior period.

Spending for benefits for the unemployed year to date totaled $121.4 billion; for July, the tab was $9.8 billion, the Treasury statement said.

Years of deficit spending by Washington have led to a mounting national debt. Interest payments so far in fiscal 2010 amount to $185.25 billion; by contrast, corporate taxes collected by the government during the same 10 months were $139.71 billion. Interest payments in July alone were $19.9 billion.
"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704901104575423601722830706.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 07:58 PM

Yeah, there ain't no doubt or avoidin' that the US has gotten itself into on hell of a finacial mess...

Worse than that, we have such polorization that we don't have a Congress willing to make the hard choices... The Repubs say "No tax increases"... The Dems say "No cuts in entitlements"... And with both sides just posturing for the nexy election there won't be any courage shown by this Congress on either side of the isle...

Most intellegent people understand that it's going to take a combionation of more revenue and less spending... I mean, this ain't rocket surgery here...

But Congress is content on just kickin' the can down the road... Must be nice... The average American doesn't have that luxary... The average American is having to cut spending and tryin' to make more money... Purdy simple, ain't it???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Aug 10 - 08:34 AM

when all else fails you can always depend on luck... Sometimes it don't come in the flavor ordered up but, hey...

If it weren't for bad luck
I'd hqave no luck at all...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Aug 10 - 11:10 AM

85% of Chimpanzees in the USA believe that Chongo Chimp will one day be president of the United States. Only 43% of Gorillas think so. The statistics are not yet in on lemurs and Barbary Apes.

Don't you feel better now that you know this? ;-) Feel free to use it to bolster your argument as you either attack or defend Barack Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 23 Aug 10 - 08:23 PM

Little Hawk:

85% of Chimpanzees in the USA believe that Chongo Chimp will one day be president of the United States.

I think you need to pay more careful attention to the actual wording of the questions in the poll. The chimps were asked, "If it were up to you, would you rather that Chongo Chimp become president, or Sarah Palin?" The results were: 85% Chongo 14.5% Undecided 0.5% Write-In Vote for "Mine That Bird", winner of the 2009 Kentucky Derby.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Aug 10 - 10:58 PM

LOL!!!

Isn't polling great? I always trust the polls to tell me exactly what's going on in the world and what the future may hold. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Aug 10 - 11:23 PM

Little Hawk: "85% of Chimpanzees in the USA believe that Chongo Chimp will one day be president of the United States."

YOU BIGOT!!!@@$$#%$!!!&&*#@<>:")(*^ YOU ARE A RACIST!!..AND INSULTING CHIMPANZEES!!!!


Yo-ho,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Aug 10 - 11:41 PM

Gad! I've been publicly accused of bigotry, racism, and insulting chimpanzees! I may never have media credibility again! I feel that cushy Hollywood movie and talk show deal slipping through my fingers. My book sales are in freefall. William Shatner is mysteriously "too busy" all of a sudden to return my calls, and even my dog won't come when I call! The next shocked face I see staring at me from the Weekly World News at the grocery checkout counter may be mine!!!!!

Oh, woe is me. Once accused, forever damned. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 08:21 PM

Milestone On The Road Out Of Iraq
Yesterday evening, speaking to the nation from the Oval Office, President Obama "declared an end to the seven-year American combat mission in Iraq," saying that "the United States has met its responsibility to that country and that it is now time to turn to pressing problems at home." While around 50,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq, and will still engage in combat while carrying out what is now primarily a training and advising mission, yesterday's announcement by the President represents the fulfillment of a promise he made in February 2009, to have the majority of U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of August 2010. The President noted that, over the last decade in Afghanistan and Iraq, "we have spent over a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas," and that "as we wind down the war in Iraq, we must tackle those challenges at home with as much energy and grit and sense of common purpose as our men and women in uniform who have served abroad." Describing the new Iraq mission, Vice President Biden said, "We have a written agreement with the Iraqi government, signed by George W. Bush, binding President Barack Obama to withdraw all troops by the end of next year. ... But we have faith that the Iraqi troops who our sacrifices have allowed to be trained are in fact ready and will be increasingly able to supply total security to this country by the end of next year." Biden adviser Tony Blinken told reporters, "We're not disengaging from Iraq, and even as we draw down our troops, we are ramping up our engagement across the board."

DEFINING THE WAR'S LEGACY: President Bush's decision to invade and occupy Iraq remains controversial, though it's now obvious that the main justifications for the war -- Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction and a substantive relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda -- were false. Several key decisions the Bush administration made, such as disbanding the Iraq army and the de-Baathification of Iraq's bureaucracy, fed a growing insurgency that was gathering steam even as President Bush prematurely declared in May 2003 that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended." The ensuing insurgency led to years of sectarian strife and the near-collapse of the Iraqi state. With the U.S.'s attention and resources focused on dealing with the Iraq insurgency, Iran was able to extend its influence both with Shia parties in Iraq and throughout the region, the Taliban was able to retrench in Afghanistan, and anti-American extremists throughout the Middle East drew strength from the constant images of death and destruction beamed out of Iraq via satellite. Many of these radicals gained expertise from tactics honed against American forces in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 01:01 PM

Well Well Well. The Mudcat historian has no facts to present on Obama's cosmic intergalactic flip flop from "Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year _ now" to look how good my surge worked.

And nothing to say about his broken "I will promise you this, If we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am President, it is the first thing I will do."

Other than another personal attack.

From the Obama website:

"All Combat Troops Redeployed by 2009: Barack Obama would immediately begin redeploying American troops from Iraq. The withdrawal would be strategic and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Troops would be removed from secure areas first, with troops remaining longer in more volatile areas. The drawdown would begin immediately with one to two combat brigades redeploying each month and all troops engaged in combat operations out by the end of next year."

I think Amos makes a better Drummer than Historian.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 01:06 PM

New Polls Show Democrats in Deep Hole

PBS Newshour September 7, 2010

The new Washington Post/ABC News and Wall Street Journal/NBC News polls released Tuesday provide a double whammy of bad news for Democrats and the Obama White House eight weeks before the votes are counted and control of Congress is determined.

If you're looking for a silver lining for the Democrats in these numbers, it simply isn't there. The one thing Democrats will, no doubt, try to highlight is that there's no great love affair with Republicans among the voters. The part Democrats are likely to leave out is that it appears not to matter.

Some highlights from the Washington Post/ABC News poll:
      Among likely voters, 53 percent say they would vote for a generic Republican candidate for Congress this year vs. 40 percent who say they would vote for the generic Democrat on a ballot. That 13-point GOP advantage is the largest in the poll's history dating back to 1981.
      President Obama scores his lowest approval rating to date: 46 percent approve of the president's job performance, while a slim majority, 52 percent, disapprove.
      The poll shows a six-point increase since July, from 32 percent to 38 percent, in voters who say the economy is getting worse.

The Washington Post's Dan Balz and Jon Cohen take a look at those critical independent voters:
    "The poll findings highlight one of the most significant problems for Obama and Democrats heading into fall: a steep erosion in support among independent voters. In 2008, Obama won independents by eight percentage points. In 2006, independents broke for Democratic House candidates by an unprecedented 18-point margin."
    "Independents' disapproval of the president has reached an all-time high, with 57 percent giving him negative marks. About 61 percent of independents say Obama has not brought change to Washington. Nearly half now consider him "too liberal" ideologically."
    "Overall, by a 13-point margin, independent voters say they would support Republican over Democratic candidates in their House districts. A majority of independents - 59 percent - say they would prefer to have Republicans in charge of Congress to serve as a check on the president's agenda."

The Wall Street Journal's Gerry Seib writes up the significant voter enthusiasm gap apparent in the NBC/WSJ poll:
    "In the survey, those who expressed the very highest levels of interest in this year's election preferred a Republican Congress by a margin of 53% to 35%. Among all other, less interested voters, Democrats are preferred by a 20-point margin."
    "So Democrats' most urgent challenge in the next eight weeks is to turn these uninterested voters into interested voters--a difficult task, but one party leaders insist they are tackling."

Stu Rothenberg, one of the most-watched congressional handicappers in Washington, updates his House overview: "Likely Republican gain of 37-42 seats, with the caveat that substantially larger GOP gains in the 45-55 seat range are quite possible."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 02:24 PM

Meanwhile Chongo's public support is quietly but steadily climbing...and there's no mention of that anywhere in the mainstream media! I predict that we will see a chimp in the White House in 2013.

This supposed Iraqi withdrawal makes me laugh. What a crock. "Oh, well, we still have 50,000 combat troops there, but we're withdrawing. Yeah. And, oh, we also have 75,000 "contractors" (mercenaries) there. But we're withdrawing. Isn't it great? Oh, and we have a whole bunch of huge and permanent military bases there. But we're withdrawing. Would I reneg on a promise? This really is withdrawal. Trust me."

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! (slightly hysterical laughter)

It sounds kind of like Hitler's "withdrawal" from occupied France in early 1941 to me (he withdraw a majority of the German combat forces from France at that time to fight new campaigns in the Mediterranean...and more importantly...Russia.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 03:58 PM

I don't believe the 50,000 employees of the armed forces are combat troops./ And as far as I know there primary duties are going to be training and rebuilding.

You and Sawz make a great Abbott and Costello act, though.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 04:14 PM

Rising to the Occasion
By BOB HERBERT
Published: September 6, 2010


On Labor Day afternoon in Milwaukee, President Obama finally began to vigorously push the kind of high-profile, rebuild-America infrastructure campaign that is absolutely essential if there is to be any real hope of putting Americans back to work and getting the economy back into reasonable shape over the next few years.

In a speech that was rousing, inspirational and, at times, quite funny, the president outlined a $50 billion proposal for a wide range of improvements to the nation's transportation infrastructure. The money would be used for the construction and rehabilitation of highways, bridges, railroads, airport runways and the air traffic control system.

Mr. Obama linked the nation's desperate need for jobs to the sorry state of the national infrastructure in a tone that conveyed both passion and empathy, and left me wondering, "Where has this guy been for the past year and a half?"

After noting that nearly one in five construction workers is unemployed, Mr. Obama told the crowd, "It doesn't do anybody any good when so many hard-working Americans have been idle for months, even years, at a time when there is so much of America that needs rebuilding."

The U.S. once had the finest infrastructure in the world, he said, "and we can have it again."

The president's plan would include the creation of an infrastructure bank that would use public dollars to leverage private capital for major projects. If properly conceived and executed, the bank could become a crucial factor in financing the nation's long-term infrastructure needs.

It should be kept in mind that Mr. Obama's proposal is only a first step. Despite the $50 billion price tag, it's not in any way commensurate with our overwhelming infrastructure needs or the gruesome scale of the nation's unemployment crisis. But it's an important step. It's a smarter approach to infrastructure investment than the wasteful, haphazard, earmark-laden practices that we've become accustomed to, and it will put some people to work in jobs that pay decent wages.

...The president was eloquent on these matters in his speech. Speaking of his grandparents' experiences during the 1930s, he said: "They would tell me about seeing their fathers or uncles losing jobs during the Depression, how it wasn't just the loss of a paycheck that stung. It was the blow to their dignity, their sense of self-worth. I'll bet a lot of us have seen people changed after a long bout of unemployment, how it can wear down even the strongest spirits."

Leaning toward the microphone, with his shirt collar unbuttoned, Mr. Obama spoke in a way that belied his reputation for aloofness, for struggling to connect in a visceral way with ordinary working people. He was speaking to a pro-Obama labor gathering, so he didn't have to win over the audience. But if his goal was to demonstrate that he genuinely cared about the struggles of the people in the audience and those watching on television — and about the long-term prospects of their children and grandchildren — he largely succeeded.

The question that remains, however, is whether he and his party will fight with the skill and tenacity needed to guide his infrastructure proposal to fruition, and whether they will finally focus intensely, as they should have been doing all along, on the difficult but absolutely critical task of putting millions of unemployed Americans back to work. ...


NYT columnist

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 04:54 PM

Ah, but Amos...I was not brought up to bear the affliction of imagining that I have to make a choice between being a fan of either the Republicans or the Democrats. I am a fan of neither. Thus I am able to see the situation with a mind relatively unclouded by partisan emotion. This is a condition most Americans have never experienced! ;-) And sadly, never will.

They both lie to you. They both betray you once in office. They both serve the military-industrial complex, the banks, and the largest corporate interests. They both pretend to be serving you and maintaining "freedom" while they practice imperialism. They both fight foreign wars under false pretences in order to promote imperial interests.

The Republicans are probably the worse of the two...that is the one point you, I, and Bobert will definitely agree on. However, must we choose between Joe Stalin and Mussolini yet again and forever and a day? Might there not be a better way than that?

And if your political system permits no other real possibility than an eternal choice between the Democrats and the Republicans, then I respectfully submit that it is a travesty not worth giving your verbal support to. The primary emotional reason you keep defending Mr Obama, no matter what he does, is that he is NOT a Republican! That's simply not a good enough reason to keep defending someone.

The people who continually attack him because he is NOT a Republican have a similar problem...only it's on the other side of the coin.

Partisan thinking is not really thinking at all. It's just cheerleading for your team, and cheerleaders have never been seen as great thinkers, have they? But boy, do they make a lot of noise! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 05:45 PM

The problem, Amos, is that me thinks Obama started way too late... He has allowed too much Repub mythology to go unchallenged and in doin' so the lies have grown and grown to a point where too many voters really are clueless about the truth...

Plus, seems that we have grown into a big crybaby nation where we want stuff fixed NOW!!! Even if the attempted fix is wrong-headed and will make things worse...

Go figure???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 07:12 PM

I hear, Bobez; I guess the drag-foot stop-at-all-costs approach--which is the same tactic they used on FDR--has had its effect.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 07:39 PM

I think they call it passive agressive...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 07:49 PM

BUT, let me recall to your attention the fact that FDR hove to and swept onto a downwind tack and made good his course. Of course, the advent of a war helped. And what the war did was justify a huge amount of deficit spending. Fancy that!



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 08:03 PM

Yeah, Amos, it seemed as if the US economy was in need of "another good war" to get money moving...

That's what is so maddening about what we have today... The Repubs have poisoned the well with their "bailout" mythologies... And the American people are too dumbed down to realize that right now the ***only*** thing that the government can do to create jobs and get some money moving is exactly what FDR had to do with WW II??? Spend...

But the Repubs, as per usual, want more tax cuts??? And t6o fight the deficit at the same time... Any casual student of Econ 201 knows that this isn't possible but seems that the Repubs think it is... They can't say one thing about what Obama is doing without injecting that mindless "job-killing" adjective...

I guess the operative word is "mindless"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 11:28 PM

It was WWII that ended the Great Depression. All of a sudden everyone had paying jobs, due to the immediate need to send thousands of men overseas with expensive war machines and kill Germans, Italians, and Japanese. ;-) Hitler was also able to end Germany's economic woes before the war by ramping up military production bigtime.

I don't see that same kind of solution now as being a very good idea at all. The world has grown smaller and the weapons more terrible since 1945.

But here's a thought that struck me while reading various posts here. People on both sides of the argument seem to feel that the other side are crybabies. ;-) Isn't that kind of ironic? Or amusing?

Both the Right and the Left in the USA keep saying that the other side are a bunch of whiners, in effect.

Gosh...maybe they're both right about that! ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 08:33 AM

No one is really advocating the "another good war" solution, LH... What most non-flat-earth economists have been arguing is that the stimulis is working and more is needed...

The Repubs, hoever, are in denial... They say the earth is flat and that no jobs have been created... That is about as mindless as one can imagine but seems that no one is really callin' them out on their mythological proclamations...

As for "whiners"??? Well, yeah, those on then right certainly have the art of whining down to an art... Mitch McConnell and John Beohner are the Michaelangelllo and Picassos of whiners...

And, I'll admit that those of us on the left are seein' what it's gettin' for the right and many of us have enrolled in correspondence programs or community colleges to try to get up to McConnell n' Beohner's speed but they have such a head start that iy doesn't look good for the left right now...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 08:55 AM

It was WWII that ended the Great Depression.

And how did it do that? Because the government started spending like a drunken sailor. It forced more deficit spending at humongous levels, which percolated throughout the economy. Just being in a war didn't end the depression. The government spending did.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 10:39 AM

We should declare war then, and make it ferocious, but we should have an enemy who can be conquered without killing humans. War on oil wells, for example, or war on pollutants.

It isn't the same, I know--I mocked W for his stupid War on Terror expression and the abuses it spawned. Declaring war on a condition is illiterate and ineffective. But we should figure out how to do the equivalent, and inject it with just as much passion. War on Space has a nice ring to it. War on Inhumanity. War on Stupidity...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 11:20 AM

Peace is Out
words and music by Roy Zimmerman
© 1994 Watunes
(From "Sing it Loud", "Folk Heroes" [Reprise] and "The Best of the Foremen")

We used to take a nonviolent stance
In Nehru jackets and bell-bottom pants
We even used to sing, "Give peace a chance"
God, we must have been joking

We used to slander the words of our prez
And praise whatever the Tao Te Ching says
We used to wanna sing like Joan Baez
Jesus, what we were smoking?

Now when someone says, "Hell no, we won't go"
What they mean is "to Berkeley"

Peace is out, love is out
No one wants to hear about
Peace and love anymore
Now we're fighting
In a war against homelessness, a war against drugs
'Cause it's in to be in a war

We used to traipse around in tie-dye tights
Dropping daisies in enemy sights
Now we're fighting for property rights
Must have come to our senses

We used to say all we needed was love
Olive branches and sign of the dove
Now we're looking for something above
90K plus expenses

Now when someone says, "What the world needs now"
It's a private police force

Peace is out, love is out
No one wants to hear about
Peace and love anymore
Now we're fighting
In a war against joblessness, a war against crime
'Cause it's in to be in a war

All we wanna say
Is peace... ain't PC, it's passé

Now when someone says, "We shall overcome"
They mean, "We'll be right over"

Peace is out, love is out
No one gives a rat's ass about
Peace and love anymore
Now we're fighting
In a war against violence, a war against poverty
A war against ignorance, a war against obesity
A war against censorship, a war against cavities
'Cause it's in to be in...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 01:29 PM

Having a War on Stupidity is a kind of appealing notion, Amos, but I fear what might happen to my buddy Shane if such a war were ever declared...

Bobert, I was simply saying that both sides in the mainstream political debate keep accusing the other of being whiners, and I find that funny! ;-) It's like Woody Allen arguing interminably with Glen Beck or something along that line, both insisting that the other is completely irrational...kind of entertaining if you just look at the humorous side of it. I mean, here you have 2 sets of grown people who are both convinced that THEY are the mature, balanced, sensible ones who are willing to get down to brass tacks, grab the bull by the mungoberries, and face reality...while their erstwhile opponents are just a bunch of hysterical, whining little crybabies. THAT's funny, don'tcha think? I do.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 01:36 PM

Well, you know, LH, if you sleep with pigs, you wake up smelling like garbage, n'est-ce pas?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 01:45 PM

Yes...... (raising one eyebrow a la Mr Spock)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 01:46 PM

Even America's liberal elites concede that Obama's Presidency is crumbling

By Nile Gardiner World Last updated: September 8th, 2010


Democrats in Congress are no longer asking themselves whether this is going to be a bad election year for them and their party. They are asking whether it is going to be a disaster. The GOP pushed deep into Democratic-held territory over the summer, to the point where the party is well within range of picking up the 39 seats it would need to take control of the House. Overall, as many as 80 House seats could be at risk, and fewer than a dozen of these are held by Republicans.

Political handicappers now say it is conceivable that the Republicans could also win the 10 seats they need to take back the Senate. Not since 1930 has the House changed hands without the Senate following suit.

Is this a piece from National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Wall Street Journal or Fox News.com, all major conservative news outlets in the United States? No. It's a direct quote from yesterday's Washington Post, usually viewed by conservatives as a flagship of the liberal establishment inside the Beltway. The fact The Post is reporting that not only could Republicans sweep the House of Representatives this November, but may even take the Senate as well, is a reflection of just how far the mainstream, overwhelmingly left-of-centre US media has moved in the last month towards acknowledging the scale of the crisis facing the White House.

To its credit, The Washington Post has generally been ahead of the curve compared to its main competitors such as The New York Times in reporting President Obama's travails, but its striking front page coverage of the "Democrats' plight" and talk of a possible GOP Senate win (regarded as fantasy just a fortnight ago) was a bold step for a publication that is probably read in every office of the Obama administration.

The Post also ran another headline yesterday on its front page – "Republicans making gains ahead of midterm elections" – which would undoubtedly have sent a shudder through the White House. It carried a new poll commissioned jointly with ABC News, which showed public faith in Barack Obama's leadership has fallen to an all-time low, with just 46 percent approval. The Washington Post-ABC News survey revealed high levels of public unease with President Obama's handling of the economy, with 57 percent of Americans disapproving, and 58 percent critical of his handling of the deficit.

For most of the year, America's political and media elites, including the Obama team itself, have touted the notion of an economic recovery (which never materialised), significantly underestimated the rise of the Tea Party movement, and questioned the notion that conservatism was sweeping America. It is only now hitting home just how close Washington is to experiencing a political revolution in November that will fundamentally change the political landscape on Capitol Hill, with huge implications for the Obama presidency. What was once a perspective confined largely to Fox News, online conservative news sites, or talk radio is now gaining ground in the liberal US print media as well – historic change is coming to America, though not quite the version promised by Barack Obama.


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100052779/even-americas-liberal-elites-concede-that-obamas-presidency-is-crumblin

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 02:05 PM

It is conceivable, sure, but I think it is a bit early for your progress-stoppers and foot-dragging obstructionists and nut-ball reactionaries to gloat just yet, BB.

Although they have succeeded in dumping enough crap in the way to slow Mister Obama down, they have not killed him yet, and may not be able to do so. Once in a great while people DO figger out when they are being led like lambs to slaughter in the interests of supporting the already-wealthy, and they kick backwards, surprising everyone who was too full of themselves to notice.

Ask Alf Landon about that.

He's got the tee-shirt.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 03:30 PM

Maybe people are starting to get "the message"

People foolishly presented Obama as the messiah.....many on this forum did that, but a few still small voices warned that the messiah was a creature of the system and as such, would only be allowed to make token gestures.

The backlash will be severe but well deserved, hypocrisy deserves to be exposed....even Obama Mudcatters know what the game is, but suspend belief. Like Mr Micawber, they keep on hoping "something will turn up", but as my esteemed friend says....there is no Santa, no tooth fairy, no political messiah, for we poor miserables.

I hope this really is a grass roots movement against hypocritical divisive "democratic liberal" politics, but if it is, the people who live here will have to start thinking with both sides of their heads to make it workable.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 03:52 PM

I hope this really is a grass roots movement against hypocritical divisive "democratic liberal" politics,

Democrats are divisive? Do you listen to yourself?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 04:09 PM

Isn't it about time you learned to read?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 04:25 PM

Isn't it about time you learned to read?

Isn't it about time you learned to think?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 04:25 PM

I think it is nonsense that anyone claimed Obama was a messiah. He was just a great relief from the dundering illiterate heffalump who preceded him.

Furthermore, I fail to see where all this hypocrisy you accuse hiom of is, aside from the usual political brouhahaha anyone could have predicted going in.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 05:30 PM

Amos ..I distinctly remember you in discussion, drawing my attention to the worshiping crowds at Mr Obama's inauguration as proof of his credentials as "peoples president" and deliverer of real change.

When I pointed out that he was wedded to the system and that change was no on the system's agenda, you responded that he was president and who would be in a position to stop him?(I paraphrase).

Well, now we all know!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 08:06 PM

Well, ake, when you been tied to the whippin' post and some guy shows up with a box cutter and cuts you free there is a tendency to think that person greater than he might be...

We've had 30 years of being tied to the whipping post by Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and then Bush II... Obama ain't part of that mindset and therefor, regardless of the corporate media's intention to bring him down, lots of us are real glad he's there rather than any of the 4 bozos who preceeded him...

b~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 08:56 PM

Hey, c'mon! Bill Clinton was kind of fun at times, wasn't he, Bobert? ;-)

A great many people saw Obama as a virtual Messiah around the time he was elected...and not just in the USA either. Matter of fact, he was much more popular outside the USA than he was inside the USA, and I think that is still the case. There were many people both inside and outside the USA who saw him as a saviour who would bring in enormous changes for the better. As Bobert indicated, this had much to do with the general relief felt across the world at the thought that the Bush administration was finally over after 8 mind-numbingly awful years...

On the international scene I think it was only the Israelis who were hoping McCain would get elected. They figured he was as bloodthirsty as they are, but they weren't at all sure about Obama.

I've never before seen a presidential candidate who stirred such immense hopes in people's hearts as Obama did in late 2008. It was quite something to witness at the time, and I felt some of those hopes pretty strongly myself...tempered with the awareness that it probably wouldn't work out quite that well. I already knew he was committed to fighting on in Afghanistan, and that did not bode well for the future as far as I was concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 09:06 PM

Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Gov't Data
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief

- In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.

The U.S. Treasury Department divides the federal debt into two categories. One is "debt held by the public," which includes U.S. government securities owned by individuals, corporations, state or local governments, foreign governments and other entities outside the federal government itself. The other is "intragovernmental" debt, which includes I.O.U.s the federal government gives to itself when, for example, the Treasury borrows money out of the Social Security "trust fund" to pay for expenses other than Social Security.

At the end of fiscal year 1989, which ended eight months after President Reagan left office, the total federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That means all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan had accumulated only that much publicly held debt on behalf of American taxpayers. That is $335.3 billion less than the $2.5260 trillion that was added to the federal debt held by the public just between Jan. 20, 2009, when President Obama was inaugurated, and Aug. 20, 2010, the 19-month anniversary of Obama's inauguration.

By contrast, President Reagan was sworn into office on Jan. 20, 1981 and left office eight years later on Jan. 20, 1989. At the end of fiscal 1980, four months before Reagan was inaugurated, the federal debt held by the public was $711.9 billion, according to CBO. At the end of fiscal 1989, eight months after Reagan left office, the federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion. That means that in the nine-fiscal-year period of 1980-89--which included all of Reagan's eight years in office--the federal debt held by the public increased $1.4788 trillion. That is in excess of a trillion dollars less than the $2.5260 increase in the debt held by the public during Obama's first 19 months.

When President Barack Obama took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, the total federal debt held by the public stood at 6.3073 trillion, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the U.S. Treasury Department. As of Aug. 20, 2010, after the first nineteen months of President Obama's 48-month term, the total federal debt held by the public had grown to a total of $8.8333 trillion, an increase of $2.5260 trillion.

In just the last four months (May through August), according to the CBO, the Obama administration has run cumulative deficits of $464 billion, more than the $458 billion deficit the Bush administration ran through the entirety of fiscal 2008.

The CBO predicted this week that the annual budget deficit for fiscal 2010, which ends on the last day of this month, will exceed $1.3 trillion.

The first two fiscal years in which Obama has served will see the two biggest federal deficits as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product since the end of World War II.

"CBO currently estimates that the deficit for 2010 will be about $70 billion below last year's total but will still exceed $1.3 trillion," said the CBO's monthly budget review for September, which was released yesterday. "Relative to the size of the economy, this year's deficit is expected to be the second-largest shortfall in the past 65 years: At 9.1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), that deficit will be exceeded only by last year's deficit of 9.9 percent of GDP."


http://cnsnews.com/news/article/72404

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 09:31 PM

Seems like every president manages to spend a good deal more than the one who preceded him...regardless of which party he belongs to.

Could it be because that's the way the system works? The entire society appears to be based on debt as far as I can see.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 11:51 AM

Garbage in, garbage out...

Terrance Jeffrey could use a refresher course in American Government...

Maybe bb will explain how an incoming president inherits the former administration's budget... So that takes care of 12 of the 17 months that Obama is being blamed for... Secondly, the Bush folks left so many spending bills on the horizon that were going to kick in after Bush left that whomever was going to vbe the next president was going to have to deal with an economic minefield... These defefits were predicted 4 years ago... Oral Roberts hisself couldn't have cahnged that...

So in the words of the late Paul Harvey, "There, now you have the rest of the story"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 12:08 PM

Bobert,

Please READ the posts before commenting...

"In just the last four months (May through August), according to the CBO, the Obama administration has run cumulative deficits of $464 billion, more than the $458 billion deficit the Bush administration ran through the entirety of fiscal 2008."

19 - 4 = 15, so this was on OBAMA's budget, NOT Bush's.


The REST of the story.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 12:26 PM

It is interesting that Bush's major deficit was run up in an effort to kill people, while Obama's was run up trying to pull the nation out of Bush's Depression and improve health care. These are specious numbers, disconnected from the real operation of life.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 12:30 PM

Bruce, the entire western world's economy is a giant pyramid scheme that's been built by the major banks through the creation of vast amounts of digital money (created instantly out of thin air every time they make a loan to someone). This means that the money supply keeps going up, the value of the currency keeps going down proportionately (inflation), and all the societies involved keep going deeper into debt. It is not just a USA problem, it's happening elsewhere too. If Obama is doing what you say he is, it's because the major banks want him to. The Democrats and the Republicans are nothing more than governmental servants to the banking industry, and I think you should look into that.

The nature of a pyramid scheme is that the balloon has to keep getting bigger to prevent everyone losing out bigtime. Eventually it gets so big that it bursts. Then everyone loses out bigtime regardless, because the whole exercise was a fraud in the first place. The real criminals here are the major lending institutions...and the politicians in every major political party who have simply bent over meekly and done what those major lending institutions wanted them to do by deregulating and allowing it to happen.

Obama's temporary, Bruce. Just like Bush was temporary. The real problem is much bigger than both of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 01:01 PM

MEbbe Obama ought to re-open that Gold Window Nixon closed, and cancel Bretton WOods...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 01:01 PM

No disagreement, LH.

But I fear the collapse way be sooner rather than later I have a 10 trillion mark ( in my collection) note that tells me it might get unpleasant.

I am putting away silver and buying property ( in the country) that I can live on.

I think that much of what Obama SAYS is good- unfortunately, the LAWS that are being passed are NOT what he says they are, nor are they worth the money that they will cost us.

Amos seems to think that good intentions are all that are needed- I think that the ACTIONS should be judged by their effect, not by intention.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 01:13 PM

I have the same worries about it that you do, Bruce. I also think the collapse may be sooner rather than later. I already have that property in the country to live on, and will put more money in gold ASAP. It's not a good situation out there.

I often like what Obama has to say too, he speaks well...but I don't like what I see happening.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 01:15 PM

I suppose you're right; perhaps if the RNC gang cut back on their ferocious effort to stop anything and everything he proposed, a bit more good work could be accomplished.

The health bill y'all were complaining about was the best he could force out of the dog's-breakfast of counter-efforts from industry-friendly Republicans. The same pattern has held in every major administrative effort.

So your friends in the Repub zoo might want to consider what they have wrought in their effort to nullify the President.

They have been far more visious than anything the libberal base levied against W, who was far more deserving of derision.

In any case, let us keep pushing forward and try to make thigns better still. I am glad to see him holding the line on the W tax cuts. If your buddies were as concerned as they say about the deficit, perhaps they would be less anxious to see the Big Favors laws extended.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 01:20 PM

Amos,

"They have been far more visious than anything the libberal base levied against W,"

False, IMO, from all that I have read and heard- unless you cut out Mudcat posts- THEN it MIGHT be debated.

"who was far more deserving of derision."

Also false, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 06:07 PM

"visious"? or "viscous"? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 08:48 PM

Oh, bb???

I don't recall Dems takin' guns to rallies where Bush was going to speak... Nor do I recall them talkin' about takin' 2nd ammendment remedies if they didn't get their way...

You are mistaken on this point...

You tried to push those of us who opposed Bush's policies, mostly on Iraq, into this Bush-haters camp back then and we didn't bite then... What we said back then was that we hated Bush's policies and not the man... You didn't buy that but that is exactly what we said and it was what we meant...

The Repubs and Tea Party folks ain't into just stopping at disagreeing with Obama's policies... Heck, most of them were at one time proposed by whom??? Yeah, Repubs... So the Repubs can't stop at hating policies that they proposed so they just skip those little details and go for a more generic hate... In other words... They hate so much that they can't even explain it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: mousethief
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 09:26 PM

They can't explain it because they know if they explained it (hint: it's about race) they'd be seen for what they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 10:03 PM

Bingo...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 09:20 AM

Bobert,

"at disagreeing with Obama's policies... Heck, most of them were at one time proposed by whom??? Yeah, Repubs... So the Repubs can't stop at hating policies that they proposed "

So now YOU admit that the policies that Republicans proposed AND YOU PROTESTED AGAINST are ok when Obama does them.





Sounds like a slight bias on YOUR part.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 10:21 AM

President Obama's speech in Ohio on Wednesday was brilliant both in its timing and in its content. As to timing, there has been much complaining among the Democrats about why he has not become more involved in the coming elections. If he had become involved earlier, it would have been watered down. By waiting until just two months before the election, he can now make his arguments when it really matters.

As to content, he has put a human face on the Republican Party. His references to John A. Boehner, the House Republican leader, and Mr. Boehner's negativity have served to emphasize that the Republican Party really is the Party of No. Mr. Boehner has yet to come up with any meaningful solution to the problems facing our nation. The Democrats running in the coming elections can now join with Mr. Obama and emphasize the positive steps to be taken to bring this nation back to life.

Richard S. Wolfeld
Jericho, N.Y., Sept. 9, 2010

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 05:42 PM

Yeah, if you recall back in '02 and Bush had decided that come Hell of high water that he was gonna have a new shiney war to pump out his chest over he and the rest of the chest pumpers tried to sell the war in August but things weren't going to well with the sales job so...

...they decided to just wait until after Labor Day when people might be payin' more attention...

I think the timing is right... Now it will be up to Obama to get the same folks vote who voted in '08 for him... If he can do that then that will make alot of the races alot closer and maybe carry some Dems over the line inspite of a highly motivated right wing who were headed for defeat...

I do find it interesting that 2 weeks ago when the Repubs had a 9% lead in the Gallop that the Washington Post wrote not one but two Page 1 stories about how the Repubs were going to cream the Dems in November but when this last week the same poll had the Dems pulling even that the the "liberal biased" Post said nuthin' at all... At least in their news section...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 11:05 AM

Brought to you by:"The highly intelligent Maureen Dowd"
"That Dowd gal is hotter than a Saturday night special."
"Maureen Dowd, the bright light lady warrior of the New York Times"
"I really am POd at the New York Times for putting Maureen Dowd behind the Subscription Curtain, especially when she comes up with sharp analyses"
"More from my favorite chile roja, Maureen Dowd"
"I am pleased to report that Maureen Dowd, the spicy red-headed NY Times columnist"
"I _am_ goiung through withdrawal symptoms and I miss her keen wit, her sharp ability to cut through Republican bullshit with the grace of a samurai sword, and her sharp tongue."
"Maureen Dowd rides again with a shap-edged piece"
"Maureen is her usual sharp and articulate self "

MAUREEN DOWD New York Times September 11, 2010

How did the first president of color become so colorless? And how can Obamicans can Obama?

   The president is everywhere, trying to get more aggressive and recapture some of his "Yes we can" mojo in an effort to fend off the rebuke that's barreling toward him from voters this fall. H's in his best buzzer-beating mode, knowing that if he loses even one house of Congress, he will be inundated by inane G.O.P. investigations that will consume the last two years of his term. House Republicans are already talking gleefully about a government shutdown.
   The country is more polarized than ever on race and religion, with a Florida faker holding a complicit media hostage in the Koran-burning pastor disaster. Mosque-baiting Republicans have shown again that they're willing to tear at the fabric of the country on the issues of 9/11 and national security in order to trample the Democrats. Oama has been bleeding independents, who flocked to him in 2008 and were the deciding factor in several swing states. The White House is more focused on stimulating the base right now, figuring that the independents won't be voting that heavily in the midterms.
   Among independent voters in 2012, Obama strategists think they have a better chance with women than men because of the president's abortion-rights support and health care legislation - hence the appearance by the commander in chief on "The View." And they reckon that he can devote more time to courting the indie ladies after November.   The official Obama site for independent voters highlights his quote from the campaign about bringing "real change" to Washington. The sentiment was challenged by NBC's Chuck Todd at the presidential press conference Friday.

"How have you changed Washington?" Todd asked.

   The president answered that he is trying to help "ordinary families" and not special interests, before conceding that he, too, is frustrated by his inability to create "a greater spirit of cooperation in Washington." "You know, are there, you know, things that I might have done during the course of 18 months that would, you know, at the margins have improved some of the tone in Washington?" Obama asked. "Probably." Uncharacteristically valley girl, the usually eloquent president must have, you know, had a hard time acknowledging that. "Is some of this just a core difference in approach, in terms of how we move this country forward, between Democrats and Republicans?" he said. "I'd say the answer is a lot more the latter."
   One of the independent voters Obama will be trying to charm over the next two years is my sister, Peggy, a formerly ardent Obamican (a Republican who changed spots to vote for Obama).Disillusioned with her beloved W. over Iraq and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and the disdain for bipartisanship, she gave her affections - and small cash infusions - to Barack Obama in 2008. Despite being a Washington native, Peggy believed that the dazzling young newcomer could change Washington.
   But she has lost a lot of faith now, saying she might vote for Mitt Romney over Obama if Romney is the Republican nominee in 2012. (Sarah Palin shouldn't count on her vote though. In Peggy's words, "Are you nuts?") Peggy thinks the president has done fine managing W.'s messes in Iraq and Afghanistan. And she lights up at the mention of his vice president, Joe Biden. But she thinks Obama has to get "a backbone" if he wants to lure her back to the fold. "He promised us everything, saying he would turn the country around, and he did nothing the first year," Peggy says. "He piddled around when he had 60 votes. He could have pushed through the health care bill but spent months haggling on it because he wanted to bring some Republicans on board. He was trying too hard to compromise when he didn't need the Republicans and they were never going to like him. Any idiot could see that.
   "He could have gotten it through while Teddy Kennedy was still alive - he owed the Kennedys something - and then the bill was watered down.
"He hasn't saved the economy, and now he's admitting he's made very little progress. You can't for four years blame the person who used to be president. Obama tries to compromise too much, and he doesn't look like a strong leader. I don't watch him anymore. I'm turned off by him. I think he's an elitist. He went down to the gulf, telling everyone to take a vacation down there, and then he goes to Martha's Vineyard. He does what he wants but then    he tells us to do other things.
"I want him in that White House acting like a president, not out on the campaign trail. Not when the country is going down the toilet."

While Obama's out in the country trying to save Congressional Democrats, he should also think about how he's going to save himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 11:09 AM

JEeze, Sawzall, they oughta appoint you Mudcat librarian; if only you could be inspired with a higher purpose than complaining about Obama and making me look dumb. I can handle the second part fine on my own, thanks.

I am flattered you think it worth your while to spend so much time looking up my past remarks about the lovely Maureen; but, man, surely you have some solid,w orthwhile purposes of your own to pursue?

Obama can handle himself, I reckon. He is the type to think a lot before he acts, which doesn't suit the media well.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 12:24 AM

"surely you have some solid,w orthwhile purposes of your own to pursue?"

How 'bout you Amos?

You could mount some argument as to why the statements in her article are incorrect but in not doing so, you seem to be admitting that she is right.

But you always slide in to the Ad hominem attack mode because facts elude you.

How's fair and balanced coming Amos? Lessee, Generic Congressional Vote Republicans 48.1 Democrats 40.3 Ouch

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 08:48 AM

Hey, ya'll...

...2400!!!

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 12:50 AM

Amos:

Are going to refute any of the facts in this poll from Bobert's favorite leftwing El Pinko rag or would it be easier for you to let it pass and attack me instead?

Here are some highlights from the new WaPo/ABC poll.

    * 57% of Americans disapprove of the way Obama is handling the economy (44% strongly disapprove).
    * 58% of Americans disapprove of the way Obama is handling the federal budget deficit, 39% approve.
    * 72% disapprove of the way the Democrat-run U.S. Congress is doing its job.
    * Only 24% think the economy is getting better
    * 66% oppose "plans for a Muslim community center and place of worship in Lower Manhattan, near the site of the former World Trade Center."
    * 19% of Americans consider themselves to be politically liberal, compared with 40% who consider themselves to be conservative.
    * Asked of likely voters: "If the election for the U.S. House of Representatives in November were being held today, would you vote for (the Democratic candidate) or (the Republican candidate) in your congressional district?" Answer... Republican 53%, Democrat 40%

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 11:42 AM

Loyalties shift in vote-rich suburbs

The Washington Post September 22, 2010

...."I've never been more disenchanted," said Donna Mastrangelo, 48, who moved here from Arizona in 2005. She supported Barack Obama in 2008 but now thinks the president overreached. Sitting on a park bench on a balmy afternoon, she turned to her husband, Louis, and said: "We can be swayed any which way at this point. . . . I don't want anyone to assume my vote anymore. I want them to work for it."

In 2008, 59 percent of the voters in Colorado's 7th District were swayed by Obama's promise of a government that works for the middle class. That year they reelected their Democratic congressman, Ed Perlmutter, for a second term. The swing district had swung - from Republican in its early years, to Democratic.

After four years of Democratic control in Washington, however, many independents here who voted for Obama now voice varying degrees of disapproval for the president and his party. They say they are frustrated by his inability to forge bipartisan compromise. They say Obama and the Democrats pursued an agenda that was too liberal and have not done enough to shore up the economy.

Sentiments like this can be overheard all around Reunion, and in outer-ring suburban neighborhoods across the country. Democrats rose to power in Washington in part with a concerted effort to expand their base of support to include the moderate, college-educated and increasingly diverse voters who now populate the farther-out bedroom communities around Denver, Las Vegas, Washington and other metropolitan areas that rose up over the past decade.

This is not tea party country. The two dozen independent voters here who spoke to The Washington Post this month were more practical than ideological in their political views. They said they support politicians based on the everyday concerns that affect their lives: schools, jobs, traffic, the economy.

These suburbanites often decide elections, and Democrats are trying hard to keep hold of them.

"The battle of every election comes down to how far out into the suburbs can you push the line of Democratic dominance," said Ruy Teixeira, a fellow at the [ George Soros funded front organization] liberal Center for American Progress and co-author of a 2002 book, "The Emerging Democratic Majority." "The Democrats have had a lot of success pushing that line out from the urban core. But I think Republicans will reassert their dominance in the farther-flung exurbs. Where is that line going to be drawn? That's going to determine how well the Republicans do."

In the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, independent voters in the country's suburban areas said they support Republican congressional candidates over Democrats by a 2-to-1 margin (62 to 30 percent). ... More here

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 11:52 AM

The pity of it is that all those people can seem to imagine is a choice between Democrats...and Republicans! That's like choosing between Al Capone and Lucky Luciano. Neither choice will result in a change that satisfies their hopes or their genuine needs. The game is fixed.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 02:35 PM

Yes, the games is "fixed", LH but...

...if you wnat to keep it that way then vote Repub... They never met a regulation not worth killing off... And they love their Supreme Court leeting the corpoartion donate unlimitexd sums od cash without so much as having to disclose they are doing so... Those are a couple ways to get it "fixed" even betrter...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 02:54 PM

"Anger is sweeping America. True, this white-hot rage is a minority phenomenon, not something that characterizes most of our fellow citizens. But the angry minority is angry indeed, consisting of people who feel that things to which they are entitled are being taken away. And they're out for revenge.

No, I'm not talking about the Tea Partiers. I'm talking about the rich.

These are terrible times for many people in this country. Poverty, especially acute poverty, has soared in the economic slump; millions of people have lost their homes. Young people can't find jobs; laid-off 50-somethings fear that they'll never work again.

Yet if you want to find real political rage — the kind of rage that makes people compare President Obama to Hitler, or accuse him of treason — you won't find it among these suffering Americans. You'll find it instead among the very privileged, people who don't have to worry about losing their jobs, their homes, or their health insurance, but who are outraged, outraged, at the thought of paying modestly higher taxes.

The rage of the rich has been building ever since Mr. Obama took office. At first, however, it was largely confined to Wall Street. Thus when New York magazine published an article titled "The Wail Of the 1%," it was talking about financial wheeler-dealers whose firms had been bailed out with taxpayer funds, but were furious at suggestions that the price of these bailouts should include temporary limits on bonuses. When the billionaire Stephen Schwarzman compared an Obama proposal to the Nazi invasion of Poland, the proposal in question would have closed a tax loophole that specifically benefits fund managers like him.

Now, however, as decision time looms for the fate of the Bush tax cuts — will top tax rates go back to Clinton-era levels? — the rage of the rich has broadened, and also in some ways changed its character.

For one thing, craziness has gone mainstream. It's one thing when a billionaire rants at a dinner event. It's another when Forbes magazine runs a cover story alleging that the president of the United States is deliberately trying to bring America down as part of his Kenyan, "anticolonialist" agenda, that "the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s." When it comes to defending the interests of the rich, it seems, the normal rules of civilized (and rational) discourse no longer apply.

At the same time, self-pity among the privileged has become acceptable, even fashionable.

Tax-cut advocates used to pretend that they were mainly concerned about helping typical American families. Even tax breaks for the rich were justified in terms of trickle-down economics, the claim that lower taxes at the top would make the economy stronger for everyone.

These days, however, tax-cutters are hardly even trying to make the trickle-down case. Yes, Republicans are pushing the line that raising taxes at the top would hurt small businesses, but their hearts don't really seem in it. Instead, it has become common to hear vehement denials that people making $400,000 or $500,000 a year are rich. I mean, look at the expenses of people in that income class — the property taxes they have to pay on their expensive houses, the cost of sending their kids to elite private schools, and so on. Why, they can barely make ends meet.

And among the undeniably rich, a belligerent sense of entitlement has taken hold: it's their money, and they have the right to keep it. "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society," said Oliver Wendell Holmes — but that was a long time ago.

The spectacle of high-income Americans, the world's luckiest people, wallowing in self-pity and self-righteousness would be funny, except for one thing: they may well get their way. Never mind the $700 billion price tag for extending the high-end tax breaks: virtually all Republicans and some Democrats are rushing to the aid of the oppressed affluent.

You see, the rich are different from you and me: they have more influence. It's partly a matter of campaign contributions, but it's also a matter of social pressure, since politicians spend a lot of time hanging out with the wealthy. So when the rich face the prospect of paying an extra 3 or 4 percent of their income in taxes, politicians feel their pain — feel it much more acutely, it's clear, than they feel the pain of families who are losing their jobs, their houses, and their hopes.

And when the tax fight is over, one way or another, you can be sure that the people currently defending the incomes of the elite will go back to demanding cuts in Social Security and aid to the unemployed. America must make hard choices, they'll say; we all have to be willing to make sacrifices.

But when they say "we," they mean "you." Sacrifice is for the little people. "

Paul Krugman

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 03:00 PM

Bobert...you know I like the Democrats somewhat better than I do the Republicans. Nevertheless, the game is still fixed. They both work primarily on behalf of huge corporate business interests and an imperial foreign policy. What you need is a full scale revolution (a peaceful one would be much preferable to a violent one) that throws out your present 2 party system altogether and tries something radically different.

I do not expect it to happen, however. The forces of media control (brainwashing) and social inertia and conformity are simply too strong to allow it to at this time, in my opinion. Thus you are likely to just continue rebounding back and forth between Dems and Repubs, as in the past, and the decline of America is likely to continue.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 03:50 PM

Tell me then, LH, which corporation pushed so hard for health care reform... No, not the corporations which ended up benefiting but which one/s were in the forefront of pushing for reform???

Or cap and trade???

Or immigration reform???

Or doing away with "Don't ask, don't tell"???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 04:10 PM

Geez, Hawkster, you got yourself all rationalized into a pit of hopeless indifference, huh?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 04:19 PM

"September 18, 2010 (San Diego's East County) -- Although elections happened in many states last Tuesday, there has been no focus or even updates about the good news that was delivered Monday (see links to U.S. Treasury reports below.) I admit that I did spend considerable time watching a few of the most trustworthy news correspondents, yet the fact that President Obama has reduced the United States deficit eight percent was not mentioned.

Why can I flip through the 24/7 hour news channels and not hear about the reduction of our deficit on every station? Shouldn't this be front-page headline news? Where is the ticker-tape parade?

This is a huge accomplishment and frankly, we are ahead of where we were when we initially paid back the deficit in the '90s and transformed our national financial account into "large surpluses" that would "continue accumulating as far as the eye could see." Our new President achieved this in his first 18 months in office! Plus, as we have already witnessed happen before, as soon as our workers gain steady living-wage employment, they will immediately begin rebuilding their lives, thus saturating the markets with income and in real effect, our deficit will be reduced at even a higher rate.

It took President Clinton approximately seven years to pay-down the deficit and we saw for ourselves how rapidly the new surplus began compiling. I wonder, since we are already ahead of schedule, now that he has shown what his plan is capable of achieving with our support and encouragement, what other great things can President Obama accomplish? Perhaps create a new surplus for us, in six years or less?

Maybe if we stop projecting our anger toward him for what happened before he was elected into office; he would have increased energy to continue developing and implementing additional plans to propel us further forward toward success.

This achievement speaks volumes and in fact, it exclaims that we are heading in a healthy direction for our families, our citizens, and our nation. Within this good news is also a reminder for us – that within our ranks is plenty of energy to achieve our mutual and long-held goals. Additionally, our own memories serve to assure us that continuing to develop and implement these plans, we will soon begin rapidly building surpluses and resources beyond our greatest expectations.

Resources:
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/index.html
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0810.pdf
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0810.txt

"Click for article

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 05:23 PM

BTW, Amos,

Nice op-ed by Pual Krugman...

Yeah, the rich are good and pissed off... They have been riding on the backs of the working man for 30 years and grew quite fond of getting money just because they have money???

And they have seen the wealth of the country coming to them for what??? Nothin' except they were rich to begin with... The upper 5% now control 82% of the nation's wealth yet pays only 50% of the taxes??? Hmmmmmm??? That leaves 30% of the nation's wealth untaxed and we are wondering why we have deficits??? Duhhhhhhhh...

So let them be pissed off... A time will come when the Tealiban even figures out that the rich are using them as pawns to keep the mean 'ol government from making the rich pay their fair share...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 07:41 PM

Amos, I am not an American. My personal future and my personal hopes and dreams are not invested in the USA. ;-) I'm sorry if it disturbs you when someone from another nation remarks on the very obvious decline and fall of the system you are living under, but you cannot get the rest of the world to simply ignore you and never say anything about it just to make you feel good...because America profoundly affects the rest of the world. Therefore, we are interested and will comment.

Therefore, I shall comment. My comments do not indicate indifference, my good man, they indicate deep concern. And I say that what your nation needs is a peaceful revolution that forever ends the corrupt political duopoly of Democrats/Republicans that you are presently suffering under.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 07:45 PM

corrupt political duopoly of Democrats/Republicans that you are presently suffering under.

Not to mention the corrupt political triopoly that Canada is suffering under.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 09:59 PM

What next??? Quadopoly???

But seroiusly... Both countries going the wrong way... But between the two I'd say then US is outpacin' Canada for the "Screw Up" gold medal...

We are purdy much boxed in with some very fucked up legislative rules which make deadlock the norm...

The worst thing is that there really isn't any realistic mechanisms for the country to fix itself... That is very messed up... I mean, if it takes a 60% majority to vote in a fix there is absolutely no room for error and thus...

...we are a screwed country...

It has never been so evident as in the last 10 years...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 11:28 PM

LH:

I would never want you not to comment and speak freely, old pal.

But you can probably find a more valuable contribution than just explaining how hopeless things are over and over. Much more valuable. Give it a try.

On a different subject, Does It Taste Like Fruitcake Yet? makes some excellent points about the confusion of popular reaction with widely held (or not) ideas.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 11:39 PM

Monday at a D.C. town-hall session, an "exhausted" Obama supporter, Velma Hart, the CFO of AMVETS, told the president she was "deeply disappointed" in him.

Watch the video

Velma Hart stole the show from the president Tuesday during his economic town hall in Washington, D.C. "I've been told that I voted for a man who said he's going to change things in a meaningful way for the middle class," Hart said during the meeting, broadcast on CNBC. "I'm one of those people, and I'm waiting, sir. I'm waiting. I don't feel it yet." Hart said her family feels their middle-class lifestyle sliding away as they sink back toward the "hot dogs and beans" era of her life. "I'm exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for, and deeply disappointed with where we are right now," Hart said. Hart is the chief financial officer of AMVETS, a veterans' organization, and her husband is a facilities administrator at the Verizon Center in Washington. They have two kids in private school. Obama responded that times are tough for everyone, and that he understood Hart's frustration. He called her the "bedrock of America," saying, "The life you describe, one of responsibility, looking after your family, contributing back to your community--that's what we want to reward." But Hart said Obama didn't answer her most troubling question: whether this economy is "the new reality."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 11:40 PM

For Many, Health Care Relief Begins Today

The New York Times



Sometimes lost in the partisan clamor about the new health care law is the profound relief it is expected to bring to hundreds of thousands of Americans who have been stricken first by disease and then by a Darwinian insurance system.


Insurers Scramble to Comply With Health Rules (September 23, 2010)
On Thursday, the six-month anniversary of the signing of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a number of its most central consumer protections take effect, just in time for the midterm elections.

Starting now, insurance companies will no longer be permitted to exclude children because of pre-existing health conditions, which the White House said could enable 72,000 uninsured to gain coverage. Insurers also will be prohibited from imposing lifetime limits on benefits.

The law will now forbid insurers to drop sick and costly customers after discovering technical mistakes on applications. It requires that they offer coverage to children under 26 on their parentsÕ policies.

It establishes a menu of preventive procedures, like colonoscopies, mammograms and immunizations, that must be covered without co-payments. And it allows consumers who join a new plan to keep their own doctors and to appeal insurance company reimbursement decisions to a third party.

The arrival of the long-awaited changes propelled President Obama, whose Democrats have struggled to exploit their signature achievement, into the backyard of Paul and Frances Brayshaw of Falls Church, Va., to explain his decision to pursue health care.

ÒThe amount of vulnerability that was out there was horrendous,Ó Mr. Obama on Wednesday told a gathering of people chosen to illustrate the lawÕs new provisions. He said he concluded that ÒweÕve just got to give people some basic peace of mind.Ó

Mr. Obama also responded to Republican Congressional leaders who have campaigned on a threat to repeal the act. ÒI want them to look you in the eye,Ó he told his audience, and explain their opposition to a law that is projected to cover 32 million uninsured and reduce the deficit by $143 billion over 10 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 08:51 AM

Good article, Amos...

Bet you a hunnert dollars that Sawz didn't read it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 10:43 AM

You are so right about the corrupt Canadian triopoly, Greg! Actually, it's a quadropoly now. ;-) I couldn't agree more with you. Voting has become a sad joke in this country, because the political parties are ALL merely servants to various big business interests (which are generally based in the USA), and their promises are empty ones.

We Canadians also need a peaceful revolution!

And how are things in the UK?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 12:00 PM

September 23, 2010 represents a new day for American consumers in our health care system. This is the day that a series of new rights, benefits, and protections under the Affordable Care Act
Affordable Care Act begin to bring to an end some of the worst abuses of the insurance industry. Combined, these new will put consumers, not insurance companies, in charge of their health care. Below is a brief summary of the new restrictions for insurance companies and new rights for consumers beginning to take effect:

Insurers Will No Longer Be Able To:

•Deny coverage to kids with pre-existing conditions. Health plans cannot limit or deny benefits or deny coverage for a child younger than age 19 simply because the child has a pre-existing condition like asthma.

•Put lifetime limits on benefits. Health plans can no longer put a lifetime dollar limit on the benefits of people with costly conditions like cancer

•Cancel your policy without proving fraud. Health plans can't retroactively cancel insurance coverage – often at the time you need it most - solely because you or your employer made an honest mistake on your insurance application.

•Deny claims without a chance for appeal. In new health plans, you now have the right to demand that your health plan reconsider a decision to deny payment for a test or treatment. That also includes an external appeal to an independent reviewer.

Consumers in New Health Plans Will Be Able to:

•Receive cost-free preventive services. New health plans must give you access to recommended preventive services such as screenings, vaccinations and counseling without any out-of-pocket costs to you.
•Keep young adults on a parent's plan until age 26. If your health plan covers children, you can now most likely add or keep your children on your health insurance policy until they turn 26 years old if they don't have coverage on the job.
•Choose a primary care doctor, ob/gyn and pediatrician. New health plans must let you choose the primary care doctor or pediatrician you want from your health plan's provider network and let you see an OB-GYN doctor without needing a referral from another doctor.
•Use the nearest emergency room without penalty. New health plans can't require you to get prior approval before seeking emergency room services from a provider or hospital outside your plan's network – and they can't require higher copayments or co-insurance for out-of-network emergency room services.

---

Seems like a step forward to me, folks.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 12:17 PM

Examiner Editorial: Obamacare is even worse than critics thought

Examiner Editorial
September 22, 2010

Much more has been revealed about Obamacare since President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi pushed the bill on Americans six months ago. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP file)

Six months ago, President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rammed Obamacare down the throats of an unwilling American public. Half a year removed from the unprecedented legislative chicanery and backroom dealing that characterized the bill's passage, we know much more about the bill than we did then. A few of the revelations:

» Obamacare won't decrease health care costs for the government. According to Medicare's actuary, it will increase costs. The same is likely to happen for privately funded health care.

» As written, Obamacare covers elective abortions, contrary to Obama's promise that it wouldn't. This means that tax dollars will be used to pay for a procedure millions of Americans across the political spectrum view as immoral. Supposedly, the Department of Health and Human Services will bar abortion coverage with new regulations but these will likely be tied up for years in litigation, and in the end may not survive the court challenge.

» Obamacare won't allow employees or most small businesses to keep the coverage they have and like. By Obama's estimates, as many as 69 percent of employees, 80 percent of small businesses, and 64 percent of large businesses will be forced to change coverage, probably to more expensive plans.

» Obamacare will increase insurance premiums -- in some places, it already has. Insurers, suddenly forced to cover clients' children until age 26, have little choice but to raise premiums, and they attribute to Obamacare's mandates a 1 to 9 percent increase. Obama's only method of preventing massive rate increases so far has been to threaten insurers.

» Obamacare will force seasonal employers -- especially the ski and amusement park industries -- to pay huge fines, cut hours, or lay off employees.

» Obamacare forces states to guarantee not only payment but also treatment for indigent Medicaid patients. With many doctors now refusing to take Medicaid (because they lose money doing so), cash-strapped states could be sued and ordered to increase reimbursement rates beyond their means.

» Obamacare imposes a huge nonmedical tax compliance burden on small business. It will require them to mail IRS 1099 tax forms to every vendor from whom they make purchases of more than $600 in a year, with duplicate forms going to the Internal Revenue Service. Like so much else in the 2,500-page bill, our senators and representatives were apparently unaware of this when they passed the measure.

» Obamacare allows the IRS to confiscate part or all of your tax refund if you do not purchase a qualified insurance plan. The bill funds 16,000 new IRS agents to make sure Americans stay in line.

If you wonder why so many American voters are angry, and no longer give Obama the benefit of the doubt on a variety of issues, you need look no further than Obamacare, whose birthday gift to America might just be a GOP congressional majority.



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Obamacare-is-even-worse-than-critics-thought-960772-103571664.html#ixzz10N0O3BvM

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 10:19 AM

"Seems like a step forward to me, folks."

Amos:
You left out the reality part. People are reporting a 19 to 20% increase in their premiums.

Now, exactly where in that "the Affordable Care Act" is there anything to make it more affordable?

Fact is that it was written by health insurance and drug company lobbyists. You know, those people that were not going to run Washington anymore? Now there are five lobbyists for each member of Congress.

And it was "sold" to idealists that think about how things "sound" rather than the facts and realities.

True, some Americans have more coverage than before but it will cost everybody more, not less. People have been deluded into thinking it will cost less.


Democrats' ambitious legislative agenda pushes K Street salaries skyward

Lobbyists for healthcare, energy and financial interests had a banner year in 2009, with the average payout for each reaching as high as $177,000.

Despite his push to rein in special interests, President Barack Obama sparked a boom on K Street with major new proposals on healthcare, climate change and financial policies.

"The magnitude of the work done in the three fields is just huge," said Michael Levy, of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck's Washington office.

New lobbying restrictions led to a decline in the number of registered lobbyists working for clients in each of the three industries, according to data from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

The combination of more work for fewer lobbyists meant record payouts per lobbyist.

Lobbyists working in each of the three industries took home the most on average that they have in a decade, even when adjusted for inflation, according to analysis of the data by The Hill.

Many lobbyists work for clients in several policy areas, so the average payout by industry doesn't necessarily equal the average overall compensation those lobbyists received. Spending was up in all three broad areas of healthcare, energy and financial-services reforms.

Healthcare clients spent the most overall on lobbying at $544 million, which was roughly $60 million more than in 2008. But there were more lobbyists (3,405) on healthcare issues than on either energy (2,311) or financial legislation (2,654).

Lobbyists earned an average of $160,000 for healthcare-related work.

Energy clients paid $409 million for an average of $177,000 per lobbyist. Lobbyists for energy clients beat out financial lobbyists for top billing.

Energy has long been a significant source of lobbying spending. But as a generator of revenue for K Street, the sector really took off after 2007 when the Democrats, now in control of Congress, began pushing sweeping climate change legislation.

A number of new clean-energy companies have hired lobbyists for the first time in the past two years.

Financial firms also have increased their spending on lobbying. The sector spent $465 million lobbying in Washington in 2009, which was about $8 million more than in 2008. But there were 167 fewer lobbyists registered for financial, insurance and real estate clients.

Obama drove huge interest on K Street with a major push for new financial regulations following the worst crisis since the Great Depression. The House Financial Services Committee spent the bulk of 2009 debating major new policies to rein in Wall Street and prevent future taxpayer-funded bailouts.

The House passed legislation in December, a little more than a year after Congress approved a $700 billion bailout for the financial industry.

"Wall Street was bailed out and benefited from taxpayer largesse, and now K Street is benefiting from it," said Carmen Balber, head of the Washington office at Consumer Watchdog.

"We all know the health insurance lobby has been such a massive undertaking and people have spent so much money in supporting or opposing it, but still, on the financial side with fewer firms and fewer lobbyists, the numbers are so much higher. That's a picture of the stakes on Wall Street," Balber said.

Levy of Brownstein said the growth in financial services lobbying was an indication more of the crisis the industry faced last year than of specific proposals on Capitol Hill.

"Financial services is really less what the president's agenda was and just the massive collapse of the sector," Levy said. "A lot of it is reactive to events rather than reactive to the president's agenda."

Lobbying revenue across the three industries has not always been on the rise. Revenue adjusted for inflation dipped in all three sectors in 2002 from 2001. And lobbying revenue for financial clients dipped each year between 2003 and 2006.

Since 2007, however, lobbying revenue has been on an upswing across the three industries.

The biggest swing has been in the energy field, with energy clients spending $387 million in 2008 compared with $273 million in 2007.

More Here

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 11:32 AM

The Daily Beast

Six weeks before the election, President Obama couldn't fill the ballroom at the Roosevelt Hotel, despite cheap tickets on offer. And then he was met by hecklers.

Who would have thought that six weeks before a cliffhanger election, President Obama would have to reach down to the D list to fill a room to listen to him? Most of us low rollers arrived early to see President Obama up close and personal. Our tickets for the general reception at the Roosevelt Hotel in New York were only $100. Some thought the email invitation was a joke. Some bought tickets for $50 from their desperate Democratic committeeman. Some bought the same day.

"It's Filene's," enthused Sharon Douglas, reliving her heady days as a volunteer in Obama's 2008 campaign. The doorman beckoned conspiratorially and ushered us out one door and in through another to stand at the back of the $500 line. Their crowd came from Wall Street in car services and killer heels. Our crowd came on subways in flats and scuffed teacher's shoes.

Only after I received four email invitations and two personal calls imploring me to come did I call Speaker Pelosi's office to check the admission price. "You mean, to be in the room with the President of the United States is now on fire sale for $100?"

"Yup."

"How long do we get?"

"Half hour."

"How many $100 givers have rsvp'd?"

"Mmmm 250."

"Do we need to line up early to get in?"

"That's not necessary. Everybody will get in."

And everybody did,450 people in a room that holds 650. Even Obama's fire sale didn't sell out.   

But the foot soldiers were a cheerful bunch. We expected no stroking. We stood for two and a half hours munching on deli food and enjoying the open bar. I sat on the floor next to the 6-year-old black daughter of a Swedish law professor who drove down from Albany. We read The Wizard of Oz together, hoping for magic. Astrid Grahn-Farley wrote in her school notebook, "me and mommy wait long line for presdint obama."

more here

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 11:58 AM

If all the partisan arm-waving here could be harnessed, we could probably solve the energy crisis.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 12:04 PM

I doubt Bruce gets many histrionics to the gallon...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 12:21 PM

"Keep young adults on a parent's plan until age 26."

In some sates it is 30. Are the kids in those states fucked over now?

Iowa Dependent Health Insurance Covers Full-Time Students, Regardless of Age.

http://www.healthquote360.com/featured-health-insurance-articles/how-old-can-you

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 12:28 PM

"Good article, Amos...

Bet you a hunnert dollars that Sawz didn't read it...

B~ "

You owe Amos $100 but you can easily pay it with the reduction in your health insurance premiums.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 05:34 PM

As Public Sees GOP Moving Right, More Say It Shares Their Values, View of Government, According to Gallup Data

At the same time the public perceives the Republican Party becoming more conservative, more Americans are saying the party reflects their values and their attitude about the role of government, according to newly released Gallup polling data.

Thursday, September 23, 2010
By Terence P. Jeffrey


(CNSNews.com) - At the same time the public perceives the Republican Party becoming more conservative, more Americans are saying the party reflects their values and their attitude about the role of government, according to newly released Gallup polling data.

Democrats, meanwhile, have lost ground on these measures.

In a USA Today/Gallup poll of 1,021 American adults conducted Aug. 27-30, respondents were asked whether they believed the Republican Party had "become more conservative, or not" since Barack Obama took office as president. In the same poll, respondents were also asked how well each of the two major parties "represent your values" and "represent your attitude about the role of government."

Fifty-four percent of Americans told Gallup they believed the GOP had indeed become more conservative since Obama took office, while only 40 percent said they did not believe the Republicans had become more conservative.

At the same time, the Republicans did better than the Democrats on the percentage of Americans who said the party represents their attitude about the role of government and their values.

Fifty-two percent told Gallup the Republican Party represented their attitude about the role of government either "very well" or "moderately well," while only 44 percent said the Democratic Party represented their attitude about the role of government either "very well" or "moderately well."

Fifty-six percent, meanwhile, told Gallup the Republican Party represented their values either "very well" or "moderately well," while only 49 percent said the Democratic Party represented their values either "very well" or "moderately well."

These results indicate a shift in public perception of the major political parties from four years ago, when the Republicans lost the congressional majority to the Democrats in the 2006 midterm elections. These results also resemble the results Gallup got when it asked the same questions in 1994, the year the Republicans won the congressional majority away from the Democrats.

In a poll conducted Oct. 20-22, 2006, just before the Democrats won a majority in Congress, 56 percent of Americans said the Democrats represented their values either "very well" or "moderately well" and 57 percent said the Democrats represented their attitude about the role of government either "very well" or "moderately well."

In that same 2006 poll, only 48 percent said the GOP represented their attitude about the role of government either "very well" or "moderately well," while 51 percent said the GOP represented their values either "very well" or "moderately well."

Since 2006, the Republicans have gained 4 points in the percentage of Americans who believe the party represents their attitude about the role of government, and 5 points in the percentage who believe the party represents their values.

However, the Democrats have lost more in public perception than the Republicans have gained over the past four years, losing 13 points from the percentage who believe the party represents their attitude about the role of government, and 7 from the percentage who believe the party represents their values.

"Americans' views on how well the two major parties reflect their views on the role of government and their values more broadly make clear that the Democrats' image has suffered since they won back control of Congress in 2006," said Gallup's analysis of these poll results. "Republicans have not made comparable perceptual gains in these areas, but largely as a result of the Democrats' losses, Republicans are now leading on both dimensions, similar to their standing in 1994."

In a poll conducted Oct. 22-25, 1994, just before the Democrats lost control of Congress to the Republicans, only 48 percent said the Democrats represented their values either "very well" or 'moderately well" and only 46 percent said the Democrats represented their attitude about the role of government either "very well" or "moderately well."

By contrast, 54 percent of Americans in October 1994 said the Republicans represented their values either "very well" or "moderately well" while 52 percent said the Republicans represented their attitude about the role of government either "very well" or "moderately well."

In periodic Gallup polls conducted on these questions from 1994 onward, the highest the Republicans ever scored on the question of how well they represent the attitude of Americans on the role of government was in a survey conducted Nov. 28-29, 1994, just after the GOP won a majority of Congress—but before it actually took power.

In that poll, 64 percent said the Republicans represented their attitude about the role of government.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Sep 10 - 12:19 AM

Fair and Balanced as per Amos:

RCP Poll Average
President Obama Job Approval ~ 44.9% Approve ~ 50.6% Disapprove

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Sep 10 - 06:25 AM

I am counting down eagerly to the next glorious edition of this thread concept....hopefully, we have only a little over 2 years to wait now!

"BS: Popular Views: the Chongo Administration"

You ain't seen real fun yet! ;-D Nor controversy.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Sep 10 - 08:38 AM

Well, in a way I think we'd be alot better off with Chongz... I mean, them Tea Party folks bust into a town meetin' with the intent of disruptin' it then Chongz would empty a clip from his AK on them... That would sho nuff end this Tealiban (mis)behavior... Like, ahhhhh, right now...

Then Chongz faces the ramining audiance and asks "Any one else wanta act like jerks???"

End of story...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Sep 10 - 09:56 AM

Ha! Ha! Ha! You got it, Bobert. There would never be a dull moment in a Chongo administration. The media would love it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Sep 10 - 08:07 PM

Also, the show "Crossfire" would take on a whole new meaning when Chongo was their guest....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Sep 10 - 08:10 PM

I like it, LH... I like it alot!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Sep 10 - 08:27 PM

I'm telling you, Bobert, the American people would LOVE Chongo once they really got to know him. No one can pin the "wimp" label on this ape. No one. He makes the Republicans look like weak-kneed pansies. He trades flinty-eyed glares with Clint Eastwood over shooters at the bar and never blinks. And the really great thing is......all that and he's NOT a Republican!

Do you realize he intends to dismantle ALL foreign American military bases located outside the continental USA and Hawaii, and bring the troops home? Including Guantanamo and the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan and Japan. Chongo doesn't believe it's right to base your troops and weapons on other people's land, and he won't stand for it. The Republicans will think the world has come to an end when Chongo gets elected. He would also arrest all the top bankers of the largest banks for having caused the national currency to be degraded in value about a hundred times over since 1904 through their financial pyramid schemes, and would bring in Chongo Dollars which would be tied directly to the gold and silver standard, thereby being real money instead of monopoly money. All your Chongo greenbacks could be redeemed in bullion or coin upon demand. It would put an end to the constant decline in the value of American currency.

Amos already has a copy of a Chongo Dollar which I sent him...preliminary artwork. Ask him about it. He'll tell you.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 09:18 AM

Well, LH... I donno... I recall his brief tenure as security chimp back during my campaign for president and his, ahhhhh, bathroom and eatin' habits leave a lot to be desired...

B`

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 09:47 AM

I really don't think that was Chongo, Bobert. You must've got some other chimp in his place. Maybe it was his cousin, Rombo.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 10:08 AM

Wiretapped phones, now Internet?

To better track criminals, U.S. wants to be able to wiretap online communications.

By CHARLIE SAVAGE, New York Times

WASHINGTON - Federal law enforcement and national security officials are preparing to seek sweeping new regulations of the Internet, arguing that their ability to wiretap criminal and terrorism suspects is "going dark" as people increasingly communicate online instead of by telephone.

Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services that enable communications -- including encrypted e-mail transmitters such as BlackBerry, social networking websites such as Facebook and software that allows direct "peer-to-peer" messaging such as Skype -- to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order. The mandate would include being able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages.

The legislation, which the Obama administration plans to submit to Congress next year, raises fresh questions about how to balance security needs with protecting privacy and fostering technological innovation. And because security services around the world face the same problem, it could set an example that is copied globally.

James Dempsey, vice president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, an Internet policy group, said the proposal had "huge implications" and challenged "fundamental elements of the Internet revolution" -- including its decentralized design.

"They are really asking for the authority to redesign services that take advantage of the unique, and now pervasive, architecture of the Internet," he said. "They basically want to turn back the clock and make Internet services function the way that the telephone system used to function."

But law enforcement officials contend that imposing such a mandate is reasonable and necessary to prevent the erosion of their investigative powers.

"We're talking about lawfully authorized intercepts," said Valerie Caproni, general counsel for the FBI. "We're not talking expanding authority. We're talking about preserving our ability to execute our existing authority in order to protect the public safety and national security."

Keeping up with technology

Investigators have been concerned for years that changing communications technology could damage their ability to conduct surveillance. In recent months, officials from the FBI, the Justice Department, the National Security Agency, the White House and other agencies have been meeting to develop a proposed solution.

There is not yet agreement on important elements, such as how to word statutory language defining who counts as a communications service provider, according to several officials familiar with the deliberations.

But they want it to apply broadly, including to companies that operate from servers abroad, such as Research In Motion, the Canadian maker of BlackBerry devices. In recent months, that company has come into conflict with the governments of Dubai and India over their inability to conduct surveillance of messages sent via its encrypted service.

In the United States, phone and broadband networks are already required to have interception capabilities, under a 1994 law called the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act. It aimed to ensure that government surveillance abilities would remain intact during the evolution from a copper-wire phone system to digital networks and cell phones.

Often, investigators can intercept communications at a switch operated by the network company. But sometimes -- like when the target uses a service that encrypts messages between his computer and its servers -- they must instead serve the order on a service provider to get unscrambled versions.

Like phone companies, communication service providers are subject to wiretap orders. But the 1994 law does not apply to them. While some maintain interception capacities, others wait until they are served with orders to try to develop them. That can cause big delays, which the new regulations would seek to forestall.

rest of article...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 10:22 AM

New York Times, BB? When did you start believing what you read in that liberal commie rag?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 10:25 AM

If the ONLY way that those here can determine the "truth" is by who said it, I'll find those sources used in the past to condemn Bush to bring Obama' flwas to light.

It seems no good to use facts, when so many here deny them BECAUSE of who tells them- with no effort to find out what is true and what is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 10:30 AM

Hell, the FBI and CIA have been tapping communication lines since the '20s. It is entirely predictable they would want to keep that advantage when digital, P2P, VOIP and such techniques make old-fashioned wiretapping much less useful.

I think it should be done on a warrant-only basis; the Bush administration got very liberal about intercepting phone conversations without them.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 10:44 AM

I often disagree with you about politics, BB, (and then sometimes too, we agree)...but you are dead right that the primary problem with communication here on political threads is that most of the people here determine "the truth" NOT on the basis of WHAT is said...but on the basis of WHO says it!

Thus, they are not really thinking at all. They're just engaging in standard reactions according to prior prejudice and conditioning...exactly like Pavlov's dog, they salivate when the bell rings, and they growl when the buzzer sounds. There's no real thinking at all, just knee-jerk reaction and a whole lot of hatred and ill will burning up the airwaves.

That's what makes it, frankly, an almost complete waste of anyone's time to engage in these political threads on Mudcat. It's just an endless rehashing of people's knee-jerk hatreds and prejudices and a public airing of their emotional dysfunctionality.

It's kind of entertaining, though, if one can see the funny side of it. ;-) And I often do. With that pleasant thought in mind, I shall leave you all to throw bricks at each other for another hundred or so posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 11:20 AM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 02:06 PM

HEy, General PEtraeus say the Taliban are making overtures for some kind of resolution which could result (fingers crossed) in a settling of the Afghanistan kibble.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 05:25 PM

Isn't Charlie Savage the rightie that NBC brought in to replace Donohue when Donohue questioned invading Iraq??? Just curious...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 05:55 PM

but on the basis of WHO says it! Thus, they are not really thinking at all.

Bullshit.

If a known serial liar makes a statement, its only common sense to assume its bullshit until proven otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 08:33 PM

Covert operations: The Koch billionaires andf their campaign to discredit Obama (New Yorker)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 09:02 PM

Hey, Dick Armet is feelin' like he's chopped liver here with the Kock Brothers money being thrown against Obama and the Dems... Armey has raised hundreds of millions and funneled it thru FreedomWorks and want's his due, thank you...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 12:49 PM

Greg F.

When YOU assume that anything you disagree with is false WITHOUT bothering to look at the facts, YOU become someone who is not thinking, and it is YOUR comments that we assume are bullshit until proven otherwise.

If I say that it is raining here, to declare that statement false WITHOUT looking or going outside and seeing if one gets wet is the mark of a bigotted, ignorant person.

It does not matter what else I may have said, or done. To NOT check verifiable facts BEFORE declaring them false is NOT an indication of intelligence.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 02:30 PM

Bobert:"I mean, them Tea Party folks bust into a town meetin' with the intent of disruptin' it"

It's card carrying terrorist? union members That disrupt town hall meetings and want to take away people's civil rights.

After Cardin's town hall in Townson, MD began - the union members who stood guard of the lines near the concert hall began to provoke and taunt until more Tea Partiers went up to confront them - a bit of a back & forth took place.

The Tealiban is a figment of your imagination. Another monster in your closet. It must be hell living in fear of things that don't exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 10:14 PM

Greg F. : When YOU assume that anything you disagree with is false WITHOUT bothering to look at the facts...

Well, BB, check this out:

"Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person unconsciously denies their own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world or to other people. Thus, it involves imagining or projecting that others have those feelings or attributes."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 11:54 AM

Ahmadinejad calls for US leaders to be 'buried' AP

TEHRAN, Iran – Iran's president Sunday called for U.S. leaders to be "buried" in response to what he says are American threats of military attack against Tehran's nuclear program.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is known for brash rhetoric in addressing the West, but in a speech Sunday he went a step further using a deeply offensive insult in response to U.S. statements that the military option against Iran is still on the table.

"May the undertaker bury you, your table and your body, which has soiled the world," he said using language in Iran reserved for hated enemies.

The crowd of military men and clerics in the town of Hashtgerd just west of the capital chuckled at the president's insult and applauded.

The speech was broadcast by both state television and the official English-language Press TV, but the latter glossed over the insult in the simultaneous translation.

Ahmadinejad's remarks come in sharp contrast to ones he made to Al-Jazeera Arabic news channel in August in which he offered the U.S. Iran's friendship.

In Sunday's speech, Ahmadinejad also questioned once more who was behind the Sept. 11 attacks in the U.S. and said they gave Washington a pretext for seeking to dominate the region and plunder its oil wealth.

During his speech in front of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, he said a majority of people in the U.S. and around the world believe the American government staged the attacks, drawing a strong rebuke from President Barack Obama.

Ahmadinejad often resorts to provocative statements to lash out enemies. He has already compared the power of Iran's enemies to a "mosquito," saying Iran deals with the West over its nuclear activities from a position of power and he has likened the United States to a "farm animal trapped in a quagmire" in Afghanistan.

Iran also condemned the latest U.S. sanctions slapped on eight Iranian officials Wednesday, saying they show American interference in Tehran's domestic affairs.

Washington this week imposed travel and financial sanctions on the eight Iranians, accusing them of taking part in human rights abuses during the turmoil following Iran's June 2009 presidential election.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 08:16 PM

No doubt that Akma-dingaling is an asshole... So was Saddam... World is full of 'um... Not worth another war over it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 04:24 PM

Panel: Gov't thwarted worst-case scenario on spill
         
Dina Cappiello, Associated Press Writer – Wed Oct 6, 11:48 am ET

WASHINGTON – The White House blocked efforts by federal scientists to tell the public just how bad the Gulf oil spill could have been.

That finding comes from a panel appointed by President Barack Obama to investigate the worst offshore oil spill in history.

In documents released Wednesday, the national oil spill commission reveals that in late April or early May the White House budget office denied a request from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to make public the worst-case discharge from the blown-out well.

BP estimated the worse scenario to be a leak of 2.5 million gallons per day. The government, meanwhile, was telling the public the well was releasing 210,000 gallons per day - a figure that later grew closer to BP's figure.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 04:26 PM

Spill Panel Faults Obama Response Effort .Article NewStock Quotes

By STEPHEN POWER And TENNILLE TRACY

.WASHINGTON—The Obama administration's response to the BP PLC oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was affected by "a sense of over optimism" about the disaster that "may have affected the scale and speed with which national resources were brought to bear," the staff of a special commission investigating the disaster found.

In four papers issued Wednesday by the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, commission investigators fault the administration for making inaccurate public statements about a report on the fate of oil spilled by a BP well in the Gulf of Mexico.

The commission papers also are critical of the administration for initially underestimating how much petroleum was flowing into the Gulf. Together, the inaccurate statements created the impression the government "was either not fully competent to handle the spill or not fully candid" about the accident.

The papers fault the administration for taking "an overly casual approach" in calculating, during the spill's second week, that between 1,000 and 5,000 barrels of oil were flowing into the Gulf.

That estimate—which the government later revised to between 35,000 and 60,000 barrels a day—was based on a one-page document prepared by a government scientist within six days of the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig, according to one commission staff paper.

The scientist's estimate was based partly on an imprecise estimate of the speed with which the oil was leaking and didn't account for a leak from a kink in the riser above the rig's blowout preventer, according to the spill commission investigators.

"Despite the acknowledged inaccuracies of the [government] scientist's estimate and despite the existence of other and potentially better methodologies for visually assessing flow rate…5,000 bbls/day was to remain the government's official flow-rate estimate for a full month until May 27, 2010," the staff paper says.

The paper adds that it is "possible that inaccurate flow-rate figures may have hindered the subsea efforts to stop and to contain the flow of oil at the wellhead."

A White House spokesman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

The working paper is one of several released by the commission that examines various aspects of the federal response to the Gulf spill. Another paper released Wednesday suggests the administration was in some ways slow to respond to the accident and then misdirected resources when it realized the American public viewed its response as being inadequate.

While Coast Guard personnel told the commission in interviews that they had enough equipment by the end of May, the president announced around that same time that he would triple the federal manpower responding to the spill. The paper calls this "the arguable overreaction to the public perception of a slow response."

The tripling effort resulted in resources being thrown at the problem in an inefficient way.

For example, the commission paper says, the National Incident Command staffers thought they needed to buy every skimmer they could find, even though they were hearing that responders had enough skimmers.

The commission staff also takes the administration to task for having characterized a federal report on the fate of oil in the Gulf as having been subjected to "peer review" by independent scientists.

In fact, the commission staff paper says, it is unclear whether any independent scientists actually reviewed the paper prior to its release in August.

The paper said that about three-quarters of the oil spilled by the well had broken down or been cleaned up. Those estimates have been challenged as overly rosy by some independent scientists.

(WSJ)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 08:22 PM

Yeah, the Obama administration absolutely blew the oil spill response in terms of information... 20/20 hindsight they probably did what they could in terms of response but sho nuff got sucked in by BP's song 'n dance routine...

I'd like to think that they learned something from it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 09:18 AM

....it is "possible that inaccurate flow-rate figures may have hindered the subsea efforts to stop and to contain the flow ...

"it is possible" ....... "might have" & etc.

Hardly a ringing condemnation. OK, they screwed up. HOWEVER nothing like the BuShite screwup with Katrina.

Lets keep things in perspective & not blow this report up all out of proportion.

As Bobert says, the "report" doesn't address the BP lies & disinformation campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 09:24 AM

"Katrina." That was 5 years ago. Have you got anything up to date?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 12:25 PM

October 7, 2010
Gallup Finds U.S. Unemployment at 10.1% in September

Underemployment, at 18.8%, is up from 18.6% at the end of August

by Dennis Jacobe, Chief Economist

PRINCETON, NJ -- Unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, increased to 10.1% in September -- up sharply from 9.3% in August and 8.9% in July. Much of this increase came during the second half of the month -- the unemployment rate was 9.4% in mid-September -- and therefore is unlikely to be picked up in the government's unemployment report on Friday.

Certain groups continue to fare worse than the national average. For example, 15.8% of Americans aged 18 to 29 and 13.9% of those with no college education were unemployed in September.

The increase in the unemployment rate component of Gallup's underemployment measure is partially offset by fewer part-time workers, 8.7%, now wanting full-time work, down from 9.3% in August and 9.5% at the end of July.

As a result, underemployment shows a more modest increase to 18.8% in September from 18.6% in August, though it is up from 18.4% in July. Underemployment peaked at 20.4% in April and has yet to fall below 18.3% this year.

Friday's Unemployment Rate Report Likely to Understate

The government's final unemployment report before the midterm elections is based on job market conditions around mid-September. Gallup's modeling of the unemployment rate is consistent with Tuesday's ADP report of a decline of 39,000 private-sector jobs, and indicates that the government's national unemployment rate in September will be in the 9.6% to 9.8% range. This is based on Gallup's mid-September measurements and the continuing decline Gallup is seeing in the U.S. workforce during 2010.

However, Gallup's monitoring of job market conditions suggests that there was a sharp increase in the unemployment rate during the last couple of weeks of September. It could be that the anticipated slowdown of the overall economy has potential employers even more cautious about hiring. Some of the increase could also be seasonal or temporary.

Further, Gallup's underemployment measure suggests that the percentage of workers employed part time but looking for full-time work is declining as the unemployment rate increases. To some degree, this may reflect a reduced company demand for new part-time employees. For example, employers may be converting some existing part-time workers to full time when they are needed as replacements, but may not in turn be hiring replacement part-time workers. Another explanation may relate to the shrinkage of the workforce, as some employees who have taken part-time work in hopes of getting full-time jobs get discouraged and drop out of the workforce completely -- going back to school to enhance their education, for example, instead of doing part-time work. It is even possible that some workers may find unemployment insurance a better alternative than part-time work with little prospect of going full time.

Regardless, the sharp increase in the unemployment rate during late September does not bode well for the economy during the fourth quarter, or for holiday sales. In this regard, it is essential that the Federal Reserve and other policymakers not be misled by Friday's jobs numbers. The jobs picture could be deteriorating more rapidly than the government's job release suggests.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/143426/Gallup-Finds-Unemployment-September.aspx

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 01:03 PM

Food Stamp Recipients at Record 41.8 Million Americans in July, U.S. Says

By Alan Bjerga - Oct 5, 2010 4:46 PM ET

The number of Americans receiving food stamps rose to a record 41.8 million in July as the jobless rate hovered near a 27-year high, the government said.

Recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program subsidies for food purchases jumped 18 percent from a year earlier and increased 1.4 percent from June, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said today in a statement on its website. Participation has set records for 20 straight months.

Unemployment in September may have reached 9.7 percent, according to a Bloomberg News survey of analysts in advance of the release of last month's rate on Oct. 8. Unemployment was 9.6 percent in July, near levels last seen in 1983.

An average of 43.3 million people, more than an eighth of the population, will get food stamps each month in the year that began Oct. 1, according to White House estimates.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 01:31 PM

The number of Americans receiving food stamps rose to a record 41.8 million...

Yep, them BuShite/Reaganite chickens are surely coming home to roost.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 01:56 PM

So, Greg, YOU are saying that Obama has done nothing for this country AT ALL????

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 07:48 PM

Too bad that the union organizers, if these folks actually were union organizers, didn't stand up at all the town meet5ings... One outof the hundreds that were taken over by redneck assholes sho nuff didn't stem the tide of very bad behavior on yer buddy's parts, Sawz...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 10:49 PM

President Obama. His administration announced last year that it would set a higher bar when hiding details of controversial national security policies.


Government lawyers called the state-secrets argument a last resort to toss out the case, and it seems likely to revive a debate over the reach of a president's powers in the global war against al-Qaeda.

Civil liberties groups sued the U.S. government on behalf of Aulaqi's father, arguing that the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command's placement of Aulaqi on a capture-or-kill list of suspected terrorists - outside a war zone and absent an imminent threat - amounted to an extrajudicial execution order against a U.S. citizen. They asked a U.S. district court in Washington to block the targeting.
ad_icon

In response, Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller said that the groups are asking "a court to take the unprecedented step of intervening in an ongoing military action to direct the President how to manage that action - all on behalf of a leader of a foreign terrorist organization."

Miller added, "If al-Aulaqi wishes to access our legal system, he should surrender to American authorities and return to the United States, where he will be held accountable for his actions."

In a statement, lawyers for Nasser al-Aulaqi condemned the government's request to dismiss the case without debating its merits, saying that judicial review of the pursuit of targets far from the battlefield of Afghanistan is vital.

"The idea that courts should have no role whatsoever in determining the criteria by which the executive branch can kill its own citizens is unacceptable in a democracy," the American Civil Liberties Union and Center for Constitutional Rights said.

"In matters of life and death, no executive should have a blank check," they said.

The government filed its brief to U.S. District Judge Robert Bates just after a midnight Friday deadline, blaming technical problems, and the late-night maneuvering underscored the political and diplomatic stakes for President Obama. His administration announced last year that it would set a higher bar when hiding details of controversial national security policies.

Justice Department officials said they invoked the controversial legal argument reluctantly, mindful that domestic and international critics attacked former president George W. Bush for waging the fight against terrorism with excessive secrecy and unchecked claims of executive power. A senior Justice official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the administration is engaging in "a much narrower use of state secrets" than did its predecessor, which cited the argument dozens of times - often, the official said, to "shut down inquiries into wrongdoing."

In its 60-page filing, the Justice Department cites state secrets as the last of four arguments, objecting first that Aulaqi's father lacks standing, that courts cannot lawfully bind future presidents' actions in as-yet undefined conflicts, and that in war the targeting of adversaries is inherently a "political question."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 04:47 PM

CNN Poll: Was Bush better president than Obama?
By:
CNN Political Unit


(CNN) - Americans are divided over whether President Barack Obama or his predecessor has performed better in the White House, according to a new national poll.

And a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday also indicates in the battle for Congress, Republicans hold large advantages over the Democrats among independents, men and blue-collar whites. The poll also indicates that Republicans are much more enthusiastic than Democrats to vote.

By 47 to 45 percent, Americans say Obama is a better president than George W. Bush. But that two point margin is down from a 23 point advantage one year ago.

"Democrats may want to think twice about bringing up former President George W. Bush's name while campaigning this year," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

"But that doesn't mean that Americans regret their decision to put Obama in the White House in 2008. By a 50 to 42 percent margin, the public says that Obama has done a better job than Sen. John McCain would have done if he had won. And by a 10-point margin, Americans also say that Joe Biden has done a better job than Sarah Palin would have done as vice president," adds Holland.

According to the poll, 45 percent of the public approves of the job Obama's doing as president, up three points from late last month, with 52 percent disapproving. Fifty-nine percent of independents disapprove of how the Obama's handling his duties, with 37 percent giving him a thumbs up.

In the fight for control of Congress, 52 percent of likely voters say they would vote for the generic Republican candidate in their district if the election were held today, with 45 percent saying they would back the Democrat. The Republican's seven point margin is down from a nine point advantage late last month.

According to the poll, independents say they would vote for the Republican candidate over the Democrat by a two to one margin.

"Blue-collar whites are also a particular problem for Democrats. Among white voters who describe their family as "white collar," the two parties are essentially tied. But more than seven out of ten whites who describe themselves as "blue collar" are planning to vote Republican in November," adds Holland.

The poll indicates that opinions on the economy may have a lot to do with that. Only 17 percent say the economy is starting to recover, and nearly four in ten say that the country is still in a downturn and conditions are getting worse.

The survey also suggests a strong gender gap.

"Democrats appear to be making steady gains among women and now get a majority of their vote, but the gender gap persists and more than six in ten men say they plan to vote Republican this year," says Holland.

According to the poll, another gap also exists: The enthusiasm gap. Most Republicans say they are extremely or very enthusiastic about voting this year. But only a third of Democrats feel the same way.

"That's the principle reason why the "generic ballot" question is tied among all registered voters while the likely voter numbers show an advantage for the Republicans," adds Holland. "There are plenty of people who support the Democratic candidate, but many of them are probably not going to actually cast a ballot. In fact, if you look at "unlikely voters" - people who are registered to vote but unlikely to cast a ballot - the Democrats have a six-point edge on the generic ballot question."

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation national poll was conducted October 5-7, with 1,008 adult Americans, including 938 registered voters and 504 likely voters, questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus percentage points, with a sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points for likely voters.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 05:46 PM

A chart of who buys who, in Congress:

http://politics.usnews.com/congress/industries


Funny, but the Dems get most of the money. I guess THEY are the party of bought and sold.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 04:05 PM

"One out of the hundreds that were taken over by redneck assholes"

No doubt you have some data on this or is it your usual hate filled rhetoric that you can only support with personal attacks.

And again you are prone to use racial and ethnic slurs to try to prove something.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Bobert, on the road..
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 08:38 PM

Fuck off, you racist ass... Take the stuff I have written to a professor on racial studies and have them explain it to you... But you won't do that because you are a coward... Nuthin' more... Just a coward who thinks becasue you can type out a bunch of cowardly shit that that makes you a real man... You are nuthin' but a very ignorant coward... Period...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 01:03 AM

I think you are picking on redn**ks. Is that brave or what? You are trying to infer that the entire tea party is racist and part of the KKK. First you call them a bunch of white people and then you claim they hate Obama. Twice you say that. You don't realize how offensive that is.

Even Amos said it was wrong.

Seems like you posted it to stir up controversy. When you get the controversy you say people are after you.

Name a professor and I will ask him If I can contact him or her.

Dear sir / madam: Is it racist or bigoted to say in reference to the Tea Party "The rednecks are getting to be rather disgusting little hypocrits" And claim the Tea Party is a bunch of white people that hate Obama.

Now is this what you want me to do Bobert? I don't want you coming back at me all mad about what I did and claim I am bullying and stalking you.

If you don't like my wording of the question, tell me how it should be worded.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 08:26 AM

No, not the entire Tea Party is racist... You know, just like the lynchings in the South where white people came for entertainment some in the crowd. I'm sure were thinking it was wrong... Did they stand up and say so??? Well, we know the answer to that...

As for stirring up controversy??? While yer down at the university stop by and talk with a psych professor about "projection"... Seems when you get bored you just go back and find threads that have been dormant for months and use them as vehicles to bring up yet another round of "Let's attack Bobert"... I mean, ya' might want ask that pscyh professor about "obsessive compulsive disorders"...

BTW, if you don't like getting counter punched then don't go punchin' on me... Life can be very simple... No matter... I mean, you punch and at me and it's gonna come back... That's just the way things are in case you are having trouble figuring out the cause-'n-effect thing here...

No matter...

BTW, I can guarentee that I know more than I'd like about rednecks... I've spent the last 25 years of my life living with 'um...

BTW, Part 3... I ain't trying to stir jack... I'm just callin' balls-'n'strikes and the Tea Party is a redneck party... These folks didn't give a flying fuck about taxes, health care, deficits until a black man ----- HORRORS, right??? ----- was elected president...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 10:46 AM

"Consider, in particular, one fact that might surprise you: The total number of government workers in America has been falling, not rising, under Mr. Obama. A small increase in federal employment was swamped by sharp declines at the state and local level — most notably, by layoffs of schoolteachers. Total government payrolls have fallen by more than 350,000 since January 2009.

Now, direct employment isn't a perfect measure of the government's size, since the government also employs workers indirectly when it buys goods and services from the private sector. And government purchases of goods and services have gone up. But adjusted for inflation, they rose only 3 percent over the last two years — a pace slower than that of the previous two years, and slower than the economy's normal rate of growth.

So as I said, the big government expansion everyone talks about never happened. This fact, however, raises two questions. First, we know that Congress enacted a stimulus bill in early 2009; why didn't that translate into a big rise in government spending? Second, if the expansion never happened, why does everyone think it did?

Part of the answer to the first question is that the stimulus wasn't actually all that big compared with the size of the economy. Furthermore, it wasn't mainly focused on increasing government spending. Of the roughly $600 billion cost of the Recovery Act in 2009 and 2010, more than 40 percent came from tax cuts, while another large chunk consisted of aid to state and local governments. Only the remainder involved direct federal spending.

And federal aid to state and local governments wasn't enough to make up for plunging tax receipts in the face of the economic slump. So states and cities, which can't run large deficits, were forced into drastic spending cuts, more than offsetting the modest increase at the federal level.

The answer to the second question — why there's a widespread perception that government spending has surged, when it hasn't — is that there has been a disinformation campaign from the right, based on the usual combination of fact-free assertions and cooked numbers. And this campaign has been effective in part because the Obama administration hasn't offered an effective reply.

Actually, the administration has had a messaging problem on economic policy ever since its first months in office, when it went for a stimulus plan that many of us warned from the beginning was inadequate given the size of the economy's troubles. You can argue that Mr. Obama got all he could — that a larger plan wouldn't have made it through Congress (which is questionable), and that an inadequate stimulus was much better than none at all (which it was). But that's not an argument the administration ever made. Instead, it has insisted throughout that its original plan was just right, a position that has become increasingly awkward as the recovery stalls.

And a side consequence of this awkward positioning is that officials can't easily offer the obvious rebuttal to claims that big spending failed to fix the economy — namely, that thanks to the inadequate scale of the Recovery Act, big spending never happened in the first place.

But if they won't say it, I will: if job-creating government spending has failed to bring down unemployment in the Obama era, it's not because it doesn't work; it's because it wasn't tried."

(Krugman, NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 01:52 PM

Shutting Up Business
Democrats unleash the IRS and Justice on donors to their political opponents

If at first you don't succeed, get some friends in high places to shut your opponents up. That's the latest Washington power play, as Democrats and liberals attack the Chamber of Commerce and independent spending groups in an attempt to stop businesses from participating in politics.

Since the Supreme Court's January decision in Citizens United v. FEC, Democrats in Congress have been trying to pass legislation to repeal the First Amendment for business, though not for unions. Having failed on that score, they're now turning to legal and political threats. Funny how all of this outrage never surfaced when the likes of Peter Lewis of Progressive insurance and George Soros helped to make Democrats financially dominant in 2006 and 2008.

Chairman Max Baucus of the powerful Senate Finance Committee got the threats going last month when he asked Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Douglas Shulman to investigate if certain tax exempt 501(c) groups had violated the law by engaging in too much political campaign activity. Lest there be any confusion about his targets, the Montana Democrat flagged articles focused on GOP-leaning groups, including Americans for Job Security and American Crossroads.

Mr. Baucus was seconded last week by the ostensibly nonpartisan campaign reform groups Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center, which asked the IRS to investigate whether Crossroads is spending too much money on campaigns. Those two outfits swallowed their referee whistle in the last two campaign cycles, but they're all worked up now that Republicans might win more seats. Crossroads GPS, a 501(c)(4) affiliate of American Crossroads supported by Karl Rove, is a target because it has spent millions already in this election cycle.

Last Tuesday, the liberal blog ThinkProgress, run by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, reported that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had collected some $300,000 in annual dues from foreign companies. Since the money went into the Chamber's general fund, the allegation is that it could have been used to pay for political ads, which would violate a ban on foreign companies participating in American elections. The Chamber says it uses no foreign money for its political activities and goes to great lengths to raise separate funds for political purposes.

That didn't stop President Obama from raising the issue in a Maryland speech last week, saying that "groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections." Within hours of the ThinkProgress report, the bully boys at MoveOn.org asked the Department of Justice to launch a criminal investigation of the Chamber. In a letter to the Federal Election Commission, Minnesota Senator Al Franken expressed his profound concern that "foreign corporations are indirectly spending significant sums to influence American elections through third-party groups." From the man who stole his Senate election in a dubious recount, this is rich.

Even Mr. Franken admits in his letter that the Chamber's commingling of funds in its general accounts is not "per se illegal," but apparently he thinks it's fine to unleash federal investigators because the Chamber cash might contribute to the defeat of fellow Democrats.

The outrage over the Chamber is especially amusing considering the role of foreigners in U.S. labor unions. According to the Center for Competitive Politics, close to half of the unions that are members of the AFL-CIO are international. One man's corporate commingling is another's union dues.

Unions and liberal groups are hardly cash poor this year in any case. The Campaign Media Analysis Group looked at the combined spending of candidates, their parties and outside groups and found that Democrats outspent Republicans $47.3 million to $40.8 million in a recent 60-day period.

Democrats claim only to favor "disclosure" of donors, but their legal intimidation attempts are the best argument against disclosure. Liberals want the names of business donors made public so they can become targets of vilification with the goal of intimidating them into silence. A CEO or corporate board is likely to think twice about contributing to a campaign fund if the IRS or prosecutors might come calling. If Democrats can reduce business donations in the next three weeks, they can limit the number of GOP challengers with a chance to win and reduce Democratic Congressional losses.

The strategy got a test drive in Minnesota earlier this year after Target Corporation donated $100,000 cash and $50,000 of in-kind contributions to an independent group that ran ads supporting the primary candidacy of Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer. MoveOn.org accused the company of being anti-gay, organized a petition, and crafted a TV ad urging shoppers to boycott Target stores. Target made no further donations, and other companies that once showed an interest have since declined to contribute.

***
Then there's the curious reference to the tax status of Koch Industries by White House chief economist Austan Goolsbee. In a late August conference call with reporters, Mr. Goolsbee cited the closely-held Koch as an example of "really giant firms" that pay no corporate income tax because they file under other tax rules. But how in the world would Mr. Goolsbee know Koch's tax status? Could his knowledge be related to the White House-liberal campaign against Koch for contributing to Americans for Prosperity, a group that is supporting free-market candidates for Congress this year?

In an August 9 speech, Mr. Obama personally trashed Americans for Prosperity, hinting that it was funded by "a big oil company." He had to mean Koch, which makes no secret of its support for Americans for Prosperity.

The White House didn't respond to queries about Mr. Goolsbee's remark for weeks until GOP Senators requested an investigation. The Treasury's inspector general for tax matters has since announced such a probe, and last week White House spokesman Robert Gibbs finally got around to explaining that Mr. Goolsbee's statement "was not in any way based on any review of tax filings" and that he won't use the example again.

We're glad to hear it, but pardon our skepticism given the ferocity of this White House-led campaign against businesses that donate to political campaigns. Faced with electoral repudiation as the public turns against their agenda, Democrats are unleashing government power to silence their political opponents. Instead of piling on, the press corps ought to blow the whistle on this attempt to stifle political speech. This is one more liberal abuse of power that voters should consider as they head to the polls.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703735804575536370151720874.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 03:21 PM

Remember THIS?

Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations
Network NewsX Profile

View More Activity


TOOLBOX
Resize Print E-mail Yahoo! BuzzReprints

COMMENT
974 Comments | View All »
COMMENTS ARE CLOSED

Your 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.

By Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed.

This Story
How They Would Change Health Care: McCain
How They Would Change Health Care: Obama
Comparison: Proposed Solutions on Health Care
McCain to Close With Focus on the Economy
Accuracy Of Polls a Question In Itself
The Quiet Man
McCain's Troubles Afflicting Other Races
Daily Tracking: Behind the Numbers
Obama Campaigns in Final Days Before Election
McCain Forges Ahead in Final Week
Edwards Emerges From Her Husband's Shadow
Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations
'Never Seen Crowds Like This'
Special Report: Virginia Politics
McCain Calls for Stevens' Resignation
Obama Pledges to Cut Taxes for the Middle Class
McCain, Palin Attack Obama's Tax Policy
Daily Tracking Poll
View All Items in This Story
View Only Top Items in This Story
Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.

The Obama organization said its extensive review has ensured that the campaign has refunded any improper contributions, and noted that Federal Election Commission rules do not require front-end screening of donations.


(READ MORE: Murkowski embraces outsider status with write-in campaign)

In recent weeks, questionable contributions have created headaches for Obama's accounting team as it has tried to explain why campaign finance filings have included itemized donations from individuals using fake names, such as Es Esh or Doodad Pro. Those revelations prompted conservative bloggers to further test Obama's finance vetting by giving money using the kind of prepaid cards that can be bought at a drugstore and cannot be traced to a donor.

The problem with such cards, campaign finance lawyers said, is that they make it impossible to tell whether foreign nationals, donors who have exceeded the limits, government contractors or others who are barred from giving to a federal campaign are making contributions.

"They have opened the floodgates to all this money coming in," said Sean Cairncross, chief counsel to the Republican National Committee. "I think they've made the determination that whatever money they have to refund on the back end doesn't outweigh the benefit of taking all this money upfront."

The Obama campaign has shattered presidential fundraising records, in part by capitalizing on the ease of online giving. Of the $150 million the senator from Illinois raised in September, nearly $100 million came in over the Internet.

(READ MORE: Carl Paladino has no regrets on 'brainwashed' gay comments that sparked furor)

Lawyers for the Obama operation said yesterday that their "extensive back-end review" has carefully scrubbed contributions to prevent illegal money from entering the operation's war chest. "I'm pretty sure if I took my error rate and matched it against any other campaign or comparable nonprofit, you'd find we're doing very well," said Robert Bauer, a lawyer for the campaign. "I have not seen the McCain compliance staff ascending to heaven on a cloud."

The Obama team's disclosures came in response to questions from The Washington Post about the case of Mary T. Biskup, a retired insurance manager from Manchester, Mo., who turned up on Obama's FEC reports as having donated $174,800 to the campaign. Contributors are limited to giving $2,300 for the general election.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/28/AR2008102803413.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 04:15 PM

LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER

State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
'You could be on 'the list' and then child protective services might come'

Posted: October 08, 2010
11:35 pm Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A 16-hour-old newborn was snatched from her parents by authorities in Concord, N.H., after social services workers alleged the father is a member of Oath Keepers.

The organization collects affirmations from soldiers and peace officers that they would refuse orders that violate the U.S. Constitution, in light of what they perceive as the advance of socialism in the U.S.

The father, Johnathon Irish, told WND that the affidavit signed by Child Protective Service worker Dana Bicford seeking government custody of newborn Cheyenne said the agency "became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the 'Oath Keepers.'"

Irish, in an interview with WND, said officers and other social services workers ordered him to stand with his hands behind his back, frisked him and then took his daughter from him and his fiancé at Concord Hospital where the baby had been born.

Learn how to foil those who would damage the nation. Get "Taking America Back" now from the WND Superstore.

He told WND that other issues cited by authorities included an allegation of child abuse, which he assumed pertained to an incident weeks earlier in which one of his fiance's older sons allegedly was struck by a babysitter.

He said both he and his fiancé had been cleared by authorities in that investigation.

Kathleen Demaris, a spokeswoman for the state agency, refused to comment.

Stewart Rhodes, the founder of Oath Keepers, expressed alarm when contacted by WND, describing the agency as a "chilling monster" that could "come get kids."

On his website, he confirmed the affidavit, along with other allegations, cites Irish's interest in Oath Keepers as a reason to separate the newborn from her parents.

"Yes, there are other, very serious allegations. Out of respect for the privacy of the parents, we will not publish the affidavit. … But please do remember that allegations do not equal facts – they are merely allegations," he said.

"But an even more fundamental point is that regardless of the other allegations, it is utterly unconstitutional for government agencies to list Mr. Irish's association with Oath Keepers in an affidavit in support of a child abuse order to remove his daughter from his custody," Rhodes said.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=213149

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 11:09 PM

Bobert: These two statements of yours are contradictory:

"No, not the entire Tea Party is racist"
"These folks didn't give a flying fuck about taxes, health care, deficits until a black man"

In the second part "these folks" implies all of them and the repetition that they are white and Obama is black implies that they are all racist.

Then the statement "The rednecks are getting to be rather disgusting little hypocrits" is a bigoted attack on a certain class of people.

You clearly feel superior to them. You are disgusted by them and claim they are hypocrites.

Do I have to remind you that some of them voted for Obama? Some of them were hoping for a change and they did not like the change. It was not the change they were hoping for. But you want to use an unwarranted charge of racism to demonize them.

Shame Bobert, Shame.

And I noticed you have conveniently decided not to name a professor for me to ask.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 11:46 PM

"Consider, in particular, one fact that might surprise you: The total number of government workers in America has been falling"

When the Census Bureau hired, It was hooted that employment was going up.

Now those people are leaving and it is being hooted that government payrolls are shrinking.

"The number of unemployed persons, at 14.8 million, was essentially un-changed in September, and the unemployment rate held at 9.6 percent"

Add to that the thousands of people that gave up on getting a job plus the thousands of young people coming online that need a job and tell us the good news again.

1.4 million

Approximate total number of positions to conduct the 2010 Census.

Recruiting and Staffing

3.8 million

Approximate number of people that were recruited to fill positions for 2010 Census operations between 2009 and 2010.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 02:43 PM

Hey. Where did everybody go? Has Amos abandoned his post?

Here is a good video.

I would like to say that the disconnect mentioned in this video is about the Administration being disconnected from the American people's needs.

Not the American people being disconnected from the Administration's accomplishments.

A Modern U.S. President

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 08:48 AM

Right you are, Amos...

In spite of the big dough that Boss Hog is spending to try to drown out the truth about the Obama adminsitration as "big spending and big government" the truth is that the Obma has done something that Bush was never able to do in 8 years and that is ***cut the deficit*** in Obama's first actual budget!!!

Horrors!!!

Yes, I found it interesting the way the media twisted this fact this past week... Rather than give any credit to Obama for making a start in deficit reduction they pounded on the amount of the deficit... Hmmmmm??? The media just can't bring itself to frame anything that Obama does that s positive in a positive light...

Of course, the righties will now do the same thing with posting their bloggers twisted stats saying thr deficit went up but that is the narrow view of economics... They will dance around the facts that the ***anual*** deficit for 2010 is $1.3T as opposed to the $1.4 for 2009 which was Bush's last budget...

Does that mean that I approve of runnin' a $1.3T deficit??? No, it doesn't but, like they say, the longest journery begins with a single step and for all the crybaby Repubs who delight in screaming at the top of their lungs that Obama is another "tax and spend Democtrat" I'll go one record here of calling these folks out as hypocrits before thet evey drag that poor horse outta the barn for another lap...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 12:28 PM

Mr WGSR totin' Economics Perfessor:

2008 vs. 2009

The CBO reported in October 2009 reasons for the difference between the 2008 and 2009 deficits, which were approximately $460 billion and $1,410 billion, respectively. Key categories of changes included: tax receipt declines of $320 billion due to the effects of the recession and another $100 billion due to tax cuts in the stimulus bill (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or ARRA); $245 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and other bailout efforts; $100 billion in additional spending for ARRA; and another $185 billion due to increases in primary budget categories such as Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, Social Security, and Defense - including the war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq. This was the highest budget deficit relative to GDP (9.9%) since 1945. The national debt increased by $1.9 trillion during FY2009, versus the $1.0 trillion increase during 2008.>/tt>

Hmmmmmmmmmm $1.9 trillion 2009 Obama, $ 1.0 trillion 2008 Bush.

Gee that's a hard one. I think I need to call Amos on this one.

Hey Amos, isn't the end results determined by the amount actually spent, regardless of what was budgeted?

Doesn't the bottom line get added to or subtracted from the deficit?

Remember the Clinton surpluses? Were they subtracted from the national Deficit? IE the national debt went down during the surplus years?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 12:56 PM

You must have missed the front page article in in the papersw last week, Sawz... I read it in the Charlotte Observer... If you Google it up, rather than just go straight to yer mythology bloggers you can find it...

Oh yeah... Yer pudder is locked into mythology websites... Has "reality" blocker program...

But again, seein' as you calim to not understand economics... There are many ways of looking a national debt and deficits... The righties who hate Obama use the most complicated factoring in all the debt since the beginning of time, with debt servicing variables, pi and lots of snake oil...

What we are talking about here is an ***annual*** deficit formula which takes revenues and subtracts spending during a ***single*** fiscal year... That is as simple as it has to be... No smoke, no mirrors, no right winged accountants stayin' up all night twisting stuff... Just the basics...

And the basics are that, according to the Charlotte Obaserver ( a rather right winged paper) the ***annual*** budget deficit decreased by one tenth of a trillion dollars which amounts to $100B in Obama's 1st budget cycle...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 03:54 PM

According to Bobert

The Congressional Budget Office = mythology bloggers.


Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert - PM
Date: 16 Jul 10 - 08:06 PM

Yer wrong again, Saws... But then again we'd hate to see you break yer perfect string of being wrong...

Just go to "http://www.cbo,gov/bedget/data/historical.pdf"... BTE, the "cbo" in that sire stands for Congressional Budget Office... Not some loonie rightwingnut site...

Seems like Bobert is having a but of difficulty determining left from right.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 04:19 PM

Is this what you're hootin' about Bobert?

Government reports $1.3 trillion budget deficit
Charlotte Observer Oct. 15, 2010


WASHINGTON The Obama administration said Friday the federal deficit hit a near-record $1.3 trillion for the just-completed budget year.

That means the government had to borrow 37 cents out of every dollar it spent as tax revenues continued to lag while spending on food stamps and unemployment benefits went up as joblessness neared double-digit levels in a struggling economy.

While expected, the eye-popping deficit numbers provide Republican critics of President Barack Obama's fiscal stewardship with fresh ammunition less than three weeks ahead of the midterm congressional elections. The deficit was $122 billion less than last year, a modest improvement.

Voter anger over deficits and spending are a big problem for Democrats this election year. Republicans are slamming Democrats - who face big losses in November - for votes on Obama's $814 billion economic stimulus last year and on former President George W. Bush's $700 billion bailout of Wall Street.

Democrats say the recession would have been worse if the government hadn't stepped in with those programs to prop up the economy. They also note that most of the bailout, which began during the previous administration and was supported by many Republicans in Congress, has been repaid.

Outside of the bailout, the federal budget went up by 9 percent in the 2010 budget year to $3.5 trillion, the Congressional Budget Office reported last week. Food stamp payments rose 27 percent as record numbers of people took advantage of the programs, while unemployment benefits rose 34 percent as Congress extended benefits for the long-term jobless.

"The FY 2010 deficit remained elevated as a result of the severe economic recession, high unemployment, and the financial crisis inherited by the current administration," Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and acting White House budget director Jeffrey Zients said in a statement announcing the results.

Rising deficits will present headaches for policymakers regardless of which party controls Congress after November.

The administration is projecting that the deficit for the 2011 budget year, which began on Oct. 1, will climb to $1.4 trillion. Over the next decade, it will total $8.47 trillion. Deficits of that size will constrain the administration's agenda over the next two years and will certainly be an issue in the 2012 presidential race.

"Since the Democrat majority has taken control of the nation's checkbook, deficits have risen to staggering levels and will average $1 trillion annually for the next decade under the president's policies," said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. "These abrupt and shocking changes in our fiscal situation cannot be dismissed as 'inherited' problems when the tally of the majority's spending spree has climbed into the trillions."

Government revenues rose by $57.4 billion in 2010 compared to 2009, but more than two-thirds of that increase reflected higher payments from the Federal Reserve to the Treasury on all the investments the central bank has made to support the economy and the financial system during the recession.

Income tax revenue fell slightly as unemployment stays near 10 percent nationwide, though corporate tax receipts were up almost 40 percent as the economy slowly pulls out of the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Leading officials with the National Association for Business Economics forecast this week that the 2011 deficit will total $1.2 trillion, only slightly better than the administration's estimate. They cited excessive federal debt as their single greatest concern, even more so than high unemployment.

Obama's bipartisan deficit commission is supposed to report a deficit-cutting plan on Dec. 1, but panel members are unsure at best whether they'll be able to agree on anything approaching Obama's goal of cutting the deficit to about 3 percent of the size of gross domestic product (GDP).

The recommendations of the commission need the backing of 14 of its 18 members to trigger a congressional vote. Building that level of consensus will be difficult. Republicans are strongly opposed to a plan that includes tax increases to chip away at the deficit. Democrats are less inclined to move a package that relies solely on spending cuts.

Even if Congress doesn't vote on a deficit-cutting proposal, it faces the challenge of reaching a consensus on what to do with the Bush-era tax cuts that are set to expire on Dec. 31.

The Republicans are fighting to renew all of the tax cuts. Obama and the Democrats want to extend the tax cuts for every family making less than $250,000, but let them expire for the wealthiest households.

The difference between the two parties amounts to $700 billion that would be added to projected deficits over the next decade if the tax cuts for the wealthy were extended along with the other tax cuts.

So far, the huge deficits have not been a threat to the country. That's because interest rates have been so low coming out of the recession and the United States has been seen as a safe haven for foreign investors willing to keep buying U.S. Treasury bonds.

But the situation could change once the economy gains more momentum, analysts warn.

"If we get to 2013 and policymakers don't look like they have a credible plan to deal with the deficit, then interest rates are likely to rise significantly and that will jeopardize the recovery we have under way at that time," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics.
Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/10/15/1762973/government-to-report-on-1-trillion.html#ixzz12vqsv8ji

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 04:30 PM

Yeah, that's the article, Sawz which shows that, inspite of the Republican slant to the news, that the annual budget deficit did fall by approximately $100B...

I mean, ya' got to start somewhere...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 09:47 PM

Lessee. The annual deficit increases from 1 trillion to 1.4 trillion when Obama comes into office. Then it goes up another 1.3 trillion this year. It is supposed to go up another 1.4 trilliuon in 2011.

And that is good news that the mean old Republicans don't want you to know about?

That is such good news. It just makes me want to break out in song.

It's good news week,
Someone's dropped a bomb somewhere,
Contaminating atmosphere
And blackening the sky,
It's good news week,
Someones found a way to give,
The rotting dead a will to live,
Go on and never die.

Have you heard the news?
What did it say?
Who's won that race?
What's the weather like today?

It's good news week,
Families shake the need for gold,
By stimulating birth control,
We're wanting less to eat.

It's good news week,
Doctors finding many ways,
Of wrapping brains in metal trays,
To keep us from the heat.

It's good news week,
Someone's dropped a bomb somewhere,
Contaminating atmosphere
And blackening the sky,
It's good news week,
Someones found a way to give,
The rotting dead a will to live,
Go on and never die.

Have you heard the news?
What did it say?
Who's won that race?
What's the weather like today?
(what's the weather like today?)

It's good news week,
Families shake the need for gold,
By stimulating birth control,
We're wanting less to eat.

It's good news week,
Doctors finding many ways,
Of wrapping brains in metal trays,
To keep us from the heat.

To keep us from the heat.

To keep us from the heat.


Thank Yew, Thank Yew Vurry Much

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 03:37 AM

Sawzaw, Bobert is not doing too well, today..He is still liking Pelosi, and Reid, and thinks they are great American patriots....no matter how crooked they are. If they're Democraps, he just looks the other way, and spouts the party line....as if Pelosi and Reid, even gave a rat's ass about this country!
Reid rammed through some pork, in a bill, that built a great bridge to one of his property developments in Nevada (at tax payer expense), and Pelosi's hubby processes and sells mortgaged homes, as I've posted months ago....any wonder why there were no controls, or oversight on that???

Well, at least Pelosi is having her HOUSE foreclosed on, by the American electorate!!!

Isn't she just a sweetheart??

Barney Frank is another crooked crackpot, as well...Hmmm....I wonder if Ol' Bobert is capable of connecting dots???

Here, Bobert, I'll help you.....These pieces of bovine excrement do not believe in the principles that they want YOU to absorb yourself with....those things are just a distraction for you, while they amass a fortune, ramming through bills that aren't worth their weight in chicken fertilizer, 'for' the American public!

But, alas and alack, they're Democraps. Watch them walk on water, on their way to 'work'!

I can't wait till they start handing down indictments!!..but they won't...they are 'fellow' politicians, and at best, they get a little slap on the wrists....by those who are running the same scam on us, under a different 'issue'..and 'remedy'!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 01:01 AM

I am not going to take cheap shots at Bobert like he does to me.

I don't want him to think there is a bunch of people ganging up on him and use that as a "poor me" excuse to avoid having to up his "facts".

It's just his "facts" vs my facts.

I am just going to keep posting the facts I find and he can post his "facts" where they come from such as "The West Bank has the highest density of any place in the Middle East"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 01:15 AM

I would like to compliment Bobert on finding some data to support his statements about the Clinton Surplus. He evidently believes he is right but the data he found does not explain why the federal deficit grew every year of the Clinton presidency.

A increased Deficit >< A Surplus.


Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus.

So why do they say he had a surplus?

As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors.

Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.

When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).

Update 3/31/2009: The following quote from an article at CBS confirms my explanation of the Myth of the Clinton Surplus, and the entire article essentially substantiates what I wrote.

"Over the past 25 years, the government has gotten used to the fact that Social Security is providing free money to make the rest of the deficit look smaller," said Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

every year the "official" claimed deficit is smaller than the amount by which the national debt went up. This is true under both Republican and Democrat presidents. Sometimes the differences between the two are smaller and sometimes they are larger, but the real deficit (calculated by the amount the national debt increased) is always larger than the deficit the government claimed.

Consider the following:

    * The sum of all Carter's claimed deficits was $252.709 billion but the national debt went up by $299.015 billion.
    * The sum of all Reagan's claimed deficits was $1.412228 trillion but the national debt went up by $1.859576 trillion.
    * The sum of Bush Sr.'s claimed deficits was $1.035646 trillion but the national debt went up by $1.554057 trillion.
    * The sum of Clinton's claimed deficits and surpluses actually resulted in a net surplus of $62.904 billion but the national debt went up by $1.395974 trillion--only 30% less than the increase during the Reagan administration.
    * The sum of George W. Bush's claimed deficits (through fiscal year 2008) was $2.131405 trillion but the national debt went up $4.217262 trillion
    * The sum of all the reported deficits of these five presidents is $4.769084 trillion but the national debt has gone up $9.325885 trillion!

Clinton and George W. Bush's figures warrant special attention.

To those who cling to the belief that Clinton had a surplus, please review the official surpluses for the Clinton years (FY1994-FY2001). The sum of the claimed surpluses in the last four years actually exceeds the sum of the claimed deficits in the first four years. The result is that if we believe the official CBO deficit/surplus reports, the overall balance of Clinton's presidency was a net surplus of $62.904 billion. Yet during Clinton's presidency the national debt actually increased by 1 trillion 395 billion 974 million dollars. Those that defend the validity of the government surplus/deficit figures need to explain how an alleged 8-year net surplus of $62.904 billion during the Clinton administration caused the government to increase its debt by $1.395974 trillion. If Clinton's administration took in $62.904 billion more than it spent (the definition of a surplus), then why did it have to borrow another $1.39574 trillion?

George W. Bush's presidency also highlights the same problem. If we add up the official deficits of Bush's seven fiscal years so far, the total is $2.131405 trillion. But detractors correctly point out that Bush has increased the national debt by $4.217262 trillion--almost twice the stated deficits.

It's Time To Stop Blindly Believing The Government

Clearly the U.S. Government is using a very "interesting" (to put it politely) form of accounting. But the huge deficits under President George W. Bush have amplified the disparity between the two numbers so extremely that it seems amazing that anyone still clings to the belief that the government's stated deficits and surpluses reflect reality. If Clinton supposedly had a net surplus of $62.904 billion, why did the government borrow $1.395 trillion during that time? If Bush's deficits have "only" been $2.13 trillion, why then has the government found it necessary to borrow $4.22 trillion?

In the face of such amazing discrepancies I find it incredible that people still cling to the CBO/government numbers. These people are basically saying, "I believe Clinton had a surplus because the government told me so and because I don't hear Bush disputing the Clinton surplus claims." Sure, but do you think Bush is eager to alert the nation to FY2008's $1 trillion deficit when he can use the CBO accounting approach and claim a $454 billion deficit? The government approach to accounting makes all politicians look less bad. Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama... these are politicians, folks. Politicians are not known for their truthfulness. So why are so many people so willing to blindly accept the numbers they give us?

I think it's time that We The People stop tolerating smoke and mirrors in Washington. If the national debt increases in a given year, that's a deficit. If the national debt decreases in a given year, that's a surplus. It's really pretty simple and the beauty is that any citizen can check to see how the government is doing every day by looking at the current national debt. The U.S. Treasury Department updates the number every day. To the penny. Don't trust politicians to tell you how fiscally irresponsible they have been with your money. Check the U.S. Treasury that tells you exactly what we owe. Politicians can say anything they want but, in the end, all that matters is our current debt. That's their real legacy and the only number that will make any difference years later.

With the U.S. Government authorizing a $700 billion blank-check bailout with no transparency and no oversight and President-Elect Obama telling us that "we shouldn't worry about the deficit next year or even the year after" , the truth is we better worry about it. They're spending our money faster than we can pay taxes and, apparently, We The People are the only oversight there is.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 10:24 PM

The criticisms of Mr. Obama from the left often ring true to me, but I also think we elide the political difficulties of getting better legislation past obstructionists in Congress. A Òpublic optionÓ would have improved the health care package in my judgment, but it might also have killed it.

The economic crisis has also distracted from authentic accomplishments. Presidents since Harry Truman have been pushing for health care reform, and it was Mr. Obama who finally achieved it. The economy seemed at risk of another Great Depression when he took office, and that was downgraded to a recession from which we have officially emerged Ñ even though the pain is still biting.

Mr. Obama has also helped engineer a successful auto bailout, a big push for clean energy, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to reduce sex discrimination, tighter tobacco regulations aimed at the 1,000 Americans under age 18 who become smokers each day, and tighter financial regulation including reform of credit card rules.

Above all, Mr. Obama has been stellar in one area crucial to our countryÕs future: education. Democrats historically have been AWOL on school reform because they are beholden to teacher unions, but Mr. Obama has reframed the debate and made it safe to talk about teaching standards and Òbad teachers.Ó Until Mr. Obama, Democrats barely acknowledged that it was possible for a teacher to be bad.

Mr. Obama used stimulus money to keep teachers from being laid off and to nudge states to reform education so as to benefit children for years to come. His ÒRace to the TopÓ focused states on education reform as never before.

He has also revamped and expanded student loans and bolstered support for community colleges, opening a new path to higher education for working-class Americans. Millions more Americans may end up in college.

Presidents in both parties have talked for years about the importance of education, but until now it has been lip service. Improving AmericaÕs inner-city schools will be a long slog, but Mr. Obama has done far more than any other president in this area Ñ arguably our single greatest national challenge. In my view, itÕs his greatest achievement, and it has been largely ignored.

So, sure, go ahead and hold Mr. ObamaÕs feet to the fire. He deserves to be held accountable. But letÕs not allow economic malaise to cloud our judgment and magnify AmericaÕs problems in ways that become self-fulfilling.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 11:20 PM

Public employee unions funnel public money to Dems
October 26, 2010
(AP)

Who is the largest single political contributor in the 2010 campaign cycle? It is AFSCME, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. The union's president, Gerald McEntee, reports proudly that AFSCME will be contributing $87.5 million in this cycle, entirely or almost entirely to Democrats. "We're spending big," he told the Wall Street Journal. "And we're damn happy it's big."

The mainstream press hasn't shown much interest in reporting on unions' campaign spending, which amounted to some $400 million in the 2008 cycle. And it hasn't seen fit to run long investigative stories on why public employee unions -- the large majority of which work for state and local governments -- contribute so much more to campaigns for federal office.

Nor has it denounced the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision last January allowing unions to spend members' dues on politics without their permission and without disclosure.

AFSCME's No. 1 status is emblematic of a change in the union movement over the years. Before public employee unions won the right to represent employees in New York City in 1958 and federal employees in 1962, almost all union members worked in the private sector.

But unions today represent only 7 percent of private-sector workers. In 2009, for the first time in history, most union members were public employees.

This would not have gone down well with President Franklin Roosevelt. "The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," he said in the 1930s. A public employee strike, he said, "looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable."

It still is at the federal level, thanks to presidents of both parties and especially to Ronald Reagan's firing of the striking air traffic controllers in 1981. But successful strikes in many states and cities have given public employee unions huge clout and hugely generous salaries, benefits and pensions.

Even more important is the political reality that, as New York union leader Victor Gotbaum said in 1975, "We have the ability, in a sense, to elect our own boss."

The anomalies don't end there. Public employees' union dues and contributions to union PACs come from directly from taxpayers. So if you live in a state or city with strong public employee unions, you are paying a tax that goes to elect Democratic candidates (plus, perhaps, a few malleable Republicans).

The problem is that, as Roosevelt understood, public employee unions' interests are directly the opposite of those of taxpayers. Public employee unions want government to be more expensive and government employees to be less accountable.

Yes, some union leaders like the late Albert Shanker of the American Federation of Teachers have been concerned about the quality of public services. But they have been the exception rather than the rule.

Public employee unions have collected big time from the Obama Democrats. The February 2009 stimulus package contained $160 billion in aid to state and local governments. This was intended to, and did, insulate public employee union members from the ravages of the recession that afflicted those unfortunate enough to make their livings in the private sector.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Public-employee-unions-funnel-public-money-to-Dems-1342297-105812358.html#

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 01:13 PM

Amos,

And where did you CUT AND PASTE that from?


I see no calls for YOU to post sources...


And I would say that Obama had successfully tranfered ownership of GM from the stockholders who had invested to the Unions and public. As one of those stockholders, issues stock in JUST to debts, while the unions were given stock in JUST the assets, I do not see that as a reason to think Obama did anything good. IF GM had gone bankrupt, the assets would have been sold and more effective companies, like Ford, would have expanded.

So Obama has just paid off his union supporters at the cost of hurting stockholders, such as insurance funds and retirement plans.

Thanks a lot!.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 02:29 PM

"Subject: BS: Earn my vote in 2010
From: InOBU - PM
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 06:58 PM

I cannot in good conscience vote. I will not vote Republican, and the Democratic party has taken the votes which elected Obama for granted. Illegal war committed by Democrats is as wrong as illegal war committed by Republicans. Prosecution of lawyers like Lynne Stewart is as wrong by Democrats as it is by Republicans. The murder of suspects in neutral nations is as wrong when done by Democrats as when it is done by Republicans. The continued detention of Leonard Pelitier is as wrong when committed by Democrats as when it is done by Republicans. The continuance of illegal prisons off shore is as wrong when committed by Democrats as when committed by Republicans. When Democrats terrorise the peace movement by use of FBI raid, When the patriot act stands supported by a Democratic Congress, Senate and Executive branch, it is time to walk away from the party. They need to do a whole lot of the promised change to win my vote back again. Lesser of two evils is not good enough to buy something as precious as an American's vote.
We are better than they are is no reason to vote in the face of inhumanity. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 02:52 PM

CNN Poll of Polls:

More Approve of Obama's Performance than Disapprove

To those who put a lot of weight on the opinion of the pundit class, this report from CNN may come as a surprise:

Forty-eight percent of Americans approve of how President Barack Obama is handling his job as president, while 45 percent disapprove of his job performance, according to a CNN Poll of Polls compiled and released on Friday. This Poll of Polls suggests that for the first time this election season, more Americans approve of how Obama is managing his duties in the White House.

This newest edition of the CNN Poll of Polls is an average of four national polls conducted from mid-to-late October: Gallup tracking (10/25-27), Newsweek (10/20-21), CBS/New York Times (10/22-26), and McClatchy-Marist (10/22-25). A new Bloomberg survey did not release a presidential approval rating. The Poll of Polls does not have a sampling error.

The presidential approval question asks respondents if they approve of how the president is handling his job. It is an indicator of Americans' opinion of Obama's job performance and reflects what voters may be considering as they make decisions on Election Day.

On October 21, when Obama's approval hit a low of 44.7 percent in its poll, Gallup noted that his approval numbers were still superior to both Clinton (41.4 percent) and Reagan (41.7 percent) in the 7th quarters of their first terms in office.

Source, AlterNet Headlines, citing CNN poll.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 07:27 PM

Writing in Slate, Curtis Sittenfeld says:


"...It's not that I can't understand voters' frustration with, for example, the fact that the Guantanamo Bay detention camp is still open. So Obama is an imperfect presidentÑwho wouldn't be? During the almost two years he's been in office, I (apparently alone among sentient voters) don't think he's made any major missteps: As far as I can tell, the economic stimulus package might not have been perfect, but it prevented something bad from being even worse. Health care reform will offer better coverageÑor coverage, periodÑto millions of Americans, including children and those with pre-existing conditions. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is providing billions of dollars to improve education and infrastructure. And, hell, I have no idea what Obama could have done differently with the oil spill, with the possible exception of not succumbing to political pressure and so-called optics by making Sasha go swimming with him off the coast of Florida.

So he hasn't yet gotten Congress to repeal "don't ask, don't tell"Ñat least he's explicitly assured us he wants to, and he recently indicated his view on gay marriage could "evolve." And, yes, it did give me pause in December 2009 when he announced that he was sending more troops to Afghanistan, but here's the thing: Although he was criticized for taking too long to decide on that plan, I was reassured by his aversion to acting hastily. In general, when I hear the criticisms of ObamaÑthat he's professorial or wonky or emotionally restrained, that he's willing to listen to various points of view, that he likes arugulaÑI often think, wait, those are supposed to be insults?

Barack Obama. Click image to expand.President Barack Obama But, my fellow Americans, how quickly we forget! After an excruciating eight years of Bush, the thrill still hasn't worn off for me of once again having an intellectually nimble president, not to mention one who doesn't pride himself on going with his gut when it comes to foreign policy. Whenever I watched Bush speak extemporaneously, I'd feel alternately embarrassed by and for him. I'd be tempted to cover my eyes, as if watching a clumsy figure skater botching double Lutz jumps. And whenever I interacted with someone from another country, I'd feel compelled to mention that I hadn't voted for Bush.

But when I see Obama on television, I'm unfailingly struck by his intelligence and charisma, by his easygoing humor, by the magnificence of his megawatt smile. He just makes me proud, and perhaps this is where I should admit that if there are two categories of Obama criticsÑconservatives who never liked the guy and have in some cases become unhinged since he was elected, and centrists or Democrats who voted for him but now feel let downÑI suspect that, in the visceral nature of my response to our president, I have more in common with the unhinged nut jobs. By this I mean that my Obama admiration is a kind of emotional inverse of the right-wing Obama antipathy: I can pretend it's all about policy, but in truth, it's much more personal. Where his detractors dislike him because of, say, that Muslim vibe he gives off, I like him for similarly nebulous, albeit slightly more factual reasons.

I like that he's married toÑand seemingly still quite taken withÑa strong, opinionated, gorgeous woman, and that he has two ridiculously cute daughters. I like his mind-bendingly multicultural extended family. I like that in a campaign interview in Glamour magazine, he could fluently and unabashedly talk about Pap smears. I thought that the beer summit of 2009 was delightful. I was even excited when Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, not realizing until pundits explained otherwise that I was supposed to be aghast at its prematurity. And I wasn't a bit offended by Obama's alleged 2008 debate gaffeÑa line the otherwise irreproachable Frank Rich mentioned yet again in a column as recently as SeptemberÑin remarking to Hillary Clinton, "You're likable enough, Hillary." Oh, and did I mention that I actually voted for Hillary in Missouri's Democratic primary? I was one of those Democrats who thought it'd be nice to have an entrŽe of eight years of Hillary, with Obama as a vice-presidential side, followed by eight years of a more seasoned Obama as the main course. I was always an Obama admirer, but maybe the fact that I was initially rooting for Hillary has prevented me from feeling the disappointment in his presidency expressed by certain Obamamaniacs. So swoony and ardent was their Obama love during the campaign that it couldn't be sustained; my more measured affection, by contrast, has grown over time.

At this point, I love Obama so much that I recently thought if it were 1961, I'd probably display a bust of him in my living room. Then I realized I'm already displaying the 2010 equivalent: On my living room wall, I have a framed version of that famous November 2008 New Yorker cover of the O moon over the Lincoln Memorial. Meanwhile, on my desk, I keep a printed-out photo I first saw on the Huffington Post in May 2009, of Obama in the Oval Office, bending over so a little African-American boy could rub his head. The boy, it turns out, was the child of a White House staffer, and the reason Obama was bending was, according to the caption in the White House's Flickr account, "The youngster wanted to see if the President's haircut felt like his own."

I don't care if it's good PRÑthe picture still practically brings tears to my eyes. It reminds me of the sense of excitement and possibility I felt in November 2008, as if in electing Obama, we Americans were acting as our best, smartest, least racist selves, as if there really was change we could believe in. And, OK, so it's been a long two years since then, and for a lot of people it's been an undeniably hard two years. But I'm just not convinced that's Obama's fault.

I'm also not convinced, my own hyperbolic tendencies aside, that I'm really the last Obama devotee standing. When I ask around, I find that the people who are disappointed in Obama aren't as disappointed as the media would have us believe, and that many aren't disappointed at all. In fact, some acquaintances have told me that they, too, feel surprised by the assumption that the Obama backlash is universal. Sure, a lot of the people I know are like meÑWhole Foods shoppers, NPR listeners, Slate readers and writersÑbut I do live in a state where I'd be unable to avoid voters of varying political persuasions even if I wanted to.

During the years of George W. Bush's presidency, a popular magnet among my Democratic friends featured a serious photo of Bill Clinton, his hands clasped. "COME BACK BILL," the punctuation-free text read. "ALL IS FORGIVEN." My fear is that if Democrats continue to convince one another, and swing voters, of our president's failures and shortcomings, a similar Obama magnet might surge in popularity as soon as 2013Ñduring a Mitt Romney administration, or a Mike Huckabee administration, or, God forbid, a Sarah Palin administration.

But even if my worst political nightmare comes to pass, I know I will never buy that magnet. After all, I've never thought there's anything for which to forgive Obama...."

---

I find his view refreshing in the face of the constant stream of sour exhalations from the hungover punditocrats in various quarters.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 08:35 PM

Full article here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 08:48 PM

"Barack Obama is fond of quoting these words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. : ÒThe arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.Ó

As America prepares to vote in TuesdayÕs election, it appears that the arc of the moral universe, at least as the president understands it, will flatten out. Mr. Obama and Democrats in Congress seem headed for a repudiation.

America has known such detours before. Eventually it moves again on the long arc toward justice. Those on the edges of the political spectrum may foam at the mouth, but in the middle often is found common sense, wisdom and compassion.
We must hope so.

All politics eventually comes down to allocating public resources and channeling collected money for the public good. But the last three decades have seen big chunks of the nationÕs wealth redistributed to the rich.

According to the noted radical David Stockman, who was President Ronald ReaganÕs budget adviser, the top 1 percent of American taxpayers Ñ those with adjusted annual gross incomes of $410,000 or more Ñ reaped two-thirds of all the economic gains between 2002 and 2006. Today, the top 1 percent earns 23 percent of all income.
Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats spent the last two years trying to even the scales a little bit. If polls are accurate, they are about to be punished for that.

The health care reform bill, for example, would be paid for in large part by raising payroll taxes on households making more than $250,000. Most of the benefits would go to households making less than four times the poverty level Ñ currently $88,200 for a family of four people.

Democrats passed a financial regulatory bill aimed at preventing a recurrence of the 2008 meltdown. It did not go far enough Ñ both parties remain far too deeply in thrall to Wall Street Ñ but it does contain valuable restraints and consumer-protection measures. Polls say the Democrats will be punished for that, too.

And they will be punished for the $819 billion stimulus bill that they passed in early 2009. Some of it, to be sure, was political pork. But about a third of the bill was tax cuts for individuals and small businesses, including $116 billion in income tax cuts for 95 percent of working families. Much of the rest of it shored up state and local governments reeling from the ever-increasing costs of health care.

Republican candidates avoided the details. They preferred to chant Òfailed stimulus bill,Ó because, while the bill may have saved or created 3 million jobs and forestalled a much deeper recession, unemployment rates remain doggedly high."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 11:20 PM

Amos:

I think if you stay up all night and post a bunch of positive stuff about Obama, you can turn this election around.

So brew up plenty of coffee and keep up the good work.

Remember "They just don't understand what I have done."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 11:25 PM

Chongo needs people who are willing to stay up all night and post positive stuff about him too. He needs many such people to get elected in 2012. Anyone willing to do it has been promised free bananas on July 4rth every year. Get busy!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 11:46 PM

Tell you what, Sawz: you do half of it--for every positive report on Obama you post I will match it with another. One, two, three...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 10:41 AM

Voting in Republican primaries and special elections showed what happens when moderate Americans stay home or react to the barrages of fear and intolerance. We end up with fringe candidates like Christine O'Donnell in Delaware and Sharron Angle in Nevada. Establishment candidates then spout the same disturbing ideas. (Witness Representative John Boehner, the House minority leader, trying to act like an outsider after 18 years in the Washington power elite.)

Democrats have been far too timid to argue the case, but they, and President Obama, have done many important things in the last two years.

Most important, the stimulus — which Republicans made sure was smaller than it should have been — saved the country from a deeper, more destructive recession. That is not a lot of comfort for the millions of unemployed Americans, but it would have been far worse if the Republicans had had their way. They have even opposed extending federal unemployment benefits.

American troops are coming home from Iraq. For the first time, troops in Afghanistan have the full backing of the White House and Pentagon. The United States is regaining the respect of allies around the world.

The Republicans have been rewriting history. They claim Mr. Obama's economic policies are a failure and hope Americans will forget that it was President George W. Bush who turned big budget surpluses into huge deficits and whose contempt for regulation ultimately brought us to the brink of financial collapse. The Republicans want to go back to more tax cuts for the rich and more free passes for Wall Street and big corporations.

Tea Party candidates are particularly worrisome. Some want to privatize Social Security. Others want to eliminate Medicare. Betting on the Republican establishment to temper these excesses is a bad bet.

Here are some things to bear in mind on Tuesday:

• Since Mr. Obama was elected, millions of poor children who did not have health insurance got it. A reform law was passed that already allows young people to be on their parents' plan until they are 26, bars insurers from dropping coverage after a beneficiary becomes sick, and removes lifetime caps on coverage. In 2014, many more benefits will kick in.

Republicans are determined to undo that progress. It would be a disaster. The law is the best chance in years to provide health insurance to the rapidly rising numbers of uninsured and to begin trying to slow cost growth in medical care and insurance.

• The country needs tax reform that is fair and doesn't get us even deeper in the red. Republicans are interested only in one thing: permanently extending tax cuts for the rich, adding $700 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years.

• The country needs jobs and to be globally competitive. Republicans are determined to block Mr. Obama's sensible proposals to create good jobs by rebuilding fraying infrastructure or creating new energy industries.

• The country needs sound regulation. If there is any doubt about that look at the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Or the bank bailout that — despite what the Republicans are saying — happened on Mr. Bush's watch. The Republicans want more heedless deregulation.

• With very few exceptions, Republican candidates are hostile to the administration's efforts to address climate change and reduce the nation's dependence on fossil fuels. There has already been talk on Capitol Hill of stripping the Environmental Protection Agency of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 12:09 PM

Amos gathering his facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 02:54 PM

2500!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 07:19 PM

And one!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 01:36 AM

Have you turned it around yet Amos?

Have you finally proven to all of the conservatives how wrong they are?

Or has reality sunk in?

"fear and intolerance" I think you wrote the book on that.

"big budget surpluses" You admitted that the deficit grew every year of the "surpluses" but you keep going back to that same chant.

How does a surplus turn into a deficit?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 09:03 AM

Ask Georgie and the BuShites. They were able to work that magic.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 10:47 AM

If I were one of the big corporate donors who bankrolled the Republican tide that carried into office more than 50 new Republicans in the House, I would be wary of what you just bought.

For no matter your view of President Obama, he effectively saved capitalism. And for that, he paid a terrible political price.

Suppose you had $100,000 to invest on the day Barack Obama was inaugurated. Why bet on a liberal Democrat? Here's why: the presidency of George W. Bush produced the worst stock market decline of any president in history. The net worth of American households collapsed as Bush slipped away. And if you needed a loan to buy a house or stay in business, private sector borrowing was dead when he handed over power.

As of election day, Nov. 2, 2010, your $100,000 was worth about $177,000 if invested strictly in the NASDAQ average for the entirety of the Obama administration, and $148,000 if bet on the Standard & Poors 500 major companies. This works out to returns of 77 percent and 48 percent.

But markets, though forward-looking, are not considered accurate measurements of the economy, and the Great Recession skewed the Bush numbers. O.K. How about looking at the big financial institutions that keep the motors of capitalism running — banks and auto companies?

The banking system was resuscitated by $700 billion in bailouts started by Bush (a fact unknown by a majority of Americans), and finished by Obama, with help from the Federal Reserve. It worked. The government is expected to break even on a risky bet to stabilize the global free market system. Had Obama followed the populist instincts of many in his party, the underpinnings of big capitalism could have collapsed. He did this without nationalizing banks, as other Democrats had urged.

Saving the American auto industry, which has been a huge drag on Obama's political capital, is a monumental achievement that few appreciate, unless you live in Michigan. After getting their taxpayer lifeline from Obama, both General Motors and Chrysler are now making money by making cars. New plants are even scheduled to open. More than 1 million jobs would have disappeared had the domestic auto sector been liquidated.

"An apology is due Barack Obama," wrote The Economist, which had opposed the $86 billion auto bailout. As for Government Motors: after emerging from bankruptcy, it will go public with a new stock offering in just a few weeks, and the United States government, with its 60 percent share of common stock, stands to make a profit. Yes, an industry was saved, and the government will probably make money on the deal — one of Obama's signature economic successes.

Interest rates are at record lows. Corporate profits are lighting up boardrooms; it is one of the best years for earnings in a decade.

All of the above is good for capitalism, and should end any serious-minded discussion about Obama the socialist. But more than anything, the fact that the president took on the structural flaws of a broken free enterprise system instead of focusing on things that the average voter could understand explains why his party was routed on Tuesday. Obama got on the wrong side of voter anxiety in a decade of diminished fortunes.

"We have done things that people don't even know about," Obama told Jon Stewart. Certainly. The three signature accomplishments of his first two years — a health care law that will make life easier for millions of people, financial reform that attempts to level the playing field with Wall Street, and the $814 billion stimulus package — have all been recast as big government blunders, rejected by the emerging majority.

But each of them, in its way, should strengthen the system. The health law will hold costs down, while giving millions the chance at getting care, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Financial reform seeks to prevent the kind of meltdown that caused the global economic collapse. And the stimulus, though it drastically raised the deficit, saved about 3 million jobs, again according to the CBO. It also gave a majority of taxpayers a one-time cut — even if 90 percent of Americans don't know that, either.


Timothy Egan in the NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 11:47 AM

Amos,

"Suppose you had $100,000 to invest on the day Barack Obama was inaugurated"

Sorry, I WAS invested at that time- in GM amoung others- AND OBAMA GAVE IT TO THE UNIONS.

My LOSS was 100% on GM stock.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 11:57 AM

How did "Georgie and the BuShites" work the magic?

Subject: RE: BS: Poplar Views: the Obama Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 12:17 PM

This is the MOST POLAR VIEW OF OBAMA EVER
Poplar view

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 04:00 PM

Bruce:

Explain, please. GM is making dough thanks to Obama's bail-out, not so?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 04:09 PM

Amos,

In case you did NOT pay attention while Obama slipped money to his supporters:

GM was in trouble- In the case of an ordinary comapany, that means the company would have been broken up, and the assets sold off to satisfy debt. Any remainder would have belonged to the stockholders.

Obama took over GM, and split it into TWO companies. The GM that the government owns, with a large amount of stock being given to the Unions, AND the one that the stockholders got. The problem was that the assets were ALL given to the one the Unions had the stock in: The DEBT was all thet the other company got- and THAT was what the stockholders of GM had stock in, after Obama screwed us over.

Go back and look at it- He took a situation where the stockholders ( and unions, who had pension plans invested) had some chance of recovery by reorganization or sale of assets) and made it one where the stockholders, including many insurance companies and mutual funds, were given ONLY THE DEBT.

But the Unions got their payoff, and screww the rest of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 05:43 PM

Beardie is obviously inhabiting his usual parallel, and delusional, universe.


But you had to ask, didn't you, Amos?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 06:03 PM

Greggie Boy,

If you bother looking at the facts, YOU might find your way out of that fog you live in.

I held GM Stock- I KNOW what happened with it. I lost money on it- If you think otherwise, should I send YOU a bill for my losses???

Long 50 MOTORS LIQUIDAT MTLQQ 04/28/09 12/07/09 224 104.48 17.52 -86.96   Non-Covered System No First In First Out
History
Long 50 MOTORS LIQUIDAT MTLQQ 04/28/09 12/07/09 224 104.47 17.52 -86.95   Non-Covered System

What knowledge do you bring to the table- the abililty to insult people rather than discus facts?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 06:06 PM

One summary from portfolio.com:

"s GM prepares to move beyond its government bailout as soon as Friday with a $16 billion IPO, here are five reasons why the salvation of the giant U.S. automaker, once considered all but dead, has worked so well.

The GM bailout may be President Obama's finest moment to date.Critics once denounced the bailout as a mere thank-you to his supporters in the unions and predicted that the government-run car company would undermine rivals and churn out cars to suit the tastes of its masters in Washington. They predicted that the taxpayers would lose money in a futile effort to save the company. And by jumping to the head of the line of creditors, the government threatened to set a bad precedent for bankruptcy law.

Well, they were wrong. GM is selling cars at a pretty brisk pace, reporting growing profits, and preparing to fully pay back taxpayers with proceeds from an IPO, should it go well. The bankruptcy process and investors have somehow survived. It's true, GM still isn't quite as robust as Ford, the only one of the three major U.S. automakers to avoid a bailout. It's growth still lags the market, albeit by just a small margin. But one can't imagine GM getting this far, this fast, without federal help. The bailout was a clear success. If anyone thinks that we should undo it and allow GM to risk a long, messy Chapter 11 or Chapter 7 liquidation, please step forward now.


Read more: http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/daily-brief/2010/08/12/five-reasons-why-the-obama-gm-restructuring-worked#ixzz14G8BHerq"

Another from politico.com:

Government assistance to the auto industry was Òcertainly a factorÓ when automakers reached a deal in May 2009 to raise average fuel economy standards for passenger cars to 35 miles per gallon by 2016, according to Martin Zimmerman, a business professor at the University of Michigan.

Until then, automakers had successfully fended off efforts to raise fuel economy rules for 19 years. The average fuel efficiency had been 27.5 miles per gallon since 1990, when the hulking Ford Taurus was the second best-selling car in America.

But a lot of things came together in the spring of 2009, according to Deron Lovaas, director of transportation policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

For one thing, the oil price shock of 2007 had transformed public attitudes about fuel efficiency, and the car companies were retooling for smaller cars already. California had raised its fuel economy standards, and auto companies suddenly faced the prospect of different standards in different states.

More important, General Motors and Chrysler were on life support, after years of poor management and the effects of the recession, which shrank the U.S. market by 40 percent in two years. In addition to the tens of billions of dollars in loans that the two companies received under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, auto makers were also benefiting from the $3 billion Cash for Clunkers program, which helped prop up auto sales in 2009.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44639.html#ixzz14G9JTdFV

---

Note also, Bruce, that the company was done in by the same fatcat types so beloved by your party who precipitated the recession from another industry. Overpaid, greed-driven bottom feeders. What a shame. I am sorry for your losses in this affair but the company was rotten--why were you invested in it? Hypnotized by their blue-chip status from the Sixties?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 07:00 PM

Amos,

That is ONE view- If I were a union that got 20+Billion out of it, I might think it a good thing, too.

But the people who had that "bluechip"stock were a lot of mutual funds and retirement plans- and THOSE people lost a lot of thier retirement and earned wealth.

So pardon me if I disagree with the idea that stealing money from little old ladies is OK, if it is Obama doing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 08:25 PM

"President Obama took office facing more challenges than any president in three generations. In the midst of two stalemated wars, the worst economy since the Great Depression and a hemorrhaging job market, the American people desperately needed a government that could take the bold action needed to halt foreclosures, end the recession, and get employers hiring again. Yet, while the new president buckled down to solve these catastrophic challenges, the GOP embraced a simple four word mantra: "I hope Obama fails." Two years later, unemployment remains tragically high, the President's signature accomplishment is widely misunderstood by voters , and Republicans rode a wave of discontent back into power. Simply put, this did not happen by accident; it was part of a concerted strategy to undermine the President's agenda and blame him for its failure.

A CAMPAIGN OF OBSTRUCTION: When the economy was spiraling out of control, Republicans filibustered the recovery. When out-of-control health premiums threatened to sink the entire federal budget, Republicans conspired to make health reform Obama's "Waterloo ." When persistent unemployment cried out for a more aggressive Federal Reserve, Republicans blocked Obama's Nobel Prize winning Fed nominee. Even something as basic as regulating the same Wall Street banks that nearly destroyed the American economy nearly fell before a GOP filibuster. This campaign of obstruction was not limited to big ticket items. As of last August, fully 372 bills had passed the House -- many of them unanimously -- but few of them are likely to every receive a vote i n the obstructionist-laden Senate. Meanwhile, Obama's judges are being confirmed at only half the rate of President Bush's, and Republicans even stalled key economic policy makers in the midst of a recession. As this campaign of obstruction began to undercut the economic recovery, the GOP doubled down. Republicans repeatedly blocked job-creating and small business-promoting legislation, often killing essential measures or requiring ambitious plans to be pared down into nearly nothing. And this obstructionism helped keep in the economy in the doldrums, the obstructionists' standing in the polls steadily grew.

FLOODING THE AIRWAVES: Republicans did far more than simply blocking Obama's agenda, they also waged a multi-billion dollar disinformation campaign to poison the electorate on this agenda. Emboldened by the Supreme Court's egregious Citizens United decision, the right-wing U.S. Chamber of Commerce waged a $32 million campaign to defeat the President's allies in Congress, and this campaign was just the tip of a massive icebe rg of disinformation. Right-wing front groups like 60 Plus and future Florida Gov. Rick Scott's (R) Conservatives for Patients' Rights waged a multi-million dollar campaign to tarnish health reform -- often making outlandish claims that the Affordable Care Act would slash Medicare benefits or outlaw private coverage or euthanize grandma. This di sinformation campaign was not limited to health reform. Republicans blanketed the airwaves with attacks on President Obama's successful program to save the auto industry -- a program which saved more than one million jobs. The Recovery Act saved approximately 1.2 million jobs and even right-wing economists believe that it boosted the economy by 4 percent, but Republicans have done everything in their power to ensure that no one knows about these successes. Republicans have manufactured economists who deny the effectiveness of the stimulus. They falsely claim that it has not created a single job , and they repeatedly label it a "failed stimulus" -- even if they also have no compunctions about stealing credit for the law's success whenever it benefits them politically to do so. Two years of disinformation has taken its toll. Although only one-quarter of voters oppose the actual provisions of the Affordable Care Act, pluralities have been so convinced that the law is poison that they now embrace repeal. Likewise, two-thirds of voters share the false belief that the Recovery Act either hurt or did not affect the economy.

OBAMA'S UNFORCED ERRORS: To be clear, Obama's presidency has not been error-free. Obama's own economic advisor, Christina Romer, determined that $1.2 trillion in stimulus spending was necessary to spark a robust economic recovery. While such a large proposal may not have survived Congress without being cut down, Obama himself now suggests that he did not bargain hard enough with the legislature. Rather than proposing a stimulus package laden with tax cuts, the President says he should have "'let the Republicans insist on the tax cuts' so it could be seen as a bipartisan compromise." Similarly, Obama could have done more to modify his signature anti-foreclosure program in order to ease the anxieties of voters caught in the housing crisis. To date, just $600 million of the program's $50 billion has been spent . Additionally, yesterday's announcement that the Federal Reserve will launch a $600 billion effort to invigorate the economy is a reminder of the role monetary policy can play in rescuing a weak economy. One can only speculate on whether this effort would have been launched sooner if several Fed Board seats hadn't remained vacant for most of Obama's presidency, but the Obama administration's failure to fill these vacancies early in Obama's presidency certainly did not help the economy. Yet, while Obama did not always pursue the robust progressive policies needed to lift the economy from its knees, it's important to acknowledge what he ha s accomplished . The Recovery Act did grow the economy and rescue hundreds of thousands of jobs. The Affordable Care Act will slow the unsustainable growth of health costs and drive down long term deficits. Credit card companies, sexist employers and Wall Street banks are much less able to exploit ordinary Americans because Barack Obama is president. These accomplishments were not enough to save the Democrats' majorities, but they moved the country in the right direction -- something that will not continue if Obama embraces the GOP's call to reembrace the failed policies of George W. Bush. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 09:15 PM

Had Obama not responded and let GM and Chrysler go down the Repubs would be blamin' him fir that... There is no shortage of sour grapes on the crybaby Repubs side... Face it, Obama did the correct thing with the auto bailouts and the American taxpayers will actually make a profit when all is done and Obama will have saved another million or so jobs but...

...when you don't have the microphone it's hard to get the facts out above the roar of the corporate bucks buyin' up as much media (microphones) as it can...

This evening on "60 Minutes" Steve Cross asked Obma why he appeared on so mnay TV shows and Obama said, in essence, "Because its the only way I can get my message across to the people"... That is reality... If yer a Repub president, no problem... Remember when Bush wanted to sell the Iraq invasion??? Front page articles in the so-called liberal Washington Post day after day after day...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 12:30 PM

"I have been to many summits," the European Commission president, José Manuel Barroso, said afterward, but Lisbon was more "intimate, informal" and "a real exchange about the priorities" instead of mere note-reading — and he gave credit to Mr. Obama.

In the end, then, the more common diplomatic dynamic was flipped: Instead of foreign leaders taking advantage of a weakened counterpart, they rallied to his aid — for their own interests as much as Mr. Obama's, given the economic and military stakes.

In particular, they gave Mr. Obama ammunition in his Senate battle for the New Start treaty. He collected a series of supportive statements from European leaders — from Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany to leaders of former Soviet bloc nations, who remain deeply suspicious of Russia and wary of Mr. Obama's "reset" policy for warmer relations with Russia.

At a news conference after the NATO session, Mr. Obama said, "Unprompted, I have received overwhelming support from our allies here that Start — the New Start treaty — is a critical component to U.S. and European security."

The endorsers, he added, include "those who live right next to Russia, who used to live behind the Iron Curtain, who have the most cause for concern with respect to Russian intentions and who have uniformly said that they will feel safer and more secure if this treaty gets ratified."

Like the Eastern Europeans, NATO leaders more broadly agreed, in effect, that the Mr. Obama's "reset" relationship with Russia had enabled a parallel reset of their own ties with the former Communist bloc leader. The NATO-Russia Council meeting was the first since Russia went to war with Georgia to its south in 2008.

Mr. Obama also made progress drawing Russia into cooperating with, rather than opposing, a new missile defense network in Europe aimed at countering any future threat from Iran. The White House hopes that Russian cooperation could undercut the argument of conservative critics of New Start that the treaty would crimp missile defense plans.

...NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 06:06 PM

Doesn't much matter, Amos...

Obama could find a cure for cancer and the Repubs would accuse him of trying to put doctors out of business...

There is no pleasing them so...

...screw 'um...

Just wish that Obama would call Bill Clinton about 5 times a week... Slick Willie always had a way of out maneuvering the Repub when it came to PR...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 08:37 PM

ABC News reports that the Congressional Budget Office this week released its latest report on the effects of the Recovery Act and found that it Òraised the GDP, lowered unemployment, and increased the number of people with jobs.Ó According to the report, CBO estimates that the Recovery ActÕs policies in the third quarter of the calendar year 2010 had the following effects (emphasis added):

       * They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent,
       * Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.8 percentage points and 2.0 percentage points,
       * Increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.6 million, and,
       * Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 2.0 million to 5.2 million compared with what would have occurred otherwise (see Table 1). (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 12:18 AM

Uh........what?

Huh?????

Could you all repeat what you just said in the past 50 or so posts?

I need to hear it all again, okay?

Just type it out a little more slow-w-w-w-ly.....that way it will be much easier for me to read and I will get full comprehension of all the really important points and counterpoints.

I will grade you all at the end, and decide who has won! ;-D

(The winner gets an all-expense-paid weekend with Jean Chretien and his lovely wife Aline in scenic Shawinigan, Quebec.)

Jean and Aline Chretien

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 12:47 AM

Don't scoff! Most Canadians would kill for such an opportunity. ;-D

"Dat Aline, she can really cook up one great meal, by Gar! And dat petit Jean, mon dieu!...'e is a real card! Dat little guy from Shawinigan is da life of da party!"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 10:43 AM

Purdy simple, LH...

While the righties and the further-righties (i.e. Tea Party) scurry about trying to paint Obama as a socialist and Keynesian economics as bogus, it is also having to do quite a bit of revising of reality to fir their biases and prejudices...

The one I love is, "The stimulus hasn't created any jobs"??? I mean, even Chongz understands that if if you put $700B into the economy, over half into "shovel ready" projects that it must be difficult for anyone with an IQ greater than that of an animal cracker so say that and keep a straight face...

Bottom line: Yeah, the rightie/corporatist media is busy trying to revise history, replace reasonable economic theory with flat-earth mythology and paint anyone who does not agree with them as an Obama socialist it is fine that Amos continues calling them on their ballgames...

There, that purdy much sums up the last 50 posts, or 1000 posts, fir that matter...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 12:37 PM

They're just playing politics as usual, Bobert. ;-D The basic job of the Republican Party, after all, is to:

1. Constantly attack and undercut the Democrats.

2. Keep the old divide-and-conquer game going full steam so you'll all keep fighting with each other and troop dutifully out to the polls next time instead of taking to the streets and overthrowing the entire damn $ySStem by a popular revolution.

And the basic job of the Democratic Party is to:

1. Constantly attack and undercut the Republicans.

2. Keep the old divide-and-conquer game going full steam so you'll all keep fighting with each other and troop dutifully out to the polls next time instead of taking to the streets and overthrowing the entire damn $ySStem by a popular revolution.

To do this effectively...they must be different from one another. And they are. ;-D But not in a way that does you much good. They're different like two football teams. They've got different names, different logos (elephant, donkey), different uniforms (red, blue), different management, and a different style of play. But they play the same football game on the same field. They both desperately want to win that game, because winning delivers money and prizes to the winners. So they play the game damn hard.

But the game is not being played on behalf of the general public. The public is just there to buy all the tickets and fill the stadium and pay taxes. The game is played so the League can get rich! And you know who the League is?

Yeah, I think you know. The League is the same bunch of guys you often refer to as Boss Hog. ;-D They are the guys who fund those two political football teams, own the media, build the stadium, and sell you the tickets for the big playoff game.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Dec 10 - 11:43 AM

I like this Speech Obama Should Give by Eliot Spitzer.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Dec 10 - 05:06 PM

Citigroup Said to Discuss Hiring Former White House Budget Director Orszag

By Bradley Keoun - Dec 1, 2010 1:47 PM ET

Citigroup Inc., recovering from its $45 billion bailout in 2008, is in advanced talks to hire former White House Budget Director Peter Orszag, people with knowledge of the matter said.

Orszag, 41, may take a job in the New York-based firm's investment-banking division, the people said, declining to be identified because the discussions are private. An announcement may come as early as today, one of the people said.

Orszag, an economist trained at Princeton University and the London School of Economics, helped shape U.S. economic stimulus during the financial crisis and overhaul the health- care system. The youngest member of President Barack Obama's cabinet, he spent 18 months as White House budget director, stepping down in July.

He has since become a distinguished visiting fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a contributing columnist for the New York Times, writing about health care, budget policy and Social Security. His successor as budget director, Jacob Lew, worked at Citigroup from 2006 to 2009.

"I am in the process of figuring out my future," Orszag said in an interview today at a conference in New York. "When there is an announcement to be made, we will make it."

Citigroup spokeswoman Danielle Romero-Apsilos said she couldn't comment.

Before joining the White House as director of the Office of Management and Budget, Orszag was director of the Congressional Budget Office and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Ties to Rubin

He previously served as economic adviser to President Bill Clinton and was a staff member of Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers.

Orszag's tenure at the Clinton White House overlapped with Citigroup's former executive-committee chairman, Robert Rubin, who served as Treasury secretary from 1995 to 1999. In 2006, when Rubin, 72, helped to found an economic research group at the Brookings Institution called the Hamilton Project, Orszag was named its first director. Obama, then a senator from Illinois, spoke at the project's unveiling.

Rubin, who in late 2007 helped oversee the search that led to the appointment of Vikram Pandit as chief executive officer, retired from Citigroup last year.

Citigroup repaid $20 billion of its bailout money last year and the rest was converted into stock. The Treasury Department still owns 11 percent of the bank's shares.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 12:34 AM

Obama does something right. Again.

Obama has proposed a freeze on wages of federal workers for 2 years.

I believe this is a good move and shows executive leadership.

I try to agree with people whenever I can to show that nobody is wrong all the time and nobody is right all the time.

I judge the good or bad of what someone does by the action itself rather than theperson that acted.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 02:22 PM

Federal Reserve Withholds Collateral Data, Denying Taxpayers Gauge of Risk

By Caroline Salas and Matthew Leising - Dec 2, 2010 12:00 AM ET

The Federal Reserve withheld details on individual securities pledged as collateral by recipients of $885 billion in central bank loans, denying taxpayers a measure of the risks they faced from its emergency aid.

The central bank yesterday released data on 21,000 transactions from $3.3 trillion in emergency lending to stem the financial crisis. July's Dodd-Frank law required the Fed to disclose the names of borrowers, the size and interest rates of loans, and "information identifying the types and amounts of collateral pledged or assets transferred."

For three of the Fed's six emergency facilities, the central bank released information on groups of collateral it accepted by asset type and rating, without specifying individual securities. Among them was the Primary Dealer Credit Facility, created in March 2008 to provide loans to brokers as Bear Stearns Cos. collapsed.

"This is a half-step," said former Atlanta Fed research director Robert Eisenbeis, chief monetary economist at Cumberland Advisors Inc. in Sarasota, Florida. "If you were going to audit the facilities, then would this enable you to do an audit? The answer is 'No,' you would have to go in and look at the individual amounts of collateral and how it was broken down to do that. And that is the spirit of what the requirements were in Dodd-Frank."

Fed spokeswoman Susan Stawick in Washington declined to comment.

Public Disclosure

The public disclosure of the lending data should have been prevented because it could spur runs on the banks listed, said Darrell Duffie, a finance professor at Stanford University.

"That's a very destructive process," he said. Still, with the data released, "if you're justified in getting the information, then you're justified to get enough information to judge the risk the Fed took," he said.

Under its definition of the "ratings unavailable" category for collateral posted under the PDCF, the Fed said that "in some limited cases, ineligible collateral was pledged, but it was reviewed with the clearing banks for exclusion from future pledges." The central bank didn't elaborate.

The secrecy surrounding Fed bailouts led lawmakers to demand disclosure after the central bank approved aid dwarfing the federal government's $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Collateral Pledged

The loans extended to primary dealers under the PDCF by the New York Fed were recourse loans, meaning the potential liability of borrowers who defaulted was greater than the value of the collateral pledged, according to the Fed. Primary dealers are the firms authorized to deal in government securities directly with the Fed. At its peak, borrowing under the facility came to about $156 billion.

It is "specifically impossible" to know how much risk taxpayers were taking by looking at pools of collateral grouped by asset class and rating, said Sylvain Raynes, a principal at R&R Consulting in New York and co-author of "Elements of Structured Finance," published in May by Oxford University Press.

"I need to know the individual composition because a $2 billion pool can be one asset of $2 billion, which would be very risky, or 2,000 assets of $1 million each, and that's not risky at all," Raynes said. "The spirit of Dodd-Frank was not respected, and they used the vagueness in the wording of the law to weasel out of fulfilling their duty to the American people."

Corporate Debt

Over the life of the PDCF, $1.5 trillion of collateral with "ratings unavailable" was pledged, according to the Fed data. That's larger than the $1.39 trillion of municipal debt pledged. Corporate debt posted totaled $2.35 trillion.

A total of $8.95 trillion was lent over the life of the PDCF, backed by $9.67 trillion in collateral.

The Fed released details identifying thousands of transactions including bonds bought under its mortgage purchase program and asset-backed commercial paper pledged under its Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money-Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility.

The central bank also omitted details on individual securities pledged as collateral under its Term Auction Facility and its Term Securities Lending Facility, which was announced on March 11, 2008, as the first program under which the Fed planned to lend to non-bank dealers.

The Fed authorized its New York branch to establish the PDCF on March 16, 2008, the same day it made commitments to convince JPMorgan Chase & Co. to buy troubled dealer Bear Stearns. A run on New York-based Bear Stearns was seen as threatening the stability of global markets, and the PDCF for the first time allowed dealers to borrow on a collateralized basis from the New York Fed.

Lehman Collapse

In September that year, as Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. was on the brink of filing for bankruptcy, the PDCF was expanded to accept all types of collateral pledged in tri-party repo deals, including high-yield, high-risk securities and equities. The previous program only accepted investment-grade debt securities.

The first peak of PDCF lending occurred in April 2008 at nearly $40 billion, according to the New York Fed. As financial markets improved, banks reduced their balance-sheet risk and the PDCF pricing became less attractive, usage of the facility fell off and stopped in mid-July that year.

Borrowing then leapt to over $140 billion in mid-September 2008 from no activity the previous week, according to the New York Fed. The program ended Feb. 1 this year.

Under the TSLF, dealers could swap investment-grade securities, including mortgage bonds, for U.S. Treasuries for 28 days. Usage peaked at $235.5 billion in October 2008, and the program was also closed in February.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Dec 10 - 03:51 PM

CNN Reporter Put On Watch List After Criticizing TSA
      

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, December 3, 2010

In light of new reports alleging that the TSA is creating a watch list of individuals who criticized the agency as a form of collective punishment, it's revealing to note that CNN journalist Drew Griffin was also put on a TSA watch list immediately after he filed reports critical of the organization back in 2008.

As we highlighted earlier this week, a reported TSA memo was circulated at the height of last month's opt out controversy which "officially addresses those who are opposed to, or engaged in the disruption of the implementation of the enhanced airport screening procedures as 'domestic extremists'."

In response to the story, former Congressman Bob Barr filed a Freedom of Information Act request which demanded to know if the TSA had categorized those leading the charge against invasive security measures, namely Matt Drudge, Alex Jones, and John Tyner, via the websites drudgereport.com and prisonplanet.com, as "domestic extremists".

There can be no doubt whatsoever that Homeland Security has engaged in political witch hunts against Americans critical of big government. Earlier this year, Big Sis was caught spying on Tea Party groups as well as State Representative Daryl Metcalfe.

The TSA itself has also listed journalists critical of its policies as potential terrorists, ostensibly as a punishment and a warning to other reporters that if they broadcast anything negative about the agency then they will be bracketed together with Al-Qaeda members and be forced to endure copious amounts of hassle and harassment every time they wish to fly.

Shortly after he began a series of investigative reports that were critical of the TSA in May 2008, CNN journalist Drew Griffin was placed on a watch list that at the time had swelled to over a million names. TSA claimed that he was unfortunate enough to share the name with another Drew Griffin who had been legitimately placed on the list, but then denied that he was on the list altogether and blamed the airlines. The airlines responded by saying they were merely following a list provided to them by the TSA.

"Coincidentally, this all began in May, shortly after I began a series of investigative reports critical of the TSA," said Griffin. "Eleven flights now since May 19. On different airlines, my name pops up forcing me to go to the counter, show my identification, sometimes the agent has to make a call before I get my ticket," Griffin reported. "What does the TSA say? Nothing, at least nothing on camera. Over the phone a public affairs worker told me again I'm not on the watch list, and don't even think that someone in the TSA or anyone else is trying to get even."

Given the fact that the TSA has made a habit out of deceiving the American people and spinning the truth about airport security, the notion that Griffin was deliberately targeted by the TSA as a punishment for his critical reports about the agency is almost a given.

The fact that the TSA curtailed its so-called 'imperative' security measures for several days around Thanksgiving as a political ploy to deflate the opt out day protest shows that the agency will go to any lengths to deflect criticism.

The TSA has now announced that it will check the name of every traveler against a government watch list 72 hours before they fly, greasing the skids for "domestic extremists" who exercise their first amendment right to speak out against the TSA to be harassed and hindered.

Former Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff was later confronted on the Griffin case by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. Chertoff parroted the TSA line in claiming that Griffin merely had the same name as another suspected terrorist.

The outcome of Bob Barr's FOIA request is eagerly awaited as it will give an insight into how the TSA responded internally to the national outrage surrounding body scanners and pat downs, while also giving an indication as to whether people like Matt Drudge and Alex Jones were placed on a watch list for having the temerity to stand up to children being sexually molested by low-paid thugs in uniforms.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Dec 10 - 04:03 PM

Gee, Bruce, maybe hiring a bunch of thugs to man the TSA was a pisspoor idea.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 11:36 PM

Clean Energy Patents Have Skyrocketed with Obama's Brains Upgrade

   

By Cleantechnica at Cleantechnica

Tue Dec 7, 2010 11:49am EST

by Susan Kraemer

"When the Obama administration Nobel prizewinner Steven Chu took over from Bush/Cheney oil man Bodman at the Department of Energy, he prioritized clean energy innovation. By December last year, to speed the development of clean energy solutions to prevent climate change, he had overhauled the patent review process, hiring experts so he could put clean energy patents on a fast track.

Inventors had long suffered a shortage of the skilled reviewers that had the technical expertize to evaluate the science. Patent decisions were taking 40 months. But the new and improved DOE added enough scientific experts to review more ideas faster. Among patents already in the queue, the next 3,000 patent petitions and about 25,000 more that had been gummed up in the works were eligible for the new sped-up review program.

Looks like that investment in patent-reviewing brains is paying off. An upward trend is clear by the beginning of 2010, according to the data from the Clean Energy Patent Growth Index.

And this quarter, a record number of clean energy patents have been granted."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Dec 10 - 10:47 AM

Wednesday was not a good day for Senator Mitch McConnell's single-minded project to make Barack Obama a one-term president. Over the minority leader's objections, 13 Republicans joined every Democratic senator to ratify the New Start nuclear arms treaty with Russia, reducing the size of the countries' nuclear stockpiles and making the world a safer place. The 71-to-26 vote was the capstone to what now shapes up to be a remarkably successful legislative agenda for President Obama's first two years.

Earlier in the day, the president signed a bill allowing the repeal of the military's ban on open service by gay, lesbian and bisexual soldiers — a bill passed with the assistance of 23 Congressional Republicans, again over the objections of Mr. McConnell.

And the Senate unanimously approved a bill to pay for the medical care of workers who cleaned up ground zero after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, coming to its senses after Mr. McConnell and other Republicans blocked the bill 13 days earlier, causing a national uproar.

(Unfortunately, the bill was scaled back substantially by the demands of a few holdout senators who thought it was too generous, though it added nothing to the deficit. The bill was later approved by the House.)

These deeply gratifying developments hardly spell the end of partisanship, which is likely to return with a vengeance in the next Congress. But they do suggest that many Republicans are willing to reject Mr. McConnell's particularly noxious version, under which any bill, no matter how beneficial for the country, can be blown up if it could be seen as a victory for President Obama. On Tuesday, to pick one shabby example, he made a thoroughly underhanded attempt to sabotage the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" when he thought no one was looking.

In a more rational world, of course, the ratification of New Start could have been done by unanimous consent. Though the treaty is vital, it makes relatively modest reductions in the nuclear stockpile and continues the inspection regime employed by Democratic and Republican presidents going back to Ronald Reagan. If the same document had been signed by a Republican president, it would have been approved months ago.

In the obstructionist climate of the 111th Congress, the ratification could be done only in the last hours. Mr. McConnell and his allies, notably Jon Kyl of Arizona, put up a series of specious arguments to delay it, mostly centering around a fiction: that the treaty would prevent the United States from erecting a missile defense system. Their efforts backfired, making Mr. Obama's victory ring more loudly that it should have.

Thirteen Republicans wouldn't buy that nonsense, and others saw the wisdom in letting all Americans serve their country honestly and openly. Those defeats and others infuriated the party's dead-enders. "Harry Reid has eaten our lunch," complained Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who voted against both measures, referring to the majority leader.

There were disappointments in the lame-duck session, and Mr. Obama said at a news conference that the biggest was probably the Republicans' killing of the Dream Act, which would have given the children of illegal immigrants a chance at being legal if they serve in the military or attend college. The failure of the Senate to pass a spending bill for the current fiscal year means that the budget fights in the next term will be deeper and longer, and potentially more destructive to the economy.

Mr. McConnell won those fights. But to be repudiated on the treaty and on "don't ask" by so many members of his own caucus clearly stung, and turned him into a very sore loser. On Tuesday, Mr. McConnell tried to sneak an amendment into the defense authorization bill that would require the approval of each military service chief before "don't ask, don't tell" could be repealed. Given the continuing reservations of the Marine Corps, that could have stalled progress indefinitely. But Joseph Lieberman objected to the amendment, and it was defused.

Next term, there will be many more Republicans in Congress spoiling for a fight, and the White House will have to be far more pugnacious and adept to preserve its priorities and avoid trickery and extortion. But this week's examples of Democrats and Republicans coming together for a common purpose will not soon be forgotten. As the president said on Wednesday, if that continues, "we are not doomed to endless gridlock."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Dec 10 - 08:05 PM

Yeah, I believe that Mitch has just had a little reality move into a few of those vacant apartments in his head... But not to fear... There's still plenty of room for more new comers...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 09:22 AM

WASHINGTON — For the third straight year, President Barack Obama ranks as the man most admired by people living in the U.S., according to an annual USA Today-Gallup poll.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is the most-admired woman for the ninth year in a row, edging out former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and TV host Oprah Winfrey, as she did last year.

The poll, released Monday, asked respondents what man and woman, living anywhere in the world, they most admired. Rankings from one to 10 were based on total mentions and reported in percentages.

Obama has been the poll's most-admired man since his election in 2008. With 22 percent choosing him, Obama leads his predecessors, George W. Bush, with 5 percent, and Bill Clinton, with 4 percent.

However, Obama's percentage has fallen over the years. In 2008 he led the list with 32 percent and in 2009 with 30 percent.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 11:49 AM

That poll has obviously been faked! Everyone knows that William Shatner is the man most admired by people living in the U.S., not to mention just about everywhere else. ;-) Shatner's numbers have hovered over 60% every since 1968, for gosh sakes!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 03:50 PM

Shatner didn't even MAKE the list, Mister Bubblewrap...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 03:59 PM

Go back and reread the poll, LH... The 60% is Shatner's chances of having a heart attack from havin' to haul so much blubber around...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 04:03 PM

LOL!!! Oh, the lack of respect around here. It's shocking.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 04:05 PM

Yes, it is... I mean, one day I might have to quit this joint... 'Er not???

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 04:10 PM

I've thought of walking out several times because of people dissing William Shatner. There are some things, after all, that fall under the category of "sacred". Things like Winona Ryder, Shatner, and Dachshunds, for example...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 04:51 PM

Well, I might walk out if they dissed Winona...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 10:39 AM

Obama Created More Jobs in One Year Than Bush Created in Eight

Friday 07 January 2011

by: Alex Seitz-Wald | T

Obama Created More Jobs in One Year Than Bush Created in Eight
(Photo: Siemar / Flickr)

Yesterday morning, the Labor Department released its employment data for December, showing that the U.S. economy ended the year by adding 113,000 private sector jobs, knocking the unemployment rate down sharply from 9.8 percent to 9.4 percent Ñ its lowest rate since July 2009. The Òsurprising drop Ñ which was far better than the modest step-down economists had forecast Ñ was the steepest one-month fall since 1998.Ó October and NovemberÕs jobs numbers were also revised upward by almost 80,000 each. Still, 14.5 million Americans remain unemployed, and jobs will have to be created much faster in coming months for the country to pull itself out of the economic doldrums.

Responding the jobs report, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) noted that President Obama and the Democratic Congress have created Òmore jobs in 2010 than President Bush did over eight years.Ó

Indeed, from February 2001, BushÕs first full month in office, through January 2009, his last, the economy added just 1 million jobs. By contrast, in 2010 alone, the economy added at least 1.1 million jobs. This chart, produced by PelosiÕs office, demonstrates the difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration on jobs:

As the Wall Street Journal noted in the last month of BushÕs term, the former president had the Òworst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records.Ó And job creation under Bush was anemic long before the recession began. BushÕs supply-side economics Òfostered the weakest jobs and income growth in more than six decades,Ó along with Òsluggish business investment and weak gross domestic product growth,Ó the Center for American ProgressÕ Joshua Picker explained. ÒOn every major measurementÓ of income and employment, Òthe country lost ground during BushÕs two terms,Ó the National JournalÕs Ron Brownstein observed, parsing Census data.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 07:19 PM

Steven Thomma, McClatchy Newspapers: "President Barack Obama has bounced back from his low point after November's elections and enjoys stronger support heading into the 2012 election cycle, particularly against Sarah Palin, according to a McClatchy-Marist poll released Thursday. Obama's fortunes appear to be rising along with the country's. The poll found a jump in the number of people who think the country's heading in the right direction. Also, the president probably benefited from the productive post-election session of Congress."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 May 11 - 03:31 PM

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 11 - 04:01 PM

True, pdq. The greatest problem is massive debt. But that's far less a question of Mr Obama (and his supposed management or mismanagement of the situation) than it is a question of the entire prevailing system of finances and governance as it presently exists. Obama is just a temporary "happy face" PR sticker that has been briefly stuck on the front of a very large, hungry, dangerous, and ugly beast. Remove Obama, and the large ugly beast will still be standing there. And then they'll find another temporary face to stick on it...meaning the next president.

Keep people and commentators obsessed with these stick-on faces, though, and they hopefully won't notice the ravening beast that stands behind them. That's how it works.

A leader simply cannot practice real leadership when he is in fact just a puppet.

(And no, I'm not planning to argue with any of you about it now. I just felt like saying something myself briefly, that's all, because like the rest of you, I like to express myself now and then. Arguing about it with others here on this forum would be completely futile and would change nothing...it would merely cause shared stress and ill will. I wanted to express a thought. I did. It doesn't matter if it doesn't dovetail with your thoughts. Don't worry about it.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 11 - 04:02 PM

correction: I was responding to Sawzaw's last post, not pdq.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 May 11 - 04:23 PM

Maybe it's a sign that we can't afford to start wars in multiple countries at once, Sawz, or to shelter highlevel corruption when it undermines our economy.

I think your laddy Bush had more to do with that lot of errors than Obama, although he has not done anything dramatic to reverse them. Instead he has proceeded on a series of deliberate, considered improvements which will never suit those who are infatuated with hate or melodrama. Nevertheless, in the long run I suspect his steadfy hand will prevail. Despite your bitterness.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 May 11 - 05:58 PM

Or maybe we can't keep giving billionaires and mega-corporations idiotic tax breaks & loopholes a la Reagan & the BuShites and then be surprised when the books don't balance.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 May 11 - 08:41 AM

How am I bitter?

That was a quote from candidate Obama. And he was right.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 May 11 - 04:17 AM

Right on Sawzaw!!

I guess, as mp said, so well, "..having a hard time living up to my double-standard"..
Here, I'm going to borrow this from one of my last threads, but some people NEED to know what is behind the costumes:.......


"From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 May 11 - 10:56 PM

Two headlines on the same paper today: "FEMA faces shortfall on funds for tornado victims"

"Obama administration approves $34 million bonus for six Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae execs."

Go figure!!!

Don't you just LOVE making excuses for such foul behavior!!??!!

GfS

P.S. "Change you can believe in."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 28 May 11 - 09:23 AM

Here's the deal...

The right wants to make the story all about Obama and the debt but reality is that Obama inherited 90% of it... And we never heard all these righties crying their poor little hearts out while George Bush was running it up like a drunken sailor...

That's called hypocrisy, folks!!!

Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 28 May 11 - 09:50 AM

It should also be pointed out that the last president to cut the annual budget deficit was Obama...

The last Bush annual budget deficit was for the '09 budget which had been passed and signed came in with a $1.4T annual budget deficit and...

...I know, horrors... Obama's '10 annual budget deficit was $100B less at $1.3T...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 May 11 - 06:01 PM

So, your 'adopted' idea is justifying one big fuck up with another???..even if its worse???
THEY BOTH SUCK SQUARE EGGS!!!
Wrong is wrong, if nobody's right, right is right, if nobody's right, wrong is wrong, even if everybody's wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How about correcting the mistakes, instead of making just as stupid of ones, and justifying it, with the same stupid logic you just posted?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 28 May 11 - 07:32 PM

Exactly what mistakes are you talking about, GfinS??? The massive tax cuts that Bush pushed down our throats which in one year wiped out the surpluses he inherited??? Yeah, I'm all for that...

Or how about the $100B a year we spend on obsolete military hardware because defense contractors are lining the pockets of mostly Repub Congressmen from the South...

Or how about the $30B a year we give millionaire farmers for absolutely nothing???

Or how about the $10B we give poor Big Oil every year for absolutely nothing???

The list goes on and on and most of this money is going to red states... 90% of farm subsidies got to red states...

The largest chunk of our tax $$$ goes to Texas where there are 17 (count 'um) military bases... That's $100B right there...

No, what we have is a very corrupt system that favors red states... Red states get back an average of $1.30 for every $1.00 they pay in federal income taxes... Blue states about 80 cents on the dollar...

You say that both parties are the same... No, they aren't... One is getting heavily subsidized by the other... This is 100% corruption that favors the Repubs in a BIG way!!!

Reality 101...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 May 11 - 07:45 PM

I think "everybody's wrong" is the GfSan's theme melody, there, Bobez. You can't kill the theme music without seriously dinging the soap opera, ya know...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 03:18 AM

Bobert's Reality 101: "reality is that Obama inherited 90% of it"

If $4 trillion is 10% of the national deficit then it would have been $12.6T when he came into office.

Hmmmmm Georgie poo ran it up $4T in eight years and Obama ran it up by $4T in 2 years.

"the surpluses he [GWB] inherited"

The vaunted CBO "surplus" report never mentions the national deficit or national debt or off budget spending, it only shows the debt held by the public and on budget spending.

There never was a surplus. The national debt increased every year as per facts, not stats, on Obama appointed Mr Geithner's website:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

The slowest increase in the national deficit was in 2000. Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed
$152.3B from Social Security [remember when I asked folks if they knew where the money in their SS account is?]
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others

Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit. The deficit went up that year just like it has every year since 1952.

If there is ever a true surplus, then the national debt will go down which hasn't happened since 1952.

A big factor in the slowing of the increase in the deficit under Clinton was the huge increase in tax revenues from capitol gains taxes on the Dot Com bubble. Then it burst in Clinton's last year.

So just keep on beating your head against that wall and after a while if won't hurt any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Jun 11 - 02:44 AM

In January, President Obama named General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt to head the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, an economic advisory board focused on job creation.

That same month, in his State of the Union address, he called for the closure of corporate tax loopholes in conjunction with a lowering of the corporate tax rate, which stands at 35 percent.

"Over the years, a parade of lobbyists has rigged the tax code to benefit particular companies and industries" he said. "Those with accountants or lawyers to work the system [G.E.'s giant tax department, led by a bow-tied former Treasury official named John Samuels, is often referred to as the world's best tax law firm.] can end up paying no taxes at all. But all the rest are hit with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. It makes no sense. It has to change."

Mr. Obama's choice of Immelt came under scrutiny Friday in the wake of a front-page story in the New York Times reporting that despite $14.2 billion in worldwide profits - including more than $5 billion from U.S. operations - GE did not owe taxes in 2010.

G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

---

While Ohio is traditionally thought of once being a center of auto manufacturing, there was such a strong tradition of light-bulb production in the state that the world's largest maker of light bulbs, General Electric, located the headquarters of its light bulb division in Cleveland. The jobs provided by light-bulb manufacturing allowed people to buy homes, send their kids to college, and fuel a vibrant economy in Ohio for decades.

But in the last decade, GE has closed over fifteen factories in Ohio and downsized numerous others. Since 1980, employment in GE Lighting has dropped by 68 percent.

A large chunk of that manufacturing has gone to China, and now GE plans to send even more to China in the wake of new clean energy policies. By 2014, Americans will only be able to purchase more energy efficient CFL light bulbs. However, GE has located all of its facilities for high-efficiency light bulbs to China and has told the union representing the workers that they have no intention to locate compact flourescent facilities in the United States.

GE is currently threatening to close one factory in Niles, Ohio that produces light bulbs. The workers, members of United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America (UE) at one are calling on GE to look for a way to refit their plant so that they can be part of the new clean energy economy. Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown and Rep. Tim Ryan wrote a letter to GE's CEO Jeffery Immelt expressing "deep concern" for the workers at the plant:


    "The workers and tradition of the Niles facility present an enormous opportunity to show how we can transition manufacturers from contracting industries, like incandescent bulbs, to emerging industries in energy and medical IT."

So far, GE has shown every intention to take the American tax dollars being used to subsidize the green-energy economy and use them to build Chinese factories and pay Chinese workers. As I wrote earlier this week, in spite of GE CEO Jeffery Immelt's statement that companies need to stop outsourcing, GE continues to lead the effort to outsource clean-energy jobs. Most recently, GE has cut off a contract with a windmill factory in Indiana and shipped the work to China despite the factory offering to sell their parts at the same price as their Chinese competitors.

To add insult to injury to workers losing their jobs from foreign outsourcing, GE has even launched a television ad campaign promoting American manufacturing. "GE has the ability to locate its new manufacturing for CFL's, LED's, as well as the new incandescent lighting technologies in Ohio and elsewhere in the U.S. So far they have not done this, and we see no sign that they are even considering doing this. GE Lighting workers in the U.S. see little to cheer in GE's pronouncements and feel good advertising because for several decades now every plant has been on an extended deathwatch," said Chris Townsend of the United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers Union.

It's time that CEO's like Jeffery Immelt live up to their word and help rebuild the American economy by keeping American manufacturing jobs in America. It's also time that we adopt a comprehensive policy that promotes American manufacturing and prevents companies like GE from using taxpayer funds intended to stimulate the American economy to undermine our economy instead.

While Obama says he wants to encourage the creation of family-supporting jobs and to grow the middle class, Immelt is all about enriching himself and growing the gap between rich and poor.

Immelt enjoyed a doubling of his personal compensation. [$30.9 million in total compensation over the last three years, while GE shareholders suffered a catastrophic 46% loss as the company's shares crumbled from $35 to $19] Yet, he was not interested in spreading the prosperity. In fact, GE is expected to ask 15,000 of the company's unionized workers to agree to sweeping cuts in pay and benefits.

A review of company filings and Congressional records shows that one of the most striking advantages of General Electric is its ability to lobby for, win and take advantage of tax breaks.

Over the last decade, G.E. has spent tens of millions of dollars to push for changes in tax law, from more generous depreciation schedules on jet engines to green energy credits for its wind turbines. But the most lucrative of these measures allows G.E. to operate a vast leasing and lending business abroad with profits that face little foreign taxes and no American taxes as long as the money remains overseas.

The assortment of tax breaks G.E. has lobbied for and won in Washington has provided a significant short-term gain for the company's executives and shareholders. While the financial crisis led G.E. to post a loss in the United States in 2009, regulatory filings show that in the last five years, G.E. has accumulated $26 billion in American profits, and received a net tax benefit from the I.R.S. of $4.1 billion.

He directed GE to invest heavily in its MSNBC 24 hour television news unit. Lead commentator, Keith Olbermann received a hefty raise from $4 million to $7.5 million a year. Chris Matthews also stepped up to a $5 million annual contract.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 04:51 PM

In the wake of last week's disastrous jobs report, allies of the Obama administration are expressing extreme frustration at what they see as the White House's inaction on the issue. But there's little evidence that Team Obama is listening.

The economy added just 54,000 jobs in May, and long-term joblessness is at a record high. Federal Reserve chair Ben Bernanke admitted this week that the recovery has been "frustratingly slow."

That bleak news has prompted harsh criticism of the White House from many of the administration's friends, who view the focus on deficit reduction rather than job creation as badly misplaced, and who want more government stimulus to jolt the economy.

"There is no political will to do anything about the [jobs] situation," New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote today. "Far from being ready to spend more on job creation, both parties agree that it's time to slash spending--destroying jobs in the process--with the only difference being one of degree."

Christina Romer, who stepped down last year as President Obama's top economics adviser, told The Lookout earlier this week that "the U.S. economy needs help," and called for more stimulus spending and business tax cuts to encourage hiring.

Even some Democrats on Capitol Hill are losing patience. "I'm not sure what's gained by giving any oxygen to the incorrect idea that fiscal austerity"--that is, spending cuts--"right now would be expansionary," a senior Democrat told The New Republic magazine.

And a post on the website of the Campaign for America's Future, a leading progressive activist group, is entitled: "If the president won't do something about jobs, who will?" It argues that on the issue, "it seems as if the White House is from Mars and the middle class is from Venus."

Most economists agree that, at least in the short term, spending cuts will cause the economy to further contract, while additional spending could offer a much-needed boost, by creating the demand that's currently lacking. But the pleas from administration allies nonetheless appear to be falling on deaf ears. The signs suggest that the White House views tackling the deficit as the priority, and is therefore reluctant to back further spending measures.

An effort by Senate Democrats to spur job creation through infrastructure spending--an idea President Obama has publicly backed--hasn't gained support from the White House. Instead, the White House criticized the bill for spending too much.

A Washington Post profile of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner from earlier this week reported that he has used his growing influence in the administration to "to press President Obama to curb the nation's soaring debt even at the expense of spending that might more directly spur employment."

On Sunday, Austan Goolsbee, the chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, downplayed the importance of the May jobs report, and added: "Government is not the central driver of recovery."

Meanwhile, Republicans aren't offering much in the way of job-based economic proposals either. Most economists say that the kind of drastic spending cuts they're pushing would badly stifle growth--likely throwing millions more out of work--at a time when middle-class Americans can least afford it. Even Bernanke, a Republican himself, made that very point this week.

In other words, the chances that Washington will get serious about our jobs crisis any time soon appear increasingly slim. For now, it looks like the nearly 14 million Americans who are out work are on their own.

But President Obama found time to pose for a group photo with the national-championship-winning Auburn University football team, at the White House, June 8, 2011

I think the way to cut spending without hurting the economy is to evaluate how much of each dollar spent on each program actually goes into the average American's pocket and increase spending on those by whatever is cut from programs that are the least beneficial to the average American.

Where did the $500,000 that was spent on the shrimp treadmill go? Maybe fixing up a school or buying printed in the USA school books would have given us more bang for the buck.

One construction company that won multiple awards of money under President Obama's 2009 stimulus program was delinquent on its federal tax bill to the tune of $700,000, even as a company executive was blowing hundreds of thousands of dollars at casinos.

Yet another company failed to pay taxes, entered into a payment plan with the Internal Revenue Service, and then repeatedly defaulted on that agreement - and still won stimulus contracts worth more than $1 million, according to a Government Accountability Office report released Tuesday.

All told, government investigators found that during the period they examined, one out of every six stimulus contract or grant dollars went to a known tax cheat.

Hmmmmmmmmmm I thought the #2 man, Joe, said that wouldn't happen

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 01:50 AM

"Sawz: If you cannot see the difference between starting wars and trying to end them, I feel sorry for you, man.

A"

Ummm, I think bombing Libya, Yemen and Somalia is starting wars.

Do you still feel sorry now Amos? Do you think we should add Syria to the list?

Kill'em all and let God sort'em out. Not my words but from a 'Nam Veteran's Tee shirt

Bomb Bomb Bomb

Bomb Bomb Iran? Not my words but Grampa McCains.

To your credit though, you have quit flogging that "Clinton surplus" dogma even though others here who don't even believe it anymore still make believe it is true.

$17.9b National Deficit <> $238b surplus

But really seriously Amos, you are cool and not too proud to back off of a previous position when it gets untenable.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 09:29 PM

Thanks for keeping tabs on the present administration, Sawzaw. I think its performance thus far has been almost as bad as that of the previous Bush administration was...in fact, very similar in most respects! Little has changed.

I just want to add to what you said about the wars...

The USA started the war in Afghanistan too. The Afghan government and people did not attack the USA on 911 nor did they plan such an attack...and it was not an act of war. It was a privately orchestrated criminal terrorist act by a small group of criminal conspirators, not an act of war by one nation state upon another. It should have been responded to by international police action and covert intelligence activity, NOT by launching a fullscale military invasion of Afghanistan, thus an invasion of a nation which never attacked the USA in the first place.

The USA re-started the war in Iraq too in 2003, falsely claiming a worldwide danger from supposed Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" that in truth never existed.

There is no war the USA is involved in at present that the USA did not involve itself in by its own choice, and not one of the countries attacked posed any actual threat to the USA...other than a possible commercial threat to the overseas interests of some large American energy corporations.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 10:19 PM

No, LH, Bush and the republicans started both the Iraq war and the one in Afghanistan...

You may think that Sawz is keeping th3e record straight but you are wrong... He is a shill for the Republican Party, the rich, the crooks, the liars, the ones who are trying to take the USA back to the 1890s... That is a reality that your DNA is unable to accept... Too bad for you...

You have to remember "And then they came for me"...

Saws folks are the ones coming for you...;

Play "classless and free" and Sawz and his master will stick a knife so far in your back that you will be nailed to a tree in F'n Mexico...

Saws is coming for you... Who you gonna call???

You and GfInS need to recognize the enemy... You talk about the corporations wanting to stick it to you....Saws is Boss Hog hisself... He needs no encouragement from you 'cause he out to fuck you up!!!

Square business...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 12:20 AM

"Who you gonna call?"

Ghostbusters? ;-)

Chongo?

Bobert, I didn't say Obama started the Iraq War and the war in Afghanistan! I said the USA started those wars, and the USA was under George Bush at that time, as everyone knows. Read my post more carefully. ;-) I was simply adding further comment to Sawzaw's remarks he had made about some of the USA's other wars...not suggesting Obama had caused ALL of them. Sheesh.

My complaints with the Obama administration are only regarding stuff done since that administration has been in office, and I don't think they have turned out much better so far than Bush...although Obama is definitely a smarter and more likable personality than Bush. ;-)

The Patriot Act is still in effect.
Guantanamo is still operating (as are other such overseas prisons).
No USA war has been ended, but some new ones have been started.
The health care "reform" is a joke, in my opinion...not a funny one.
The banking criminals who caused the financial meltdown have been rewarded with bailouts.
The Federal Reserve Bank (privately owned) is still effectively above the law.
Your economy is in wretched shape.
Your unemployment figures are very high.

It isn't enough to just blame it all on the past George Bush administration. You are getting screwed by both parties, because neither one of them actually represents you (meaning, the average American citizen). There are a few individuals among both parties' congresspeople who are trying to represent the average American, but they are a tiny voice in the wilderness.

Why? Because they're not obedient corporate servants. I'm sorry I can't say the same of Mr Obama, despite his lovely personality, his keen mind, and his brilliant oratory. As far as I can see, he's a front man for "business as usual". You know who I think he works for? Wall Street, that's who.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Jul 11 - 06:22 PM

Even though the Democrats voted for them, Bobert claims "the republicans started both the Iraq war and the one in Afghanistan. "

Obama started the ones in Libya, Yemen and Somalia. 2 outa three ain't bad. Who voted for them?

How about Vietnam? How about Bosnia?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jul 11 - 06:33 PM

How about getting a brain?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Jul 11 - 07:02 PM

2 out of 3? and you mention 5 conflicts. Nice math there buddy. You work that out on your Tea Party calculator? The one that says, cut the deficit by cutting taxes for rich people who laugh all the way to the bank at your stupidity every time you carry their water?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Jul 11 - 05:27 PM

Ok, who started 5 of the last 7 wars?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Jul 11 - 05:57 PM

President Obama Job Approval

RCP poll Average        7/5 - 7/21 46.0 approve        48.8 disapprove

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Jul 11 - 09:50 PM

G.E.'s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether NYT March 24, 2011

In January, President Obama named Jeffrey R. Immelt, General Electric's chief executive, to head the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. "He understands what it takes for America to compete in the global economy", Mr. Obama said.

General Electric, the nation's largest corporation, had a very good year in 2010. The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.

Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

That may be hard to fathom for the millions of American business owners and households now preparing their own returns, but low taxes are nothing new for G.E. The company has been cutting the percentage of its American profits paid to the Internal Revenue Service for years, resulting in a far lower rate than at most multinational companies.

Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore. G.E.'s giant tax department, led by a bow-tied former Treasury official named John Samuels, is often referred to as the world's best tax law firm. Indeed, the company's slogan "Imagination at Work" fits this department well. The team includes former officials not just from the Treasury, but also from the I.R.S. and virtually all the tax-writing committees in Congress.

While General Electric is one of the most skilled at reducing its tax burden, many other companies have become better at this as well. Although the top corporate tax rate in the United States is 35 percent, one of the highest in the world, companies have been increasingly using a maze of shelters, tax credits and subsidies to pay far less.

In a regulatory filing just a week before the Japanese disaster put a spotlight on the company's nuclear reactor business, G.E. reported that its tax burden was 7.4 percent of its American profits, about a third of the average reported by other American multinationals. Even those figures are overstated, because they include taxes that will be paid only if the company brings its overseas profits back to the United States. With those profits still offshore, G.E. is effectively getting money back.

Such strategies, as well as changes in tax laws that encouraged some businesses and professionals to file as individuals, have pushed down the corporate share of the nation's tax receipts — from 30 percent of all federal revenue in the mid-1950s to 6.6 percent in 2009.

The assortment of tax breaks G.E. has won in Washington has provided a significant short-term gain for the company's executives and shareholders. While the financial crisis led G.E. to post a loss in the United States in 2009, regulatory filings show that in the last five years, G.E. has accumulated $26 billion in American profits, and received a net tax benefit from the I.R.S. of $4.1 billion.

But critics say the use of so many shelters amounts to corporate welfare, allowing G.E. not just to avoid taxes on profitable overseas lending but also to amass tax credits and write-offs that can be used to reduce taxes on billions of dollars of profit from domestic manufacturing. They say that the assertive tax avoidance of multinationals like G.E. not only shortchanges the Treasury, but also harms the economy by discouraging investment and hiring in the United States.

---

GE to invest $500 million in Brazil for accelerated growth General Electric Company announced November 10 that it plans to invest $500 million (USD) to expand its operations in Brazil and to accelerate technology partnerships with leading Brazilian companies spanning multiple industries. The announcement was made at a news conference in Rio de Janeiro, which was chosen as the home for GE's newest multi-disciplinary Research and Development Center.

The $100 million Brazil Global Research Center will be located on the Ilha do Bom Jesus peninsula and, when fully operational, will employ 200 researchers and engineers. Work at the center will focus on advanced technologies for the oil & gas, renewable energy, mining, rail and aviation industries.

---

GE Investing Millions in China GE and State Grid Corporation of China (SGCC)--China's top power distributor and one of the world's largest utilities--announced plans for several joint ventures to address China's growing energy needs and to electrify its vast transportation infrastructure. These joint ventures are part of GE's plans to invest US$2B in China through 2012, and are expected to play a role in supporting the country's energy demand through the development of a smarter power grid.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jul 11 - 10:04 PM

Did you hear something, Jack???

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 23 Jul 11 - 12:03 AM

"Make no mistake: We need to end an era in Washington where accountability has been absent, oversight has been overlooked, your tax dollars have been turned over to wealthy CEOs and the well-connected corporations," Obama said at an Oct. 1 campaign stop in Wisconsin. "You need leadership you can trust to work for you, not for the special interests who have had their thumb on the scale. And together, we will tell Washington, and their lobbyists, that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign. You have. They will not run my White House. You'll help me run my White House."

"I believe I can bring about that kind of change - because I'm the only candidate in this race who's actually worked to take power away from lobbyists by passing historic ethics reforms in Illinois and in the U.S. Senate. And I'm the only candidate who isn't taking a dime from Washington lobbyists. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my administration, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I'm President of the United States." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks To The Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, Philadelphia, PA, 4/2/08)

Obama's lobbyist rule: Promise Broken Politifact.com

As a senator and a candidate, Obama was sharply critical of lobbyists and promised tougher ethics rules to deal with them.

Of the 513 promises we're tracking, this one has become the most controversial. It is the cornerstone of President Obama's campaign theme about limiting the influence of special interests.

During the campaign, Obama said many times that lobbyists would not run his White House, and the campaign delighted in tweaking rival John McCain for the former lobbyists who worked on McCain's campaign.

Obama's ethics proposals specifically spelled out that former lobbyists would not be allowed to "work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years." On his first full day in office, Obama signed an executive order to that effect.

But the order has a loophole a "waiver" clause that allows former lobbyists to serve. That waiver clause has been used at least three times, and in some cases, the administration allows former lobbyists to serve without a waiver.

After examining the administration's actions we have concluded that Obama has broken this promise.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jul 11 - 01:22 PM

No kidding!

Isn't that what every succeeding administration does?

They say what will get them elected. Then they do something else entirely.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Jul 11 - 03:55 AM

Amos:

You haven't posted on your ode to Obama thread for a few months now. What's wrong?

Is it apparent that Obama can't fix things like you thought?

I believe he had and still has good intentions but is not able to implement them.

What do you think? Are you disappointed or does tribal politics prevent you from stating your true feelings?

Are you afraid that if you say what you truly believe that your buddies won't like you anymore?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 09:49 PM

"This is an incredible moment. In it, we are seeing the beginning of a new generation of American possibility and hope. I am amazed and grateful that I could be here to see this happen."

Ground Control to Amos........... Come in Amos.

Obama approval ratings hit new lows: What people are saying

By Elizabeth Flock Washington Post

President Obama, the day before his lowest approval ratings yet were released. (Charles Dharapak - AP) The numbers aren't pretty.

The Washington Post/ABC News and Wall Street Journal/NBC News polls released early Tuesday show President Obama has the lowest approval ratings yet of his presidency.

Democratic pollster Peter Hart has declared that "Obama is no longer the favorite to win re-election," while ABC News correspondent George Stephanopolous has asked whether this takes Obama into the "incumbent death zone." German writer Eamonn Fitzgerald has proclaimed, simply: "Hope's gone."

Here's a look at the numbers:

The Washington Post/ABC News poll

*43 percent of Americans approve of the job Obama is doing, while 53 percent disapprove. (His previous approval low was 52 percent.)

*62 percent of Americans disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy.

*By 2 to 1, more Americans now say the Obama administration's economic policies are making the economy worse rather than better.

*Of the more than six in 10 who now disapprove of Obama's work on jobs and the economy, nearly half of all Americans "strongly" disapprove.

*Six in 10 disapprove of Obama's work on the federal budget deficit, a percentage that is basically where it was a year ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: michaelr
Date: 24 Sep 11 - 01:03 AM

This is not a popular view, it's mine.

Obama had an outside chance to enact some real change in the first six to nine months. He blew it. He's been blowing it ever since by refusing to "grow a pair", as someone said on Bill Maher's show tonight.

He does not deserve to be re-elected.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Sep 11 - 11:47 PM

Neither of those Mega-parties deserves to be either elected or re-elected ever again. Nor does any stuffed shirt they advance to represent them...such as Obama, Perry, or anybody else they offer up as the next supposed "saviour" of the nation.

Fortunately, however, I live in another country, so I don't have to face the misery, degradation, horror, and shame of being asked to choose between them once every 4 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,999
Date: 25 Sep 11 - 12:00 AM

Instead we have Harper and aren't WE proud.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Sep 11 - 12:09 AM

Yeah, what a drag, eh? Don't think I'm not pretty disgusted with things here too, 999...because I am. I've reached the point where I hardly care anymore, as a matter of fact. I say to myself "This too shall pass". And it does, given a bit of time. Everthing passes, given a bit of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Sep 11 - 10:19 AM

Apparently Amos has left the thread. His own beacon of truth shining through the fog of misinformation.

Joe Biden: Obama administration "not Bush White House" owns the economy’s problems

Rachel Rose Hartman The Ticket

President Obama's administration has long cited decisions made under George W. Bush as one of the main reasons why today's economy is in such turmoil. But Vice President Joe Biden dismissed that argument Thursday, telling Miami radio station WLRN that's not relevant.

"Even though 50-some percent of the American people think the economy tanked because of the last administration, that's not relevant," the vice president said. "What's relevant is we're in charge."

Biden added that he doesn't blame people who are mad at the administration, and said it is understandable and "totally legitimate" for the 2012 presidential election to be "a referendum on Obama and Biden and the nature and state of the economy."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Sep 11 - 10:39 AM

the economy tanked because of the last administration, that's not relevant...

If one can read and understand the Englist language, Biden obviously did not 'dismiss' the contention that "decisions made under George W. Bush [are] one of the main reasons why today's economy is in such turmoil".

Translation for the cognitively impaired, Sawz: the public rightly continues to blame Bush for tanking the economy; and second, this may be mostly irrelevant in 2012.

Not 'relevant' now, perhaps (in the context of what the Veep was discussing), but none the less still TRUE

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Oct 11 - 12:53 AM

Actually, it's the banks...the major lending institutions...who have tanked the economy. The last few presidents (including Obama and Bush) have merely served as their compliant puppets and errand boys. Adopting partisan positions on this fiasco is to avoid facing the basic problem: the people who create money out of thin air...meaning the banks...are the people who really control your government no matter which party you elect, because it is money in the form of massive DEBT that controls your government. And the banks have created trillions of dollars in imaginary money...in the form of debt...and have effectively bankrupted the entire society to enrich themselves.

And the government bails them out so they can do it again! Bush and Obama both agreed on this. They agreed to bail out the banks.

Fighting about whether it was Bush or Obama who "tanked the economy" is inane. It goes way beyond Bush and Obama to the very nature of a de-regulated system which allows banks to endlessly expand the apparent money supply by simply creating more fictional money in the form of debt and getting paid interest for it. Presidents are just bit players in this fraud, this gigantic pyramid scheme...unless they dare to stand up and stop the banks from doing what they are doing by strictly regulating and limiting how much money they can lend out. No recent president has dared to do that.

The goverment and society are in hock up to their ears. They've been enslaved by a criminal banking system which basically went berserk after Ronald Reagan de-regulated it.

We don't have such a situation in Canada merely because our banks are still quite strictly regulated. Reaganism didn't happen yet here.

Given our dependency on American-Canadian trade, however, if the USA economy truly collapses, Canada's economy will go down too...even though our banks have been well regulated and are healthy. We are a small animal living next door to a sick elephant. If it falls over, we get crushed under it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Oct 11 - 11:58 PM

Amos who apparently regards his threads as personal accomplishments, has abandoned this thread. Now it is like an unsupported child abandoned by it's father. How cruel. Amos gets his rocks off creating a new thread and when he gets tired of supporting it, he disappears.

The Obama administration said on Thursday its top energy loans official was stepping down, following a widening probe into the embarrassing collapse of a solar panel company that got $535 million in federal support.

Jonathan Silver, a venture capitalist [Gasp! an evil capitalist working for the Obama administration!] who had also worked for the Clinton administration, was leaving because the loan program has allocated all its funding, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said.

Silver's departure, however, comes as Republicans in Congress probe the White House's role in backing government loans given to Solyndra, a California solar panel maker, in 2009.

Solyndra filed for bankruptcy in August, and is also under investigation by the FBI.

President Barack Obama, who spoke at a news conference before Silver's resignation was announced, defended the Energy Department's handling of loans program and said the government should not back down from its support for clean energy.

Silver joined the Energy Department after the loan guarantee was awarded, but he was in charge in February when the government agreed to restructure the debt as the company ran out of cash.

In that restructuring, some $75 million in private investment was ranked ahead of the government in the event of bankruptcy. That private fund was backed by a prominent Obama fundraiser.

Obama Fundraiser Boasts of Cashing In on Stimulus Package

A key unanswered question in the Solyndra loan investigation concerns the role George Kaiser, the Oklahoma billionaire and major Obama fundraiser whose Family Foundation owned a large stake in the failed solar-panel company. Kaiser made multiple visits to the White House in the week before the Department of Energy approved a $535 million guaranteed loan to Solyndra on March 20, 2009, and helped arrange 16 separate meetings between top White House officials and Solyndra executives around that time. Yet Kaiser maintains that he "did not participate in any discussions with the U.S. government regarding the loan."

Kaiser cites his "multiple trips to Washington" and his ability to secure meetings with "all the key players in the West Wing of the White House." He also touts his "almost unique advantage," through his foundation, of being able to match public dollars with private funding. That way, Kaiser says, the Obama administration will know "we’ll watch over it because we don’t want to be embarrassed with the way our money is spent and so we won’t make you be embarrassed with the way your money is spent either." Sure, what could possibly go wrong?

While Solyndra’s failure is an embarrassment for both parties, Kaiser’s foundation still stands to recoup a large chunk of its investment in the company, whereas taxpayers will recoup very little, if any, of the $535 million investment the White House made on our behalf. That’s because once Solyndra’s financial troubles became too obvious to ignore, the DOE negotiated a loan restructuring that gave priority status to private investors over taxpayers with respect to the first $75 million recovered in the event of Solyndra’s collapse. As Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations pointed out last week, this appears to be a blatant violation of federal law.

Obama may take issue with the fact that "millionaires and billionaires" like Kaiser make too much money, but he obviously has no qualms about showering them with taxpayer dollars.

Forbes ranked #31 George Kaiser $10Billion net worth age 69 Tulsa, Oklahoma oil & gas, banking

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Oct 11 - 11:29 AM

What's the source, Sawz, for this screed of innuendo & supposition ?

Same gang that mounted the blowjob hearings?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Oct 11 - 07:21 PM

Asking Sawz to produce sources is a joke, Greg... He will come up with a "War and Peace" length cut and paste of all the right winged bloggers in the universe who plainly don't tell the truth...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Oct 11 - 12:19 AM

Maybe Blowhard Bobert would like to reveal the source of his "Haiti where 1% has all the wealth" fact or anything to support his claim that "America sold the bad gas to Saddam" or the "gold plated M16 rifle" given to him.

Maybe he could enumerate the "shitload of Dixiecrats" or name them.

Whenever I ask Bobert for his sources he says Google it yourself or go write an essay to prove he is right. Then when nothing to support his "fact" appears in Google he unleashes a new Bobert "fact" that "your computer gives you what you want" Just exactly why my computer will not give me what I want when Bobert said it would remains a mystery.

It is worthwhile to note that Google keeps track of your searches through the use of cookies and serves ads based on what you search for. In Bobert's case it must be a barrage of ads for bongs, Monsieur Zig Zag papers and home brew stills for making bootleg hootch.

You can Blow holes in this Bobert "your computer gives you what you want" "fact" by comparing the results given by Google to the result from an identical search at Scroogle.com which searches Google but masks your ID so they have no record of what you have searched for in the past.

Now to Mr lazy ass, arrogant Greg who would not dare to challenge a Bobert "fact", Just what the hell is "englist language" Are you trying to spell elitist? Do you need some help reading and understanding English?

I assume you want to know the source so you can apply your usual and only method to determine the thruthfulness of information by the using the false logic of "ad hominem", argument against the person.

My source is Reuters Thursday, Oct 6, 2011

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Oct 11 - 12:32 AM

Methinks this creation by Amos, this memorial to his sagacity, has become an Albatross around his neck. Or has he rolled Obama under da bus?

"America, this is our moment. This is our time."

"It's a time when incredible achievements lie just over the horizon."

"This was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth."

"Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment, this was the time,when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our
highest ideals."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Oct 11 - 09:14 AM

Atta boy, Sawz!

Instead of providing anything coherent, substantive, or germaine- or even answering the question - focus on a typographic error, liberally seasoned with your usual idiotic "assumptions" and evasions.

You've also conclusively demonstrated that: 1, You don't know the definition of an "ad hominem" attack or 2, you're a hypocrite.

None of which comes as a surprise to anyone familiar with you or, for that matter, the Englist Language.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Oct 11 - 10:24 AM

Some people don't read 'typo-nese' well. These are usually the same people who still eat pablum, and are spoon fed EVERYTHING, including their 'opinions'....suck on baby bottles...and found new substitutes.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 12:24 AM

I answered your arrogant question. And you respond with another arrogant ad hominem attack. Learn to type Mr perfect.

I repeat if you don't like what Joe Biden said, why attack me with trumped up bullshit?

And never ever ask Bobert to reveal any sources.


ATF Fast and Furious guns turned up in El Paso
La Times September 29, 2011

They were being stored for shipment to Mexico, documents show. It's the first case of vanished weapons from the surveillance program showing up on this side of the border outside the Phoenix area. According to emails and court records, 40 AK-47-type assault rifles purchased from the Lone Wolf Trading Co. in Glendale, Ariz., turned up in El Paso, Texas. According to emails and court records, 40 AK-47-type assault rifles purchased (Carlos Chavez, Arizona Republic)
|By Richard A. Serrano, Washington Bureau)

Reporting from Washington A cache of assault weapons lost in the ATF's gun-trafficking surveillance operation in Phoenix turned up in El Paso, where it was being stored for shipment to Mexico, according to new internal agency emails and federal court records.

Forty firearms along with ammunition magazines and ballistic vests were discovered in Texas in January 2010 during the early stages of the program, meaning the firearms vanished soon after the program began.

Under the program, dubbed Fast and Furious, agents with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in the Phoenix field office allowed licensed firearm dealers to sell weapons to illegal "straw" buyers in the hope that the agents could track the weapons and arrest Mexican drug cartel leaders.

Instead, more than 2,000 weapons were trafficked along the U.S.-Mexico border, and many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. In addition, two AK-47 semi-automatics involved in the program were recovered after a U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was killed south of Tucson, and two others were found after a violent confrontation with state police officers in Maricopa, Ariz.

The El Paso case is the first example of Fast and Furious weapons turning up on this side of the border outside the Phoenix area.

According to an ATF document, Sean Christopher Steward bought the 40 AK-47-type assault rifles on Dec. 24, 2009, from the Lone Wolf Trading Co. gun store in Glendale, a suburb of Phoenix. The cache was part of 290 firearms ultimately acquired by Steward, a convicted drug felon, during the Fast and Furious operation.

Last January, he and 19 others were indicted in the only criminal case to arise out of Fast and Furious.

According to ATF emails and a federal court affidavit, El Paso police officers tracking alleged drug smuggling from Mexico followed a dark blue Volkswagen Jetta as it backed into a garage at a residence on Jan. 13, 2010. The driver was identified as Alberto Sandoval. Police later searched the vehicle and found the weapons and other devices.

According to an email from ATF Special Agent Oscar B. Flores in El Paso, Sandoval told authorities that he was paid $1,000 "to store the firearms at his residence until they could be transported to the Republic of Mexico" by an unknown third party.

More emails discussing Sandoval's arrest and the recovery of the weapons were sent to Washington headquarters and Kenneth Melson, then the ATF acting director, and William J. Hoover, the assistant director.

Sandoval was indicted and pleaded guilty to weapons charges in May 2010 in U.S. District Court in El Paso. He was sentenced to 61/2 years in prison.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 09:27 AM

another arrogant ad hominem attack. Learn to type Mr perfect.

Q.E.D. Sawz. But I still can't tell whether you're ignorant of the definition or a hypocrite.

Problem ain't what Mr. Biden said, but the nonsensical way you & other right-wing blog-o-philes misunderestimate, twist & spin what he said.

Get over it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 11:36 AM

"Despite his rhetorical attacks on Wall Street, a study by the Sunlight Foundation's Influence Project shows that President Barack Obama has received more money from Wall Street than any other politician over the past 20 years, including former President George W. Bush.
In 2008, Wall Street's largesse accounted for 20 percent of Obama's total take, according to Reuters.
When asked by The Daily Caller to comment about President Obama's credibility when it comes to criticizing Wall Street, the White House declined to reply....

Being Wall Street's campaign cash king is hardly the image President Obama has been trying to project in public, where he has been setting himself up as the champion of the progressive Occupy Wall Street movement and as the avenger of jilted Bank of America customers.
"Banks can make money," Obama said last week, responding to questions during an interview with ABC News about Bank of America's decision to levy a $5 monthly fee on debit card users. "They can succeed, the old-fashioned way, by earning it."
In fact, the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan watchdog group that tracks lobbyist spending and influence in both parties, found that President Obama has received more money from Bank of America than any other candidate dating back to 1991.
An examination of the numbers shows that Obama took in $421,242 in campaign contributions in 2008 from Bank of America's executives, PACs and employees, which exceeded its prior record contribution of $329,761 to President George W. Bush in 2004.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Wall Street firms also contributed more to Obama's 2008 campaign than they gave to Republican nominee John McCain.
"The securities and investment industry is Obama's second largest source of bundlers, after lawyers, at least 56 individuals have raised at least $8.9 million for his campaign," Massie Ritsch wrote in a Sept. 18, 2008 entry on the Center for Responsive Politics's OpenSecrets blog.
By the end of Barack Obama's 2008 campaign, executives and others connected with Wall Street firms, such as Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citigroup, UBS AG, JPMorgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley, poured nearly $15.8 million into his coffers.
Goldman Sachs contributed slightly over $1 million to Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, compared with a little over $394,600 to the 2004 Bush campaign. Citigroup gave $736,771 to Obama in 2008, compared with $320,820 to Bush in 2004. Executives and others connected with the Swiss bank UBS AG donated $539,424 to Obama's 2008 campaign, compared with $416,950 to Bush in 2004. And JP Morgan Chase gave Obama's campaign $808,799 in 2008, but did not show up among Bush's top donors in 2004, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama's close relationship with JP Morgan Chase was highlighted earlier this year when he tapped Bill Daley, a former top executive with the bank, to replace Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff.
Wall Street's generosity to Obama didn't end with his 2008 campaign either. Wall Street donors contributed $4.8 million to underwrite Obama's inauguration, according to a Jan. 15, 2009 Reuters report.
So far Wall Street has raised $7.2 million in the current electoral cycle for President Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Obama's 2012 Wall Street bundlers include people like Jon Corzine, former Goldman Sachs CEO and former New Jersey governor; Azita Raji, a former investment banker for JP Morgan; and Charles Myers, an executive with the investment bank Evercore Partners....

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-attacks-banks-while-raking-wall-street-dough-044804642.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 12:19 PM

Bruce, I think you are trying to put the 'liberals' into a dizzying tailspin, by introducing them to FACTS!..They aren't accustomed to dealing with them!...only stirred up 'emotionalism'....(oh shit, another 'ism')

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 12:47 PM

EEEEEEEEEEEE-YAUUUUUUUUUUGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(rolling around on the floor, screaming, beating my little fists on the linoleum, and frothing at the mouth...)

Just thought I'd do that on behalf of those here who tune in each day to get their daily fix of political froth and hostility, but can't spare the time for the obvious physical actions that go along with it. ;-)

"Ahh..." So cathartic. Now I think I'll go out and have a nice meal somewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 10:22 PM

Nice try, Beardie, but that screed ain't from Yahoo News, but from "The Daily Caller, which sez of itself:About Us

Founded by Tucker Carlson, a 20-year veteran of print and broadcast media, and Neil Patel, former chief policy adviser to Vice President Cheney, The Daily Caller...


So, a right-wing blogger and a Dick Cheney mouthpiece. They- especially the Cheney guy, have less than zero credibility.

But I suppose zero credibility is enough for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Oct 11 - 10:13 AM

"But I still can't tell whether you're ignorant of the definition or a hypocrite."
Confused by facts so you lash out at some one to demonize.

Joe Biden was factual. Your problem is that his remarks were not spun by the Liberal Media into a fairy tail of your liking.

Your zero credibility is another hostile Ad hominem attack.

One of the most common non-rational appeals is an argumentum ad hominem--or, as the Latin phrase suggests, an "argument against the person" (and not against the ideas he or she is presenting). Our decisions should be based on a rational evaluation of the arguments with which we are presented, not on an emotional reaction to the person or persons making that argument. But because we often react more strongly to personalities than to the sometimes abstract and complex arguments they are making, ad hominem appeals are often very effective with someone who is not thinking critically.

You could say my remarks about you are ad hominem but you haven't presented any facts. Rather you attack other people personally to try to disprove their facts.

If you do decide to present some facts, which is a common occurence in a forum, I will not attack your character but I will comment about the validity of the facts you present.

You did say that "the public rightly continues to blame Bush" without mentioning that fifty some percent blame Bush. That means 40 some percent do not blame Bush. If you go to RCP the poll Biden referred to was 51% blame Bush.

This demonstrates the use of weasel words to try to disprove what Biden said and attack me for it.

And where is your scathing criticism of Bobert "facts"? Where is your personal attack on him for spinning and twisting? Where are your demands for the sources of Bobert "facts?

Could it be that you only attack certain people you disagree with? That you tolerate nonfactual statements from people that agree with you for political purposes? Tribal Politics?

Just questions that you may want to answer out of a sense of fairness and courtesy.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Oct 11 - 11:27 AM

another hostile Ad hominem attack.

You still don't get it.

a sense of fairness and courtesy.

Of which you have proven yourself a master.

If you do decide to present some facts

No point, Sawz - would be like trying to have a rational discussion with a flat-earther, holocaust denier blog-o-phile, or other person for whom faith-based propositions trump fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Oct 11 - 11:57 AM

The prior three posts are a parody of themselves...based on Sawzaw's and the fourth one down, should be the proper re-action!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Oct 11 - 12:59 PM

last was mine-


Greggie boy,

I fail to see how your attack on the writer (of the post **I** got from the YAHOO site as blinkie) has even addressed the validity of the factual content presented.

Easy point= JUST SHOW THE FACTS WRONG, instead of making another "Ad hominem" attack.

I have YET to see you present any facts to back your attacks- that says a lot more about YOU than the value of what you criticise.



I would present MY opinion that YOU have a negative credibility- If YOU say it, I have to presume it is wrong until facts prove otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 11 Oct 11 - 03:23 PM

Greg lives on a diet of chronic anger mixed with total contempt and a vicious lack of respect for people he disagrees with about anything at all. This is bad for the liver as time goes by. It can burn it out. It's bad for the heart too. It poisons the dialogue. It makes enemies. It's also real dangerous behaviour when you're sittin' in a bar...and it can lead to major injuries, busted teeth, etc...but Greg is not sittin' in a bar, he's safely sittin' behind a computer somewhere, so that part don't really matter.

If people don't take it personal (and I sure don't), readin' Greg's mean and nasty posts to people he disagrees with can make for good light entertainment on a slow day, almost no matter what he is snarlin' about or who he is denigratin' for darin' to see anything different than he does. What would it be like to be Greg? I don't know. I've never lived on a diet of nothin' but lemons and bitters.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Oct 11 - 05:27 PM

Hey, Beardie, you're entitled to your faith that Cheney and Co. AREN'T a collection of lying sacks of shit, tho the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. That's what faith is all about.

Your reading skills must need touching up, as the ORIGIN of the screed in question was detailed on the Yahoo News site for all to see. But I'm sure you actually KNEW that, & are just blowing smoke as usual.

Keep up the good work.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 02:31 AM

I've noticed on several threads now, that the 'so-called liberal left's' wheels are coming off. Nastier attitudes and derogatory comments, worse than ever. I heard on the radio today, that the Democratic party is fracturing, as well. They attributed it to Obama, and the uncovering of his hypocrisy. I believe the word that was used was 'panic'....much like what the Tea party caused in the Republican party. So now you are having fragmented groups, in both 'left and right', who are strikingly familiar, wreaking havoc within the two parties.
(Shhhh, don't tell anyone, but it's all coming from the same place, for the same reason)....and both groups, think their main party is full of bullshit....and that they don't stink, either!

From another thread (Wall street protesters)

and this follow up post.....


pardon the first phrase, if that 'offends' you, but.........

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 02:55 AM

...and then there's this!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 03:13 AM

2600(?)

Russell Means on the Constitution...


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 03:50 AM

Very sensible comments from Russel Means. I'm glad to see he's still out there. He interprets the word "socialism" differently than I do, but he's American, so that doesn't surprise me. In any case, the problems he draws attention to are just as he states them. I call it corporate fascism, I think he calls it "corporate socialism" (socialism on the Right)...what it amounts to is by the elite, for the elite. It is rule by corporations which are treated legally as if they were individuals...thus enabling no REAL individuals to be held accountable for the criminal things these corporations do. I don't call it socialism...but it doesn't matter what one calls it...what it is, is a ruthless fascist system run by the very rich for the mutual benefit of each other. It becomes gradually more totalitarian with every passing year. It increases domestic security and reduces civil rights. It impoverishes the ordinary people (the 99% of us) and makes the rich elite richer than ever before. It builds more prisons and incarcerates more citizens. It violate the Constitution. It sends jobs to other countries and promotes and engages in constant war and inflated military expenditures. It creates a situation where young people who are in lower income levels tend to go into the military...because that appears to be their best option! Some option! They get to risk death, severe injury, mental and physical illnesses due to combat stress, etc...and they end up killing a lot of Third World people and ruining other nations while fighting illegal wars that are being fought on the basis of outright lies. They end up serving the very corporate/military beast that put them under its heel. They are duped by appeals to their patriotism...just as Germans and Japanese and Italians were duped in the 40s.

That's fascism. It's been seen before, and it's back again...in America and in the UK and in Canada, but it's worst in America. It is supported by either the Democrats or the Republicans whenever they end up getting elected to office (with the exception of a tiny few mavericks like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul). To expect either one of those parties to end thia appalling situation is akin to expecting the Tooth Fairy or Batman to step in and solve your problems for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 14 Oct 11 - 12:20 AM

GF always post such pertinent facts for discussion. A role model for Libs everywhere. The way he never questions any facts from others in his tribe. The way he demands information from people he disagrees with and the way he responds to courteous requests. He has such a positive attitude. Breathtaking.

The next Solyndra:

But Mr. Harry Reid has taken the nascent geothermal industry under his wing, pressuring the Department of Interior to move more quickly on applications to build clean energy projects on federally owned land and urging other member of Congress to expand federal tax incentives to help build geothermal plants, benefits that Nevada Geothermal has taken advantage of.... Ormat Technology, which is a Nevada Geothermal partner. Ormat’s lobbyist in Washington, Kai Anderson, and one of the company’s top executives, Paul Thomsen, are former aides to Mr. Reid.

A U.S.-Backed Geothermal Plant in Nevada Struggles
NYTimes

The company is Nevada Geothermal Power, which like Solyndra, the now-famous California solar company, is struggling with debt after encountering problems at its only operating plant.

After a series of technical missteps that are draining Nevada Geothermal’s cash reserves, its own auditor concluded in a filing released last week that there was significant doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern.

It is a description that echoes the warning issued in 2010 by auditors hired by Solyndra, which benefited from the same Energy Department loan guarantee before its collapse in August caused the Obama administration great embarrassment.

The parallels between the companies illustrate the risk inherent in building the clean energy marketplace in the United States, government officials and industry experts say. Indeed, the loan guarantee program exists precisely because none of these ventures are a sure bet.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 11:54 PM

AAAAAAmooooossss. This thread is askin' "can you help me find my daddy?"

More on TARP:

Among Bailout Supporters, Wall St. Donations Ran High
By NY Times

The battle over the Bush administration’s plan to rescue the financial system took a sharp turn Monday when the House of Representatives voted down the bill by a sizable margin.

Though there was much talk about ideals and principles on the House floor, there’s another factor to consider as well.

The Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington nonprofit group that studies money and politics, reports that on average, lawmakers who voted in favor of the bailout bill have received 51 percent more in campaign contributions from sources in the finance, insurance and real estate industries or FIRE industries, for short over their congressional careers than those who opposed the emergency legislation.

The legislation is of vital interest to Wall Street firms and banks, many of which would like to use the program to offload noxious mortgage-related assets.

The FIRE industries or, more specifically, individuals and political action committees associated with them have been the top source of campaign contributions in federal politics, the group said, giving more than $2 billion to federal candidates and political parties since 1989.

This year, sources from the FIRE industries have been particularly busy, doling out millions to candidates that are facing tough reelections.

In this election cycle, the 140 House Democrats who voted for the bailout bill collected 78 percent more from the FIRE industries than the Democrats who opposed it. Over their careers, they collected 88 percent more, the data show.

On the Republican side, the gap was smaller. Republicans in the House that voted yes on the bailout bill got an average of 23 percent more in contributions from the FIRE industries in this election cycle than House Republicans who voted against it. In the long run, they got 53 percent more.

Of the 37 Democrats that sit on the House Financial Services Committee, 25 voted for the bill, including the committee chairman, Barney Frank of Massachusetts. He received nearly $800,000 this election cycle from sources in the FIRE industries.

Of the 33 Republicans on the committee, 8 voted for the bill.

The ranking Republican member of the committee, Spencer Bachus from Alabama, was among those who voted in favor. He has received $822,000 from the FIRE industries this election cycle and $3.7 million since 1989.

One of those who got a lot of funds from the FIRE industries but still voted no was Ron Paul, the Texas Representative who favors abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to the gold standard.

Among the no-voters on Monday, Mr. Paul received the most money from FIRE sources   $1.3 million in this election cycle. His overall donations got a boost from his presidential run.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,999
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 11:57 PM

So what? SSDD.

The names change and the game doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 02:02 AM

Exactly.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 09:26 AM

What we have here is a lot of people with 20/20 hindsight... Reality is that it's difficult to put our mindsets back to the September of 2008 when we were seeing something occur that no one alive today had ever seen as an adult...

Lotta Monday morning quarterbacking...

Given the state of the economy in the Fall of '08 the Bush administration probably did what it thought was the responsible thing to do... What the banking community did after TARP, a different story and that's part of what OWS street is all about...

A lot of folks need to be in jail...

The problem is that, with Reaganomics, much of sane baking practices were trashed by the crooks who the bakers got elected so no actual laws were broken because there were no actual laws left...

Restore Glass-Steagall immediately because the crooks are cooking US again...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 01:05 PM

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAh. John McCain and a Democrat, Cantwell, tried to do just that but Chris Dodd, biggest congressional recipient of campaign money from the banks said it would be "pretty difficult".

He had his own bill, the "Dodd- Frank" bill, to regulate the banks that gave him the money. It got passed and the McCain Cantwell bill got shot down by the party of ??.

So here's yer War and Peace length cut and paste riddled with facts that you love to ignore and claim it is from a right wing Blog. But before you start your instinctive whining, tell me why a right wing blog would be so down on banks?

Dodd-Frank: How investment banks contributed to the financial crisis
By Nancy Watzman Jul 29 2011 10:35 a.m.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, passed in response to the financial crisis of 2008, added new regulations and new regulators for some but not all of the institutions whose actions led to the crisis. Over the next several days, we’ll be taking a look at each of the major groups of contributors to the economic crisis, who the major players were, what political influence they brought to bear on Congress and regulators, how Dodd-Frank intends to regulate them, and, using our new Dodd-Frank Meeting Logs tool, what rules these groups are trying to influence as agencies implement the legislation.

Key players in the financial crisis: Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley

Regulators: Federal Reserve Bank, Securities and Exchange Commission, Treasury, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

How They Helped Cause the Crisis: These storied investment banks were at the forefront of the financial meltdown, earning big fees for packaging questionable mortgages into securities and selling them. The firms had such a huge appetite for these investments, which brought in hefty fees and earned large bonuses for executives, that they pressed for more and more mortgages to package and sell, despite their shakiness. Meanwhile, they sunk enormous amounts into their own proprietary trading on risky derivatives. The first investment bank to keel under the pressure when mortgage-backed securities soured was Bear Stearns, after two of its hedge funds that had invested heavily in subprime mortgages went under in 2007. In March 2008, there was a run on the bank as its partners on derivatives contracts, short-term loans known as repos, and others demanded money. J.P. Morgan Chase stepped in to rescue the bank with government help to the tune of a $30 billion loan by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. By September, Lehman Brothers was in big trouble. Over the course of a week, two private deals to acquire the failing bank fell through. The government refused to bail out the bank, deeming it too far gone, and on Monday, Sept. 15, it filed for bankruptcy. The same day, Merrill Lynch announced it would be bought by Bank of America. On September 22, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley made it known they would become bank holding companies, a move that would subject them to more government regulation but also enable them to engage in activities that would help them raise capital, such as accepting retail deposits. The failure and reconfiguration of the big investment banks wreaked havoc on the global economy; credit virtually froze, profits plummeted, and a deep recession took hold. The survivors took tens of millions in bailout money and loans from the federal government.

Political Influence: Bear Stearns’ federal political contributions trailed off after the 2006 election cycle, while Lehman Brothers contributed $667,000 in the 2008 election cycle in contributions to federal politicians before it failed. Bank of America, which acquired Merrill Lynch, contributed $1.4 million in 2010, up from $1.6 million in 2006, the previous non-presidential election cycle. Its reported federal lobbying expenses peaked in 2008 at $4.9 million. Goldman Sachs reported record federal lobbying in 2010, as the Dodd-Frank financial law was being debated, at $4.6 million; its federal campaign contributions totals, $1.6 million in the 2010 election cycle, however, were higher earlier in the decade. Morgan Stanley reported $2.75 million in lobbying in 2010 and $668,000 in federal campaign contributions in that election cycle, down from previous totals. Goldman Sachs is in some ways sui generis in its connections to Washington Treasury Secretaries (Robert Rubin in the Clinton administration, Henry Paulson in the Bush administration), a U.S. Trade Representative (Robert Zoellick) even the head of the government’s bailout efforts under Presidents George W. Bush and, briefly, President Barack Obama (Neel Kashkari) hailed from Goldman Sachs. And Mark Patterson, currently chief of staff of the Treasury Dept., was hired away from the investment bank.

How They Fared: Goldman Sachs’ and Morgan Stanley’s first quarter reports showed declining profits. The firms have had to make major changes; in anticipation of new rules regarding proprietary trading, known as the Volcker rule, both Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley shut down trading desks that had been profit centers. However, Goldman Sachs’ filings show it is still claiming profit from its own investments, which it reportedly believes will not be affected by the new rule.

How Dodd-Frank Regulates Them: There is hardly a part of the Dodd-Frank financial law that does not affect these firms, from capital requirements to a ban on proprietary trading to new oversight of derivatives trading to designations of too big to fail institutions.

Goldman Sachs is being particularly aggressive in its lobbying. In its most recent federal lobbying report, the firm listed eight on-staff lobbyists who were lobbying on Dodd-Frank implementation. It also had hired several outside firms to help in its efforts, including such high powered lobbyists as GOPer Kenneth Duberstein; former House Majority Leader Rep. Dick Gephardt , D., Mo. ; former Senator Trent Lott, R., Miss.; and Sen. John Breaux. The firm reported more meetings with federal agencies than any other company. It’s also been the most active firm approaching regulators. Goldman Sachs has argued that Dodd-Frank should not apply to its overseas operations, had positions on virtually every aspect of swap regulations, from position limits to real time disclosure to derivative clearinghouse organizations to swap execution facilities, and has lobbied on the Volcker Rule.

Morgan Stanley reported three in-house lobbyists working on Dodd-Frank implementation and has also hired outside help. The firm has had 58 meetings with regulators on issues ranging from the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, implementation of the Volcker Rule and swap regulations, Dodd-Frank’s impact on European regulations and to discuss the Consumer Financial Protection Board

Now getting back to TARP which the libs like to claim is all the responsibility of the Republicans, please note that the majority of Republicans voted against it and the majority of Democrats voted for it including Obama who said it was a necessary thing to do, Reid, Dodd, Clinton and Biden. Without the democratic votes, Tarp would not have passed.

And where in tarnation is Amos, the leading Tarpologist? It is obvious he has done rolled Obama under da bus.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 01:08 PM

Source, Sawz, or did you pull it out of your arse as usual?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 01:04 PM

GF sure has an intense interest in my ass. More so than his interest in facts.

Closure Of Guantanamo Detention Facilities

EXECUTIVE ORDER -- REVIEW AND DISPOSITION OF INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT THE GUANTÃ쳌NAMO BAY NAVAL BASE AND CLOSURE OF DETENTION FACILITIES
    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to effect the appropriate disposition of individuals currently detained by the Department of Defense at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base (Guantánamo) and promptly to close detention facilities at Guantánamo, consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice, I hereby order as follows:.........................

............Sec. 3. Closure of Detention Facilities at Guantánamo. The detention
facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall
be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the
date of this order........

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
    January 22, 2009.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 May 12 - 08:01 AM

Amos:

Where you been for so long?

Why have you completely and cruelly abandoned the man that you admired so much when you said:

"That Obama, now, he\s steady=on. A GOOD PRESIDENT, AND I AM GLAD WE ELECTED HIM."

Are you voting for him again?

Methinks not but you are too embarrassed to say so amongst your Mud buddies.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 16 May 12 - 08:22 AM

Nice try, Sawz... There seems to be a TeaPulican PR to push this idea that Obama isn't all that popular...

Hahahahaha...

And maybe Obama kidnapped the Limbergh baby, too0???

Hahahahaha...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 May 12 - 09:28 AM

"And maybe Obama kidnapped the Limbergh baby, too0???"

Yeah that's funny.

Why not base your thinking on facts instead of jokes and what if fairy tales?

Try Presetting some facts for a change and not those Bobert "facts" like:

"The West Bank has the highest density of any place in the Middle East"

when in actuality it has a density of 758 people per sq mile compared to 2560 in Bahrain, 920 in Lebanon and slightly higher than Israel with 750 people per sq mile.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 May 12 - 09:53 AM

Prex Obama would never have abducted the Limburgh baby - way too stinky.

Now, the Lindbergh baby may be another story.....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Jun 12 - 12:55 PM

Whom is voting for Obama? Certainly not Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Jun 12 - 04:35 PM

"Restore Glass-Steagall immediately because the crooks are cooking US again"

Republicans tried but Democrats blocked it in 2010:

McCain, Cantwell Battle The Monolith To Reinstate Glass-Steagall

Yesterday, the decidedly odd couple of Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) teamed up to introduce legislation that would restore the Glass-Steagall Act (aka the Banking Act of 1933), which would force giant banking institutions to choose between operating as a commercial bank or an investment bank. For decades, Glass-Steagall imposed a firewall between the two, until it was repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act.

Give McCain and Cantwell a big round of applause for their effort, because in Washington, this seemingly obvious response to the financial crisis is considered the domain of wild-eyed hippies (and Paul Volcker.) It is, after all, the sort of idea that would bring real pain to the banking industry, who'd much rather we quickly forget about the collapse of the economy last year and return to business as usual. The most cutting remark against McCain and Cantwell's efforts comes courtesy of Unnamed Treasury Official, who, as you might imagine, is some kind of awesome prick:

    I think going back to Glass-Steagall would be like going back to the Walkman.

Then again this year:

Senate Democrats not with Warren on reinstating Glass-Steagall bank act

Senate Democratic leaders have shown little appetite for taking on Wall Street before Election Day, despite urging by one of their star recruits, Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren.

Warren has called on Congress to resurrect the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, which established a firewall between investment banks that traditionally specialized in speculative trades and commercial banks that historically earned money primarily from lending.

If Warren, an outspoken critic of Washington’s oversight of the financial services industry, wins in November, it could put her on a collision course with Senate leaders.

Senate Democratic leaders have carefully avoided a major confrontation with Wall Street this year, when millions of dollars are already flowing to Republican-allied super-PACs from anonymous donors.

Many Democrats are already squeamish about President Obama's campaign attacks on Mitt Romney's career at private equity firm Bain Capital, worrying they are being seen as attacks on Wall Street.

“We didn’t get Glass-Steagall in the big reform,â€쳌 said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, which supports stronger federal regulation. “That and many other limitations of Dodd-Frank are testament of the power of Wall Street.

“I don’t think the JPMorgan debacle is sufficient to overcome the political power of Wall Street. It’s going to come from some combination of more financial crisis and grassroots demand,â€쳌 he said.

Critics of Wall Street’s trading practices believe the law’s repeal ultimately led to the 2008 financial crisis and still poses a serious risk to the economy.

They cite the recent revelation that JP Morgan lost at least $2 billion and possibly much more over the course of a few weeks because of a massive bet.

Former Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), who was the Senate’s most outspoken defender of Glass-Steagall while in Congress, said Warren should expect a forceful pushback.

“It’s very hard because you’re taking on Wall Street, and Wall Street has substantial clout in Congress,â€쳌 he said. “They were able to substantially dilute Dodd-Frank. Even what it required was fought bitterly by Wall Street. It will be hard to get it done but not impossible.

“There are plenty of members of the caucus who believe you have to re-impose Glass-Steagall,â€쳌 Dorgan said.

It is one of the few proposed reforms of Wall Street to draw bipartisan support.

Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) introduced legislation in 2010 to restore the safeguards of Glass-Steagall and Sen. Richard Shelby (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Banking Committee, voted against the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999.

For more than six decades, the law prohibited commercial banks from engaging in the risky trading business of investment banks, containing the national economic impact of financial meltdowns. The lack of a firewall in 2008 allowed big commercial banks such as Citibank to get sucked up in the financial crisis, freezing the credit businesses rely on.

Some advocates of re-enacting Glass-Steagall believe doing so could become politically viable if Republicans such as McCain, Shelby and Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), a reform-minded member of the Banking Committee, sign on to the effort.

But Wall Street banks are strongly opposed to further regulation and have focused their lobbying power on watering down the impact of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

Ed Mierzwinski, consumer program director at U.S. PIRG, said New York Sens. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the third-ranking Senate Democratic leader, and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) could oppose any effort to reestablish Glass-Steagall.

“You wouldn’t get all the Democrats, and I don’t know if you’d get the Democrats from New York. The Democrats from New York would be under a lot of lobbying pressure,â€쳌 he said.

Passing Glass-Steagall legislation through the Senate would require the full support of the Senate Democratic leadership and Bartlett Naylor, financial policy advocate at Public Citizen, said he has not seen any desire by leaders to take up the fight.

“I haven’t seen it,â€쳌 he said.

Democratic leaders may calculate such a battle is not worth the political cost, given Republican control of the House.

House Republicans, who are attempting to repeal parts of the 2010 reform, would block Glass-Steagall-type legislation from reaching Obama’s desk.

Naylor said the focus by Senate Democrats such as Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) is to ensure regulators do not water down the Volcker Rule, which Congress passed as part of Dodd-Frank, and to beat back efforts by House Republicans to undo the 2010 reforms.

Reinstating Glass-Steagall would represent a whole higher order of regulatory assertiveness.

Weissman, the head of Public Citizen, said the Volcker Rule, which bars banks from risking their own assets in speculative investments â€" with certain exemptions â€" does not go far enough.

“The Volcker Rule is Glass-Steagall light,â€쳌 he said. “We need something more aggressive. We don’t know how the Volker Rule implementation is going to turn out. We’re pushing for the best outcome and there’s a lot of pressure on agencies to peal it back.â€쳌

The Volker Rule is designed to prevent banks from risking the assets of depositors and their own financial demise by making big bets.

Warren and other advocates for greater regulation say there should be a clean break between speculative and commercial banking activities.

"JP Morgan's recent losses show that there are still serious risks in our banking system, and if we don't act, then the next trade that goes bad could threaten our whole economy," Warren said in a statement last month.

"A new Glass-Steagall would separate high-risk investment banks from more traditional banking. It would allow Wall Street to take risks, but not by dipping into the life savings and retirement accounts of regular people," she said.

Barbara Roper, director of investor protection for Consumer Federation of America, said J.P. Morgan’s massive loss has “supplied a bit of a wake-up callâ€쳌 and said Warren “is concerned about moving risk out of banks.â€쳌

Roper said she does not see “any evidence right now that there’s a new wave of support buildingâ€쳌 for Glass-Steagall but predicted if regulators fail to effectively implement the Volcker Rule, “you could see revived interest on the Democratic side.â€쳌

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Jun 12 - 09:22 AM

Obama's grandfather tortured by the British? A fantasy (like most of the President's own memoir)
Dailymail UK

A new biography of Barack Obama has established that his grandfather was not, as is related in the President's own memoir, detained by the British in Kenya and found that claims that he was tortured were a fabrication.

'Barack Obama: The Story' by David Maraniss catalogues dozens of instances in which Obama deviated significantly from the truth in his book 'Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance'. The 641-page book punctures the carefully-crafted narrative of Obama's life.

One of the enduring myths of Obama's ancestry is that his paternal grandfather Hussein Onyango Obama, who served as a cook in the British Army, was imprisoned in 1949 by the British for helping the anti-colonial Mau Mau rebels and held for several months.

Obama's step-grandmother Sarah, Onyango wife, who is still living, is quoted in the future President's memoir, as saying: "One day, the white man's askaris came to take Onyango away, and he was placed in a detention camp.

But Maraniss, who researched Obama's life in Kenya, Indonesia, Hawaii and the mainland United States, found that there were "no remaining records of any detention, imprisonment, or trial of Hussein Onyango Obama". He interviewed five people who knew Obama's grandfather, who died in 1979, who "doubted the story or were certain it did not happen'.
Fabricated?: 'Barack Obama: The Story' by David Maraniss catalogues dozens of instances in which Obama deviated significantly from the truth in his book

This undermines the received wisdom that Obama's grandfather was a victim of oppression, an assumption that has in turn fuelled theories that Obama harbours an animus towards Britain based on a deeply-rooted rage about the way Onyango was treated.

John Ndalo Aguk, who worked with Onyango before the alleged imprisonment and was in touch with him weekly afterwards said he 'knew nothing' about any detention and would have noticed if he had gone missing for several months.

Zablon Okatch, who worked with Onyango as a servant to American diplomats after the supposed incarceration, said: "Hussein was never jailed. I know that for a fact. It would have been difficult for him to get a job with a white family, let alone a diplomat, if he once served in jail."

Charles Oluoch, whose father was adopted by Onyango, said that "he did not have any trouble with the government in any way"......................

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Jun 12 - 11:23 AM

Right. The Daily Mail. Makes FOX News look good.

READ the book. The claim isn't made by the prez- but is presented as a family story/legend.

Of course, no one else's family has family stories that aren't true.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jun 12 - 11:39 AM

Sawz:

You remind me of a guy who plays the cross-cut saw by bending it out of shape and twanging it with a bow.

He thinks he is making music, but he is actually deforming a perfectly good saw. And the music is painful. But he's happy so people let him alone.

I will be voting for Barack Obama this year. I can only hope he gets enough of the Congress behind him to make his second term less frustrating than the first.

Just to be clear there are some decisions he has made I disagree with, based on the data I have. But most of his policies are positive and aimed at making things better.

He is a good man, and I am glad to have voted for him.

See you sometime around Christmas.


Amos

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Jun 12 - 07:46 AM

Here is a little data for you Amos. It is from a source you have quoted so I presume the source is acceptable to you.

Now see if you can keep from attacking me in order to discredit the actual facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Jun 12 - 08:12 AM

"The Daily Mail. Makes FOX News look good."

You try to discredit the source instead of the actual information.

"The claim isn't made by the prez"

Well who actually made the claim?

Was it truth or mythology?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Jun 12 - 09:11 AM

The source has discredited itself over and over. Needs no help from me.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jun 12 - 10:22 AM

Sawz:

A map of popular opinion is not much hard data.

Do you have any idea how much money the Repub PACS have been spending to spread enough false information to buy that graph?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Jun 12 - 10:31 AM

Well, Amos, here in NC you can't so much as watch the nightly news without be blown up with constant anti-Obama ads brought to you coutesy of ____________________ (???), who knows other than the "American Future Fund". whose web site's list of donors don't ad up to buy one ad, much less hundreds of them...

Yup, those wacky Koch brothers are at it 24/7...

BTW, they say "follow the money"... Just wonder what Romney has promised them??? Hmmmmm????

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jun 12 - 11:52 AM

It would be interesting as an experiment to shut down the whole television industry between now and November to cut the throats of these money mongers. People would be forced to fall back on more volitional kinds of information--reading, internet clicks and personal discussion.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jun 12 - 11:55 AM

An excellent idea! But would Big Brother approve of it?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Jun 12 - 12:06 PM

Sawzaw: "Now see if you can keep from attacking me in order to discredit the actual facts."

when folks have NO ACTUAL FACTS, attacking with bullshit, is all they got! We ALL know that..but they keep doing it anyway, as if they think their behavior isn't argument enough to NOT vote for Obama. Bobert, with all his false accusations of correct stuff being nothing more than Tea Party stuff, and the way he handles it, WITHOUT ANY FACTS, is enough to make people WANT to join the Tea Party!!!!

,,and then when you send a link, from a source they use, they accuse the link source of 'shifting positions'!....That being said, I'm NOT a Romney supporter, by any means, but Obama doesn't look to great, either. This divisiveness and hostility driving wedges between good American people, again, is reason to hope for another candidate, from anywhere else!!

Regards,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jun 12 - 12:44 PM

GfS, don't be an ass; I did not say anything about the source shifting positions; I said the openions were symptoms of massive spending, not individual thinking. That is so obvious as to bear repeating! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Jun 12 - 10:31 PM

"when folks have NO ACTUAL FACTS"

And they don't want to know any actual facts. Any inconvenient truths.

They want to believe in myths. They are so much nicer than reality.

Obama's book is the discredited source.

A fantasy (like most of the President's own memoir)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Jun 12 - 10:49 PM

Why do ya'll Obama haters hate Obama???

His policies, by my standards, seem purdy much moderate...

Could it be because he is a black man???

I mean, lets get real... He ain't a "liberal"... He's purdy much a Nixon Republican...

Why all this hate???

Hey, if you just hate black people then just spit it out... I can accept a racist who tells the truth... I can't accept closet racists who will find any other reason for their hate...

I am serious...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Jun 12 - 08:26 AM

"I can accept a racist who tells the truth.."


No wonder you get along so well with Greg F.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Jun 12 - 08:49 AM

given that you agree with him more than most TEAPartiers agree with the racist rednecks you claim represent them.

"truth" as you see it, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jun 12 - 02:59 AM

Obama is definitely not a liberal, if I can go by what he's done in office. However, if Republicans and American conservatives wish to imagine that he is a liberal in order to work themselves up into disliking him even more than they already do...(shrug)...I don't see what the heck anyone can do about it. People believe what they want to believe.

It's just like if you criticize Israeli policy, many people will accuse you of being "anti-semitic". They want to believe you are an anti-semite, because it gives them an excuse to hate YOU and feel better about themselves in comparison, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it...the accusation sticks like glue, once uttered, even when it has no factual basis. And there's no way of disproving such an accusation, anymore than you can disprove that you're a "racist" or a "bigot" or any other hate-label like that.

If people want to hate you and imagine that you are every terrible thing that haunts their anxiety closet, then they will do so, no matter what, and nothing you can do or say will sway them. There's a word for what they are doing too...and it's very similar to what they accuse other people of. One word for it is "prejudice", whatever form it happens to take. It doesn't stem from thought, but from fear and long-established emotional reaction, and it takes no prisoners. It doesn't care about the evidence. It's a pre-made conclusion. It's a self-confirming prophecy.

Obama will always be a "liberal" to his political enemies in the USA, because they can't imagine him any other way. "liberal", after all, is nothing other than a hate word in their vocabulary...just as "conservative" is pretty much nothing other than a hate word in the vocabulary of so many who support Obama.

Makes for a lovely meeting of minds across the corridor, doesn't it? When do we get the next American Civil War? And how did once useful words become so one-dimensional and meaningless?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jun 12 - 03:24 AM

Amos: "GfS, don't be an ass; I did not say anything about the source shifting positions;......"

Amos, Don't be an ass, yourself! I never said you did.

Are all lefty liberals lunatics??...or do they just come off that way?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jun 12 - 08:06 AM

"Lefty liberals"???

Hoe about them "righty conservative lunatics", GfinS, like all yer Tea Part buds???

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jun 12 - 10:00 AM

Bobert: "To a complete retard just about everyone seems like a Tea party"

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jun 12 - 01:34 PM

Yer half right, GfinS but it goes like this... To normal folks the Tea Partiers look like look like complete retards... And act like it...

I fnd it interesting that ya'll hate science until ya'll get sick and then all over the inter net looking for the best and brightest doctors??? You want to explain that to the Peanut Gallery???

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Jun 12 - 02:43 AM

Bobert: "You want to explain that to the Peanut Gallery???"

Then I'd have to step over you, lying on the floor, drooling as you were talking to the peanuts you spilled....no thanks, but they MIGHT listen to you!!..maybe you could convince them to be ground up and be made into a new, peanut tea!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jun 12 - 01:50 PM

Peanut tea???

There you go again...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jun 12 - 03:07 PM

Just an aside here, Bobert...no kind of attack in this...but I'm curious about the symbol you sign off with. It's supposed to be you smiling, right?

*****

I think the last actual liberal who was elected president in the USA may have been Jimmy Carter. Possibly. I haven't noticed any liberals in the office since him. Obama sounded quite liberal in some ways when he was running for office (although not so much in foreign policy), but once in office he has proved to be far from liberal. The NDAA is about the least liberal thing I've heard of since...ummm...well, in a very, very long time. It's Bush's Patriot Act over again, only considerably moreso. It's what the Republicans would have done while in office, if they'd dared to. Obama did it quietly over New Year's, and most people in the USA hardly even noticed.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Jun 12 - 03:18 PM

AMEN TO THAT LITTLE HAWK!!!...Just like Clinton snuck in NAFTA, during Christmas holidays, when most of Congress had split to go home...enough stayed behind, secretly..to cast the vote. It was extraordinary bullshit!....Matter of FACT, that's exactly WHY he was elected!!
I guess Glass-Steagall was the icing on the cake!!

We all would have been better off, if the Republicans and kept him in the barn and provided him with round the clock fat ugly chicks to give him blow jobs, 24-7, than to allow his slimy hands to touch a pen, in the Oval Office!.....(he might have been happier, too!)...and Hillary could have them when he was done....and the other way around, too!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Oct 12 - 12:05 PM

Maybe politically motivated, maybe not? But, regardless, it can't be a bad sign.


U.S. prepared to meet Iran for nuclear talks

Subject: BS: Obamadrama: What's Next?
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 21 Oct 12 - 08:24 PM

Obamagate?
{:-( ))=

P.S. Like my new hairdo? I got a mohawk.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Oct 12 - 09:40 PM

I think your new haircut is absolutely the cat's meow, Henry. Way to go, man! That will put the fear in pimps and other neighborhood scum like that. And I bet you have something hidden up your sleeve too.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 12:19 PM

""Here is a little data for you Amos. It is from a source you have quoted so I presume the source is acceptable to you.""

You mean the fact that since August 2011 Obama has gone from 43.3% approval to 49.3%, while his opponent has advanced rapidly to the rear from 55.9% to 49.5%?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 12:27 PM

""We all would have been better off, if the Republicans and kept him in the barn and provided him with round the clock fat ugly chicks to give him blow jobs, 24-7,""

And that is what you think of as comment from a position of SANITY?

God help America!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 12:32 PM

Bobz, I absolutely hate that word, but you are clearly close to the truth. You are trying to talk sense to either three retards, or one retard posting under three false IDs.

An you, LH, are doing yourself no service by backing these loonies.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 02:47 PM

I think the most prevalent view of the Obama administration, which is the most obvious, is that Obama is a fast, jive-talking bullshit artist...and that his devotees are constantly having to explain it away, and make excuses!
Is this not obvious???
(Well, it is unless you are in complete moronic denial!!)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 04:43 PM

"The Romney-Ryan ticket represents a constricted and backward-looking vision of America: the privatization of the public good. In contrast, the sort of public investment championed by Obama—and exemplified by both the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the Affordable Care Act—takes to heart the old civil-rights motto "Lifting as we climb." That effort cannot, by itself, reverse the rise of inequality that has been under way for at least three decades. But we've already seen the future that Romney represents, and it doesn't work."

The New Yorker's endorsement of Obama gives, in my opinion, a good summary of what he has accomplished and why he should be re-elected, gibberish from the incoherent notwithstanding:

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/10/29/121029taco_talk_editors#ixzz2A3uZLHtk

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 04:46 PM

He's still a bullshitter!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,999
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 06:52 PM

Neat 7 minute video: Still think Romney's the one?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 06:55 PM

Who cares? They work for the same outfit!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,999
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 07:23 PM

Maybe so, but you didn't watch the video.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 10:22 PM

Well(I watched it)..like I've said before, right on here, matter of fact, "Whoever lies the best gets elected!"
Either way we're screwed...the money issue is bigger than the office. I posted a rather precise post, with link on that before. At least with Romulan, we get someone who has experience in liquidating. obama just makes sure there is less to liquidate!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 11:55 PM

I am not "backing these loonies", Don-W-t. My last remarks to Henry were simply a bit of humour in regards to the membername he has chosen. It derives from a scene in a famous movie, and I was making a joke based on that scene.

The fact that I am willing to talk in a friendly fashion to people like Henry Krinkle and GfS (and DougR when he still bothered to come here) is based simply on this: they are fellow human beings. I agree with some things they say about politics, I disagree with other things they say about politics, but I do not view their every appearance as an excuse to personally insult and attack them, regardless of what they say. That's what several of my fellow liberals here do all the time...and I think that's your mistake in conduct, not mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Oct 12 - 12:34 AM

Yeah!
Besides, you don't have to talk to me..it's just you have an uncontrollable urge to spout twisted nonsense and think it's 'liberal'..when in fact, you are so close minded that in your next lifetime you may come back as a chastity belt!...if you're lucky!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Oct 12 - 10:17 AM

ANd you will come back, if you are lucky, as a one-eyed crow.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Oct 12 - 11:20 AM

""Besides, you don't have to talk to me.""

Mostly I don't talk to you, but rather about the ridiculous rubbish which, to your apparently atrophied cognitive apparatus is "from Sanity".

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Oct 12 - 02:36 PM

Time for a commercial break!

Sanity is the primary product of the small town of Sane, Alberta, not too far west of the communities of Sufferable and Continent. Sane is a lovely place.

People in Sane are proud of their town...so much so that many will boast of having lived in Sane all their lives. As the recent mayoral candidate, Abner "Ab" Normle stated during his campaign: "My opponent has only been in Sane for 5 years! I have been in Sane ever since the day I was born, and I intend to remain in Sane! I married in Sane, I raised my kids in Sane, and one day I will die in Sane!"

He was elected by a landslide.

You know when you're nearing the town by the signs on the Trans-Canada. They proudly say, "In 5 minutes you'll be in Sane".

The town council of Sane, Alberta thanks you for listening to this brief commercial message. You may now return to fighting about Barack Obama...or whatever else will do. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 13 - 08:36 AM

"He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavored to . . . cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner."


























— Article II, Section 1, Articles of Impeachment against Richard M. Nixon, adopted by the House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 15 May 13 - 08:52 AM

Two wars of choice costing thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of permanently disabled and $Ts in treasury...

I guess those were the good old days, bb???

Uh huh...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 13 - 09:08 AM

So THAT is the reason Democrats went after Nixon! He ended there nice little war in SE Asia, so they had to get rid of him.



If Obama was a Constitutional scholar as claimed when he ran, he would have been MORE AWARE than Nixon that he was responsible for the actions of his administration. YET YOU GIVE HIM A PASS in the cases where you jumped on Bush.


You and GregF deserve each other. Just don't let him call you "Black, and a Democrat"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 May 13 - 09:30 AM

Sorry, Beardie. False analogy. Not even close. And if you don't actually know that & are just stirring the shit, you're even more deluded than we thought - asuming that's possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 13 - 09:33 AM

"The nation's news media were stunned to learn yesterday of the Departmentof Justice's broad subpoena of telephone records belonging to The Associated Press. In the thirty years since the Department issued guidelines governingits subpoena practice as it relates to phone records from journalists, none of us can remember an instance where such an overreaching dragnet for newsgathering materials was deployed by the Department, particularlywithout notice to the affected reporters or an opportunity to seek judicialreview. The scope of this action calls into question the very integrity of Department of Justice policies toward the press and its ability to balance, onits own, its police powers against the First Amendment rights of the newsmedia and the public's interest in reporting on all manner of governmentconduct, including matters touching on national security which lie at the heartof this case."



http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/media-coalition-letter-of-protest-to-attorney-general-eric-holder/148/

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 May 13 - 12:08 PM

Since when should the fox guard the hen-house?
Since when have recent administrations given a rat's ass about our rights??..First amendment..second...fourth sixth...nope...this is another charade.
Did real good with 'Fast and Furious', didn't he?
Actually, this smacks of some sort of bullshit....the AP would GLADLY have handed over anything the administration would have asked for...jeez, they're been covering his ass for a long time already...something else is going on here..we're only getting the 'cover story'!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 13 - 12:32 PM

"Lois Lerner, the senior IRS official at the center of the decision to target tea party groups for burdensome tax scrutiny, signed paperwork granting tax-exempt status to the Barack H. Obama Foundation, a shady charity headed by the president's half-brother that operated illegally for years.

According to the organization's filings, Lerner approved the foundation's tax status within a month of filing, an unprecedented timeline that stands in stark contrast to conservative organizations that have been waiting for more than three years, in some cases, for approval.

Lerner also appears to have broken with the norms of tax-exemption approval by granting retroactive tax-exempt status to Malik Obama's organization.

The National Legal and Policy Center filed an official complaint with the IRS in May 2011 asking why the foundation was being allowed to solicit tax-deductible contributions when it had not even applied for an IRS determination. In a New York Post article dated May 8, 2011, an officer of the foundation admitted, "We haven't been able to find someone with the expertise" to apply for tax-exempt status.

Nevertheless, a month later, the Barack H. Obama Foundation had flown through the grueling application process. Lerner granted the organization a 501(c) determination and even gave it a retroactive tax exemption dating back to December 2008.

The group's available paperwork suggests an extremely hurried application and approval process. For example, the group's 990 filings for 2008 and 2009 were submitted to the IRS on May 30, 2011, and its 2010 filing was submitted on May 23, 2011.

Lerner signed the group's approval [pdf] on June 26, 2011.

It is illegal to operate for longer than 27 months without an IRS determination and solicit tax-deductible contributions.

The ostensibly Arlington, Va.-based charity was not even registered in Virginia despite the foundation's website including a donation button that claimed tax-exempt status.

Its president and founder, Abon'go "Roy' Malik Obama, is Barack Obama's half-brother and was the best man at his wedding, but he has a checkered past. In addition to running his charity, Malik Obama ran unsuccessfully to be the governor of Siaya County in Kenya. He was accused of being a wife beater and seducing the newest of his twelve wives while she was a 17-year-old school girl.

Sensing something wrong when he and a group of Missouri State students visited Kenya in 2009, Ken Rutherford, winner of the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for his work on banning landmines, determined that Malik Obama was an "operator" and elected to give a donation of 400 pounds of medical supplies to a local clinic instead.

"We didn't know what he was going to do with them," Rutherford told the New York Post in 2011.

It is also not clear what the Barack H. Obama Foundation actually does. Its website claims the organization has built a madrassa and was building a imam's house but there is no other evidence that the nonprofit was actually helping poor Kenyan children.

"The Obama Foundation raised money on its web page by falsely claiming to be a tax deductible. This bogus charity run by Malik had not even applied and yet subsequently got retroactive tax-deductible status," Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, told The Daily Caller. Boehm described Malik Obama's attempt to raise money as constituting "common law fraud and potentially even federal mail fraud."

Boehm doubted that the charity is doing what it says it's doing and wondered why the charity was given tax-exempt status so quickly after the evidence of wrongdoing came to light.

Ads by Google

"How do you get retroactive tax-exempt status when you haven't even applied to get it in the first place?" Boehm said.

Lerner continues to draw fire for her handling of the IRS targeting of conservative and citizen groups, but her colleagues have started to defend her, alleging that she behaves "apolitically."

Larry Noble, who served as general counsel at the FEC from 1987 to 2000, hired and promoted Lerner. "I worked with Lois for a number of years and she is really one of the more apolitical people I've met," Noble told The Daily Beast. "That doesn't mean she doesn't have political views, but she really focuses on the job and what the rules are. She doesn't have an agenda."

Lerner could not be reached for comment. Calls to the Barack H. Obama Foundation went directly to the organization's voicemail and were not returned.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 May 13 - 12:34 PM

Hey, remember to thank Bush, Cheney & Co. for the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. [sic] Act.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 13 - 12:35 PM

WASHINGTON -- In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked.

That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn't be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months.

In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows.

As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with liberal-sounding names had their applications approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," the liberal groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups. They included:

• Bus for Progress, a New Jersey non-profit that uses a red, white and blue bus to "drive the progressive change." According to its website, its mission includes "support (for) progressive politicians with the courage to serve the people's interests and make tough choices." It got an IRS approval as a social welfare group in April 2011.

• Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment says it fights against corporate welfare and for increasing the minimum wage. "It would be fair to say we're on the progressive end of the spectrum," said executive director Jeff Ordower. He said the group got tax-exempt status in September 2011 in just nine months after "a pretty simple, straightforward process."

• Progress Florida, granted tax-exempt status in January 2011, is lobbying the Florida Legislature to expand Medicaid under a provision of the Affordable Care Act, one of President Obama's signature accomplishments. The group did not return phone calls. "We're busy fighting to build a more progressive Florida and cannot take your call right now," the group's voice mail said.

Like the Tea Party groups, the liberal groups sought recognition as social welfare groups under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, based on activities like "citizen participation" or "voter education and registration."

In a conference call with reporters last week, the IRS official responsible for granting tax-exempt status said that it was a mistake to subject Tea Party groups to additional scrutiny based solely on the organization's name. But she said ideology played no part in the process.

"The selection of these cases where they used the names was not a partisan selection," said Lois Lerner, director of exempt organizations. She said progressive groups were also selected for greater scrutiny based on their names, but did not provide details. "I don't have them off the top of my head," she said.

The IRS did not respond to follow-up questions Tuesday.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-progressive-groups/2158831/

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 13 - 12:44 PM

"The same Internal Revenue Service office that singled out Tea Party groups for extra scrutiny also challenged Israel-related organizations, at least one of which filed suit over the agency's handling of its application for tax-exempt status.
The trouble for the Israel-focused groups seems to have had different origins than that experienced by conservative groups, but at times the effort seems to have been equally ham-handed.
A leader of one of the organizations involved, Lori Lowenthal Marcus of Z Street, said Monday that she was convinced the added attention her group got was no accident.
"I can't believe it was just about Z Street, because it's a tiny organization," Lowenthal Marcus said of the group, which has been critical of President Barack Obama for being too cozy with left-leaning Jewish groups like J Street and with pro-Palestinian entities.
(Also on POLITICO: 5 key players in IRS mess)
Z Street filed a lawsuit against the IRS in 2010 alleging that one of its attorneys were told its application for tax exemption was delayed and sent to a "special unit…to determine whether the organization's activities contradict the Administration's public policies."
The suit was filed in federal court in Pennsylvania and later transferred to DC. A judge in Washington has set a hearing on the case for July 2.
Z Street had applied for the 501 (c) (3) status applied to most charities, allowing for tax deductible donations.
Most of the tea party groups known to have come under scrutiny applied for 501 (c) (4) status, which allows advocacy groups to avoid federal taxes on their operations but doesn't render donations to the groups tax deductible.

Both kinds of applications are processed in the same Cincinnati office.

Legal filings show that the problems for Z Street — and apparently for other Israel-related groups — stemmed from an obscure unit in the Cincinnati IRS office: the "Touch and Go Group." One of the so-called TAG Group's duties was to weed out applications that might be coming from organizations which might be used to fund terrorism.
In response to Z Street's lawsuit, an IRS manager acknowledged that applications mentioning Israel were getting special attention.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/israel-related-groups-also-pointed-to-irs-scrutiny-91298.html#ixzz2TNeBECrq

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 13 - 03:23 PM

"Remember what we were told when this explosive story first broke less than a week ago? The IRS official in charge of tax exemptions for organizations said the improper methods employed within her division were executed by "low level workers" in Cincinnati who weren't motivated by "political bias," and impacted roughly 75 organizations? Wrong, wrong and wrong:

"Low Level" - Officials within the highest echelons of the agency were aware of the inappropriate targeting, including the last two commissioners -- at least one of whom appears to have misled Congress on this very question. Now Politico reports that Lerner herself sent at least one of the probing letters to an Ohio-based conservative group.

The director of the Internal Revenue Service division under fire for singling out conservative groups sent a 2012 letter under her name to one such group, POLITICO has learned. The March 2012 letter was sent to the Ohio-based American Patriots Against Government Excess (American PAGE) under the name of Lois Lerner, the director of the Exempt Organizations Division...at the time of the letter, the group was in the midst of the application process for tax-exempt nonprofit status — a process that would stretch for nearly three years and involve queries for detailed information on its social media activity, its organizational set-up, bylaws, membership and interactions with political officials. The letter threatened to close American PAGE's case file unless additional information was received within 60 days.

These burdensome requests were apparently designed to bury the victimized groups in paperwork. Carol reported last night that some 58 percent of these applicants were asked for unnecessary information and data, according to the Inspector General's review. Some inquiries asked for screenshots of organizations' Facebook posts and even lists of what books (!) its members were reading.   

"No Political Bias" - This claim was laughable on its face from the start, in light of the agency's surreal criteria for added scrutiny and the "red flag" words and phrases that triggered investigations. Now add to the mix this scoop from USA Today:

In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked. That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn't be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months. In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows. As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with liberal-sounding names had their applications approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," the liberal groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups.


Lerner also reportedly fast-tracked an approval for a foundation operated by President Obama's half brother, taking the extraordinary step of granting it retroactive tax-free status.

"Seventy-five organizations effected" - That number almost immediately swelled to 300. Now it's closer to 500:

The IRS targeting of conservative groups is far broader than first reported, with nearly 500 organizations singled out for additional scrutiny, according to two lawmakers briefed by the agency. IRS officials claimed on Friday that roughly 300 groups received additional scrutiny. Reps. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said Tuesday that the number has actually risen to 471. Further, they said it is "unclear" whether Tea Party and other conservative groups are being targeted to this day."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 13 - 03:25 PM

Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that he believes President Barack Obama owes the American public explanations for both the seizure of Associated Press phone records by the Department of Justice and the IRS targeting of conservative groups.
"I don't think anyone truly believes that the president has given us a sufficient answer for America, much less the press," Rangel said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "I think this is just the beginning and the whole idea of comparing this with Nixon, I really think is just, it doesn't make much sense. But the president has to come forward and share why he did not alert the press they were going to do this. He has to tell the Americans, including me: What was this national security question? You just can't raise the flag and expect to salute it every time without any reason and the same thing applies to the IRS."
Continue Reading
Text Size
-+reset
McConnell on IRS: Doubts Obama transparency

Latest on POLITICO
Dem 2016 poll: Clinton still on top
Hill's 'Brewers Caucus' on tap
Furloughs to shut down IRS for a day
GOP calls for Obama help in probe
GOP smells blood
Wicker: 'Cold water' hits tax reform
(PHOTOS: 10 slams on the IRS)
The White House has said Obama wasn't involved in either the IRS decision to target conservative groups — a position backed up by an inspector general report released Tuesday — or in the DOJ's decision to broadly subpoena phone records for 20 Associated Press phone lines in three cities.
Rangel is a member of the House Ways And Means Committee, which will hold a hearing on why the IRS gave tougher scrutiny to conservative groups' non-profits applications on Friday morning.
"In Watergate, Senator Baker said it all, everybody uses this: 'What did he know and when did he know it?'" Rangel said. "I am confident that the President is angry as hell about this, as he should be. The IRS is no place for partisanship, Democrat or Republican."
(Also on POLITICO: TOP 5 Obama scandal responses)
But Rangel, a staunch Obama ally, said the press should give Obama time to sort out what happened.
"We have to give him an opportunity to root out any wrongdoing, whether it's just negligence or criminal," Rangel said. "But, for right now, to say that the president should be doubted? No. He has to come forward and give more of an answer than he has done.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/charlie-rangel-irs-associated-press-comments-91398.html#ixzz2TOIxZB6w

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 13 - 03:32 PM

"With Washington gripped by a trio of exploding scandals this week – from Benghazi to government spying on news outlets to thug tactics by the Internal Revenue Service – Senate Democrats seem to be hoping that if they just yell loud enough then voters will overlook a key role they played in at least one of them.

They quickly sensed the political toxicity associated with Friday's admission by the IRS that they selectively targeted conservative organizations for special government scrutiny, and so Democrats didn't waste any time springing into action. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana, for example, vowed congressional hearings and called the IRS actions "an outrageous abuse of power and a breach of the public's trust."

He was joined by a chorus of other Democrats including Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire who called it "completely unacceptable," Kay Hagan of North Carolina who called it "disturbing and troubling," and Mark Pryor of Arkansas who tweeted that he's "working to get to bottom of this so we can fire those responsible & ensure this never happens again."

Fortunately, voters won't need to look very far.The willful ignorance and revisionist history demonstrated by Senate Democrats on this issue has been breathtaking, even by Washington standards.


Over the last three years, Democratic senators repeatedly and publicly pressured the IRS to engage in the very activities that they are only now condemning today. At the same time, Republicans repeatedly and publicly warned against this abuse of government power and pointed to a series of red flags that strongly suggested conservative political organizations were being targeted by the IRS. Those warnings were deliberately ignored by the Obama administration and Democratic leaders in Congress.

As the New York Times reported back in 2010 :

With growing scrutiny of the role of tax-exempt groups in political campaigns, Congressional Republicans are pushing back against Democrats by warning about the possible misuse of the Internal Revenue Service to audit conservative groups….And the Republicans are also upset about an I.R.S. review requested by Senator Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat who leads the Finance Committee, into the political activities of tax-exempt groups. Such a review threatens to "chill the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights," wrote two Republican senators, Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Jon Kyl of Arizona, in a letter sent to the I.R.S. on Wednesday. ... Democrats dismissed the Republicans' complaints as groundless.

You read that correctly.

The same Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance Committee who this week is calling for hearings into IRS activities, specifically called on the IRS to engage in that very conduct back in 2010. And he wasn't the only one. Just last year, a group of seven Senate Democrats sent another letter to the IRS urging them to similarly investigate these outside political organizations.

As the New York Times also reported just one week before they sent this letter:

The Internal Revenue Service is caught in an election-year struggle between Democratic lawmakers pressing for a crackdown on nonprofit political groups and conservative organizations accusing the tax agency of conducting a politically charged witch hunt.

Voters in New Hampshire may be interested to learn that Jeanne Shaheen was among the signatories of that letter urging action by the IRS.

So lost amid the hubbub surrounding the news that the IRS engaged in McCarthyite tactics to target specific political groups, and their subsequent apology for those tactics, has been the fact that the lobbying campaign from Senate Democrats actually worked.

From Max Baucus to Chuck Schumer to Jeanne Shaheen, key Senate Democrats publicly pressured the IRS to target groups that held differing political views and who, in their view, had the temerity to engage in the political process. The IRS listened to them and acted. And other Democrat senators like Kay Hagan and Mark Pryor said and did nothing about it.

Perhaps their strategy of distraction may work in the short-term with a Washington press corps pulled in a multitude of different directions, but Senate Democrats have a serious political problem that will haunt them as they head into an already-difficult election cycle. When these Senate Finance Committee hearings come to pass it would be a remarkable act of bravery and candor for one of these IRS bureaucrats to appropriately ask Max Baucus and others why they're not sitting at the witness tables next to them, instead of continuing in their charade of faux outrage.

Because Senate Democrats today have just as much explaining to do as the IRS."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 13 - 03:42 PM

"Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Wednesday that the Bush administration once considered issuing the type of subpoena that the Justice Department issued against the Associated Press, but ultimately opted against it.
"There was at least one occasion in which we were engaged in a very serious leak investigation and we had to make some very difficult choices about whether or not to move forward, going after the reporters in order to try to figure out where the source of the leak is," he said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe. "And sometimes, the department finds itself in a situation where they have exhausted all means and they have to make a very hard determination as to whether or not they want to subpoena the reporter, if they want to subpoena the reporter's notes. So yes, I've had that situation. In the instance that I have in mind, we ultimately decided not to move forward."

While other administrations have subpoenaed reporters' phone records in the past, the Associated Press subpoena has caused widespread outrage because of its breadth. The subpoena, issued as part of an investigation into who leaked information about a successful CIA operation in Yemen, covered three AP offices and phones used by more than 100 reporters.
Gonzales also said he believes it would be OK if the Justice Department had informed the White House before issuing the subpoena, provided the White House wasn't given the opportunity to interfere with the investigation. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has said President Barack Obama and other officials didn't know about the subpoena before it was issued.
"It would surprise me that the White House would not have received some type of heads-up," Gonzales said. "'Hey, we're about to do this, there's going to be some type of negative reaction.'"
Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday he had recused himself from the case because the FBI had interviewed him as part of their investigation. Justice Department guidelines say the Attorney General needs to sign off any subpoena of news media records, and the subpoena can only come after all other options are exhausted.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/alberto-gonzales-subpoena-leak-91405.html#ixzz2TOMxuL7r

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 May 13 - 07:32 PM

Greg F.: "Hey, remember to thank Bush, Cheney & Co. for the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. [sic] Act."

As I've posted numerous times before in here, Joe Biden was the author of the 'Patriot Act' back in the mid nineties!!!!!

So get off it.
It's NOT one 'party' or the other!!!

GfS

P.S. AG Holder just testified, about the IRS scandal, and said that the IG report, made a conclusion about who ordered this...and just got caught perjuring himself....flat out.
...OK, gotta go back and watch this circus...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 May 13 - 01:20 AM

....and all this time, some of you actually thought Barrack was a 'liberal'!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 May 13 - 01:43 AM

Just after my last post, I got this, from 'The Politico', a very 'liberal', (therefore 'left' I suppose, 'news' source)......



[http://www.politico.com/]

D.C. turns on Obama
By: Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei
May 14, 2013 09:10 PM EDT

The town is turning on President Obama — and this is very bad news for this White House.

Republicans have waited five years for the moment to put the screws to Obama — and they have one-third of all congressional committees on the case now. Establishment Democrats, never big fans of this president to begin with, are starting to speak out. And reporters are tripping over themselves to condemn lies, bullying and shadiness in the Obama administration.

Buy-in from all three D.C. stakeholders is an essential ingredient for a good old-fashioned Washington pile-on — so get ready for bad stories and public scolding to pile up.

Vernon Jordan, a close adviser to President Bill Clinton through his darkest days, told us: "It's never all right if you're the president. There is no smooth sailing. So now he has the turbulence, and this is the ultimate test of his leadership." Jordan says Obama needs to do something dramatic on the IRS, and quick: "He needs to fire somebody. He needs action, not conversation."

Obama's aloof mien and holier-than-thou rhetoric have left him with little reservoir of good will, even among Democrats. And the press, after years of being accused of being soft on Obama while being berated by West Wing aides on matters big and small, now has every incentive to be as ruthless as can be.

This White House's instinctive petulance, arrogance and defensiveness have all worked to isolate Obama at a time when he most needs a support system. "It feel like they don't know what they're here to do," a former senior Obama administration official said. "When there's no narrative, stuff like this consumes you."

Republican outrage is predictable, maybe even manageable. Democratic outrage is not.

The dam of solid Democratic solidarity has collapsed, starting with New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd's weekend scolding of the White House over Benghazi, then gushing with the news the Justice Department had sucked up an absurdly broad swath of Associated Press phone records.

Democrats are privately befuddled by the White House's flat-footed handling of this P.R. and legal mess, blaming a combination of bad timing, hubris and communications ineptitude. The most charitable defense offered up on background is that Obama staffers are scandal virgins, unaccustomed to dealing with a rabid press.

Chris Lehane, who spent so much time managing scandals in the 1990s that it inspired him to write a textbook on the subject, is among the contingent of Clinton-era scandal hands that thinks the Obama team has botched its second-term image. "One cannot get caught up with chasing news cycles in a crisis, as that is a prescription for putting out inaccurate information that does not withstand scrutiny or the test of time," said Lehane, whose book is titled "Masters of Disaster."

One Democrat who likes Obama and has been around town for many years said elected officials in his own party are no different than Republicans: They think the president is distant and unapproachable.

"He has never taken the Democratic chairs up to Camp David to have a drink or to have a discussion," the longtime Washingtonian said. "You gotta stroke people and talk to them. It's like courting: You have to send flowers and candy and have surprises. It's a constant process. Now they're saying, 'He never talked to me in the good times.'"

This makes it easier for Democrats like House Oversight and Government Reform Committee member Elijah Cummings to pop off, as he did on CNN on Tuesday, calling the IRS scandal "one of the most alarming things" he's ever seen. Ouch.

None of this is going away. Top Republicans tell us the Benghazi investigations will last at least months, and probably until the midterms of 2014 and beyond. Same for the IRS scandal — and new scrutiny of how the Obama White House clamps down on its critics. Republicans are also working up plans to use the backdrop of government incompetence and over-reach to try to further undermine implementation of the new health care law.

This is a dangerous — albeit familiar — place for a second-term president. Once the dogs are released, they bark, they bite and it takes a very long time to calm them down. Bill Clinton got hit early and often, and George W. Bush never really recovered from it.

No doubt, the hysteria cools. But, once you hit this point, it takes time, often lots of it.

The long-term danger is that the political system and the public start to view the president, his motives and ideas through a more skeptical lens. The short-term danger is the press races for new details, new scandals, new expressions of indignity with each passing day. Read Tuesday morning editorial pages of every paper for a taste of things to come. Or watch a rerun of Tuesday's "Morning Joe," in which reporters made it sound like Obama is a latter-day Richard Nixon.

""And it goes beyond even the story," National Journal's Ron Fournier, who covered the Clinton and Bush scandals and was once the AP Washington bureau chief, said on the show. "One common thing with Benghazi and the IRS scandal, is we're being misled every day. We were lied to on Benghazi, on the talking points behind Benghazi, for months. We were lied to by the IRS for months and now they're sending a clear message to our sources:

'Don't embarrass the administration or we're coming after you.'"


..................................

And to BOBERT,....this should be a quote of interest to you, from the article....(as if you haven't heard it from your FRIEND, before...

"One Democrat who likes Obama and has been around town for many years said elected officials in his own party are no different than Republicans..."

Sound familiar?????????????????????

No go listen to Don....He'll spin you to stupidity!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 13 - 02:14 AM

A longtime Reaganite is the president and CEO of The Politico.

Frederick J. Ryan, Jr. worked in multiple positions in the Reagan White House, and was continuously promoted until he rose to the level of Assistant to the President. And his close connection to the Reagan family and the Reagan presidency continues through today.

Currently, one of the biggest fans of The Politico is George W. Bush.

These are easily verifiable FACTS.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 13 - 07:42 AM

Don,

Care to discuss any of the facts presented, or do you just want to attack the messenger, as usual?

Lots presented here NOT from Politico.

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Then CIA-Director David Petraeus objected to the final talking points that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice used five days after the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, because he wanted to see more detail publicly released, including a warning issued from the CIA about plans for a break-in at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, a newly released email shows.

Under pressure in the investigation that continues eight months after the attacks, the White House on Wednesday released 99 pages of emails and a single page of hand-written notes made by Petraeus' deputy, Mike Morell, after a meeting at the White House the day before Rice's appearance. On that page, Morell scratched out from the CIA's early drafts of talking points mentions of al-Qaida, the experience of fighters in Libya, Islamic extremists and a warning to the Cairo embassy on the eve of the attacks of calls for a demonstration and break-in by jihadists.

"No mention of the cable to Cairo, either?" Petraeus wrote after receiving Morell's edited version, developed after an intense back-and-forth among Obama administration officials. "Frankly, I'd just as soon not use this, then."

A senior U.S. intelligence official told reporters Wednesday that Morell made the changes to the talking points because of his own concerns that they could prejudge an FBI investigation into who was responsible for the Sept. 11, 2012, attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

The official said Morell also didn't think it was fair to disclose the CIA's advance warning without giving the State Department a chance to explain how it responded. The official spoke on a condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about the emails on the record. Petraeus declined to be interviewed.

Critics have highlighted an email by then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland that expressed concern that any mention of prior warnings or the involvement of al-Qaida would give congressional Republicans ammunition to attack the administration in the weeks before the presidential election. Fighting terror was one of President Barack Obama's re-election strong points.

That email was among those released by the White House, sent by Nuland on Sept. 14 at 7:39 p.m. to officials in the White House, State Department and CIA. "I have serious concerns about all the parts highlighted below, and arming members of Congress to start making assertions to the media that we ourselves are not making because we don't want to prejudice the investigation," she wrote.

The emails were shared with Congress earlier this year as a condition for allowing the nomination of John Brennan for CIA director to move forward. The general counsel for the national intelligence director's office briefed members and staff from the Senate Intelligence Committee and leadership on the emails on Feb. 15 at a session in which staff could take notes. A similar briefing took place March 19 for the House Intelligence Committee and leadership staff.

An interim report last month from the Republicans on five House committees criticized the Obama administration and mentioned the emails, but the issue exploded last Friday when new details emerged. Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee read some of the emails aloud last Wednesday at a hearing with State Department officials. The next day, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, called on the White House to release the emails.

A Boehner spokesman said Wednesday the emails released by the White House only confirm the interim report. "They contradict statements made by the White House that it and the State Department only changed one word in the talking points," Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck said in a statement. "The seemingly political nature of the State Department's concerns raises questions about the motivations behind these changes and who at the State Department was seeking them."

Congressional officials selectively shared parts of the emails, and new revelations emerged Friday that showed State Department and other administration officials pressing for references to terror groups and prior warnings be deleted, expressing concerns about the political implications.

The White House released the full set of emails sent to Congress under the pressure in hopes of putting an end to the controversy that has dogged the administration for months. The White House says congressional Republicans have misrepresented some of them.

The emails released by the White House were partially blacked out, including to remove names of senders and recipients who are career employees at the CIA and elsewhere. The names were replaced with references to the office where they worked.

The talking points were used by Rice in her appearance on five news shows on Sunday, Sept. 16, and also sent to Congress. An official with the CIA's office of congressional affairs whose name was blacked out sent the final version to Petraeus on Saturday, Sept. 15, at 12:51 p.m.

"As mentioned last night, State had voiced strong concerns with the original text due to the criminal investigation," the official wrote. Petraeus responded at 2:27 saying he'd prefer not to even use them in that form.

But he said the decision was up to the White House's national security staff. "NSS's call, to be sure; however, this is certainly not what Vice Chairman (Dutch) Ruppersberger was hoping to get for unclas use. Regardless, thanks for the great work.""

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 13 - 07:46 AM

The White House on Wednesday released 94 pages of emails between top administration and intelligence officials who helped shape the talking points about the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that the CIA would provide to policymakers in both the legislative and executive branches.


The documents, first reported by THE WEEKLY STANDARD in articles here and here, directly contradict claims by White House press secretary Jay Carney and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the revisions of those talking points were driven by the intelligence community and show heavy input from top Obama administration officials, particularly those at the State Department.

The emails provide further detail about the rewriting of the talking points during a 24-hour period from midday September 14 to midday September 15. As THE WEEKLY STANDARD previously reported, a briefing from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence shows that the big changes came in three waves – internally at the CIA, after email feedback from top administration officials, and during or after a meeting of high-ranking intelligence and national security officials the following morning.

The initial CIA changes softened some of the language about the participants in the Benghazi assault – from "Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda" to "Islamic extremists." But CIA officials also added bullet points about the possible participation of Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked jihadist group, and previous warnings about the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi. Those additions came out after the talking points were sent to "the interagency," where the CIA's final draft was further stripped down to little more than boilerplate. The half dozen references to terrorists – both in Benghazi and more generally – all but disappeared. Gone were references to al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, jihadists, Islamic extremists, etc. The only remaining mention was a note that "extremists" had participated in the attack.

As striking as what appears in the email traffic is what does not. There is no mention of the YouTube video that would become a central part of the administration's explanation of the attacks to the American people until a brief mention in the subject line of emails coming out of an important meeting where further revisions were made.

Carney, in particular, is likely to face tough questioning about the contents of the emails because he made claims to reporters that were untrue. "The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two – of these two institutions were changing the word 'consulate' to 'diplomatic facility,' because the word 'consulate' was inaccurate," he told reporters on November 28, 2012.

That's not true. An email sent at 9:15 PM on September 14, from an official in the CIA's Office of Public Affairs to others at the agency, described the process this way. "The State Department had major reservations with much or most of the document. We revised the document with their concerns in mind."

That directly contradicts what Carney said. It's also difficult to reconcile with claims made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during testimony she gave January 23 on Capitol Hill.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 13 - 08:20 AM

The Benghazi-related emails released by the White House late May 15 exclude the critical emails between administration officials that were sent during the crucial first two days after the deadly jihadi attack that killed four Americans last September.

The 100 pages of partially redacted emails also conclude with a dismissive message from CIA chief David Petraeus.

"Frankly, I'd just as soon not use this," Petraeus said about the heavily edited, four-sentence "talking points" that the White House used to downplay Al Qaeda's role in the Sep. 11 attack on the poorly protected diplomatic compound.





Nixon: 18 minutes missing
Obama: 48 hours missing

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 13 - 08:26 AM

"Lois Lerner, the senior executive in charge of the IRS tax exemption department and the federal employee at the center of the exploding scandal over the IRS targeting of conservative, evangelical and pro-Israel non-profits, was given $42,531 in bonuses between 2009 and 2011.

That figure was included in data provided by the IRS in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by The Washington Examiner. Lerner is director of the IRS exempt organizations division, which processes and approves or denies applications from groups seeking tax-exempt status.

Lerner received $17,220 for 2010, $14,691 for 2011 and $10,620 for 2012, the most recent year for which the IRS said data was available.

Her annual salary in 2009 and 2010 was $172,200, and $177,000 in 2011 and 2012. With the bonuses, Lerner was paid a total of $740,931 for the four-year period.

Sign Up for the Watchdog newsletter!
Lerner admitted last week that her agency had singled out conservative groups with words like "Tea Party" and "Patriot" in their names. Being singled out reportedly delayed resolution of their application for many months for most of the groups, while applications from liberals groups were typically processed in only a month or two."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 May 13 - 08:53 AM

Looks like Beardie's down again with a case of Chronic Postarrhoea. Must be his supply od paregoric ran out.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 13 - 09:04 AM

For those who think that GregF. comments are acceptable, here is part of the history of this lying racist scumbag"



"Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: Greg F. - PM
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 02:00 PM
...
Beardie is also the guy that, in the thread about cash only for second-hand goods, wanted us to know that the sponsor of the bill was a Dumb Ni--er.

Gimmie a break."

His justification for this lie?

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: Greg F. - PM
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 02:31 PM

For Max and Beardie's benefit, from the archives:

Subject: RE: BS: Louisiana Makes It Illegal To Use Cash
From: pdq - PM
Date: 23 Oct 11 - 07:37 PM

Just for the record, the idiot behind this bill is a member of the Louisiana House of Representitives.

He is Black and a Democrat."


NOTE THIS WAS NOT EVEN MY POST, and that Greg F reads "He is Black and a Democrat." as "the sponsor of the bill was a Dumb Ni--er."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 13 - 09:32 AM

IRS officials refused to grant tax exempt status two pro-life organizations because of their position on the abortion issue, according to a non-profit law firm, which said that one group was pressured not to protest a pro-choice organization that endorsed President Obama during the last election.

"In one case, the IRS withheld approval of an application for tax exempt status for Coalition for Life of Iowa. In a phone call to Coalition for Life of Iowa leaders on June 6, 2009, the IRS agent 'Ms. Richards' told the group to send a letter to the IRS with the entire board's signatures stating that, under perjury of the law, they do not picket/protest or organize groups to picket or protest outside of Planned Parenthood," the Thomas More Society announced today. "Once the IRS received this letter, their application would be approved."

Planned Parenthood endorsed Obama in 2008 and 2012.

The IRS also pressured another pro-life group about its religious activities. "The IRS withheld approval of an application for charitable tax-exempt recognition of Christian Voices for Life, questioning the group's involvement with '40 Days for Life' and 'Life Chain' events," according to the law firm. "The Fort Bend County, Texas, organization was subjected to repeated and lengthy unconstitutional requests for information about the viewpoint and content of its educational communications, volunteer prayer vigils, and other protected activities."

The IRS admitted last week to that some members of the agency targeted Tea Party groups for discriminatory reviews of their applications for tax-exempt status. The Justice Department has initiated a criminal investigation into the matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 May 13 - 10:25 AM

Well done Bruce!
I figured out, a while back, that the 'so-called' liberals HATE news sources that even remotely report truthfully. They thrive on being lied to...then turn around and help spread the lies, and attack the messengers of truth...and even berate those who SEEK the truth. To them, the ends justifies the means, and then act shocked, and crawl back in their holes, when the truth emerges and bites them in the ass....BUT..they are not concerned that they've been wallowing in lies, and spreading them to forward stupidly wrong agendas....they just feel bad because, their 'sense of importance' has been minimized by a little verifiable truth.....and fearing that they'll be exposed, they accuse, and call names, to distract people from the subject, or even DISCUSSING the truth.
You have it all over the place in here.
I, myself, am neither on the 'right' or 'left'....but the 'left' accuses me of being on the 'right'....and the 'right' accuses me of being on the 'left', anytime I expose the TRUTH, which has very little to do with either one of them!!

Don just posted a classic example, of which if he was 1/10th as 'brainy' as he thought he was, can't see that the 'tactic' has got him nowhere, except falling all over himself.

He knocks the 'Politico', because a 'Reaganite' is the CEO, and I'm supposed to be shocked......but applauds MSNBC, owned by Jeff Immelt, who got to be 'Job Czar', and gets $500 million, taxpayer dollars from Obama to start up jobs in HIS company, IN CHINA!!!!

What a fucking hypocrite!

SRS just deletes, or was deleting posts that didn't stroke her the 'right'...or should I say, 'left' way....

Don T just nags in the silliest way....

and Bobert is just a terminal Democrat, no matter what....He'll put up with whatever crap they're dishing up for dinner...even if it isn't 'left'!

...but they'll run Sawzaw out, because he posted real stuff...it's just that the 'so-called' liberals couldn't stand hearing his posts..no matter how correct they were.

But lies, like certain other vices, just have their addictive, appeal, and if lies were dope, Don would be the biggest Northwest dealer!...but you know what they say,.."Don't get high on your own supply!"

GfS



OK, enough of this.....let's get back to some REAL news.
Thanks Bruce...your posts were informative!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 13 - 01:18 PM

I was responding to Goofy's claim that The Politico is Liberal.

I have yet to read the full text because I'm too busy right now, so I have no comment to make on the article's content at this time.

So The Bearded One ALSO, like Goofy, leaps to conclusions and insults those who are not in agreement with his deluge of screeds.

Typical! Quick draw, pull the trigger without aiming, and shoot themselves in the foot.

Don Firth

P. S. I'm really amazed at the amount of time that these anti-Obama fanatics have to search out that stuff and post it here on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 13 - 01:27 PM

Don,

Since MY posts are from varied sources, INCLUDING Politico,
your post
"leaps to conclusions and insults those who are not in agreement with his deluge of screeds."
is both an attack on me, and an indication that you have NO interest in facts or reasonable discussion of the meaning of those facts.



"Care to discuss any of the facts presented, or do you just want to attack the messenger, as usual?

Lots presented here NOT from Politico."

Still waiting on the discussion of the facts presented- use of the IRS to steal the election, lying to the public, covering up the truth- you know, all those things that when done by Republicans is reason for impeachment, but when done by Democrats is just politics as usual.

YOU attacked the source, without discussion of the facts presented. If you think that Politico MUST be conservative, then you agree that MSNBC is a Liberal cesspool. Or you are not willing to look at who owns it.


Calling someone "Goofy" says more about YOU than about that person, or their points.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 13 - 01:35 PM

Re Politico:

In a 2007 opinion piece, progressive watchdog group Media Matters for America accused Politico of having a "Republican tilt". In a letter to Executive Editor Jim VandeHei, Senior Political Writer Ben Smith and Chief Political Correspondent Mike Allen, Editor in Chief John F. Harris reminded his colleagues that they had left the more "traditional news organizations" where they had worked previously, starting Politico with the intent to be more transparent. To that end, he asked his colleagues for an honest assessment of the the claims set forth in the letter from Media Matters. Ben Smith answered: "Media Matters has a point: ...that Bush's public endorsement made us seem too close to the White House. That was clearly a favor from the president to us (albeit a small one), and felt to me like one of those clubby Beltway moments that make the insiders feel important and the outsiders feel (accurately) like outsiders." The other primary editors disagreed with the general accusation for a variety of reasons, and some pointed to accusations of a liberal bias from the other side of the political spectrum.[13]
In September 2008, The New York Times reported that Politico would expand its operations following the 2008 presidential election: "[A]fter Election Day, [Politico] will add reporters, editors, Web engineers and other employees; expand circulation of its newspaper edition in Washington; and print more often."[14]
A 2009 profile of the organization in Vanity Fair said Politico had an editorial staff of 75 and a total staff of 100. Its newspaper circulation is around 32,000, and as of summer 2009 its web traffic was around 6.7 million unique visitors per month. This is fewer than the 11 million it had during the high point of the campaign, but most political news outlets have lower traffic outside election years. As of July 2009, it was expected to have annual revenue of around $15 million, primarily from the printed product, enough for the publication to remain financially solvent.[5]
In October 2012, Politico hired Washington bureau chief David Chalian, previously let go from Yahoo! News for saying GOP 'Happy to have a party with black people drowning' at the 2012 RNC convention in Tampa, Florida.[15] In the last days of the United States elections, 2012, writer Donovan Slack reported that in nine of the 50 states, European electoral observer activities were blocked from polls, and that observers had to take precautions in the face of security threats.[16]

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 13 - 01:43 PM

MSNBC-


Beginning in the mid-2000s, MSNBC assumed an increasingly progressive stance in its opinion programming. In October 2010, it publicly acknowledged this with a marketing campaign it called "Lean Forward".
...On 11 October 2010, MSNBC unveiled a new televised advertising campaign and slogan called "Lean Forward". "We've taken on CNN and we beat them," MSNBC President Phil Griffin told employees at a series of celebratory "town hall" meetings. "Now it's time to take on Fox." Concerning the campaign, Griffin said, "It is active, it is positive, it is about making tomorrow better than today, a discussion about politics and the actions and passions of our time."[40] The new campaign embraces the network's politically progressive identity


Of course, there are some that LIKE to only hear one side of the debate:



From: Bobert - PM
Date: 13 May 13 - 03:37 PM
......
BTW, I'd give MSNBC the highest grades for factual reporting of any news outlet...

Yeah, some of their commentators get a little carried away, Chris Mathews being the worst, but at least he is a former Congressional aide so he does understand facts from rhetoric... He's just a very rude person who in spite of knowing a lot of stuff needs a good ass whuppin' and told to not interrupt people... It's rude...

But as for facts, MSNBC seems to be the only news source where you actually get facts that hold up to scrutiny... None of the others do... Okay, some get the facts correct most of the time but refuse to ever have a liberal on their shows... ABC, NBC, CBS, C-Span??? When was the last time that Bernie Sanders appeared on any of those stations??? Like, other than the talking filibuster he did a couple years ago where these so-called liberal news outlets reported that he had done this, never... Kucinich??? Never Sherrod Brown??? Never... Never and more never...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 13 - 01:51 PM

The White House has released more than 100 pages of emails detailing discussion inside the administration over last year's attacks on a US diplomatic compound in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi.

The emails were released to the media on Wednesday as President Barack Obama finds himself under increasing pressure from the Republican opposition that his administration covered up details of the assault in which the US ambassador and three other Americans were killed.

A news report last week said memos on the incident were edited to omit a CIA warning of a threat posed by the al-Qaeda.

The emails were the basis for the "talking points" memos that the US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice used when discussing the attacks.

Al Jazeera's Patty Culhane, reporting from Washington, said that the emails seemed to show that the talking points had been adjusted to remove mentions of al-Qaeda.

"This puts tremendous pressure on the Obama administration as they said the talking points were not changed, and it is now clear they were.

"They released the emails to put the controversy behind them. Unusually there were leaks coming out of Congress saying things were in the emails that were not, making the administration look worse and so it felt it had to release them.

"The debate now is whether the adjustment of the talking points had political motivations."

Republicans felt that the Obama administration's refusal to accept that the attacks on the Libyan compound had been linked to a terrorist organisation was born out of political motives.

"Opponents are saying that they don't want to link the attack to al-Qaeda because then the president couldn't say he had kept all Americans safe," our correspondent said.

"The White House is on the defensive right now, and that is why they have taken this incredibly unusual step," our correspondent said.

In the aftermath of the attack on September 11 last year the White House blamed a spontaneous protest, relating to an internet film that was seen to be insulting to Islam, for the violence.


http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/05/2013515214358814918.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 13 - 02:08 PM

You're fired! Right after you leave anyway...


"President Obama announced Wednesday evening that, due to the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of conservative groups, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew had requested and accepted the resignation of the acting IRS commissioner Steven Miller.

"First, we're going to hold the responsible parties accountable," the president said.

"Today, Secretary Lew took the first step by requesting and accepting the resignation of the acting commissioner of the IRS, because given the controversy surrounding this audit, it's important to institute new leadership that can help restore confidence going forward," he added.

But according to a source close to Miller, the requested resignation is something a hollow gesture, as Miller was set to step down in June anyway.

"This whole idea that 'oh, the president is taking this big step' is a bit misleading because he was going to be stepping down as of early June anyway because his term as acting commissioner was going to be over."

"This step by the White House is less about actually removing somebody than removing somebody who was about to step down anyway," the source close to Miller added."

Further, Miller is set to remain as acting IRS commissioner into next week and as far as June first, the source noted.

"[H]e is still the acting commissioner and he will be until at least next week and probably, potentially until June 1st," the source said. "So there was the suggestion that he was forced to resign immediately — that is not true."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 13 - 02:28 PM

(CNSNews.com) - Rep. Sander Levin (D.-Mich.), the ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, has joined Rep. Dave Camp (R.-Mich.), the committee chairman, in demanding that the Internal Revenue Service answer by next Tuesday thirteen questions posed by the committee relating to IRS discrimination against conservative and pro-Israel groups and, where relevant, provide all internal agency documents and communications substantiating the answers.

The committee's bipartisan demand for documents includes all communications between the IRS and the White House about the IRS's targeting of conservative groups.

The committee also warns the IRS in the letter not to destroy, modify or remove any of the records the committee is seeking.

This document-and-information demand, sent in a letter dated Tuesday to acting IRS Commissioner Steve Miller, ups the ante from a letter that Rep. Charles Boustany (R.-La.), chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight, sent Miller last Friday demanding that the IRS provide the committee by today (May 15) not only with all internal communications using the words "tea party," "patriot" or "conservative," but also with the names and titles of all officials involved in discriminating against tea party and conservative organizations.

As of Tuesday, the IRS was not saying whether it would comply with that request from its congressional oversight committee. But, now, the agency must deal with the more comprehensive demand for documents and information communicated directly by the committee's bipartisan leadership.

Camp's and Levin's letter includes a list of detailed instructions explaining to the IRS the scrupulosity with which the committee expects the agency to respond to the document demand.

"In complying with this request, you shall produce all responsive records that are in your possession, custody or control," the committee instructed the IRS. "Records responsive to the request shall not be destroyed, modified, removed, transferred, or otherwise made inaccessible to the committee."

The most striking question that Democrat Ranking Member Levin and Republican Chairman Camp are asking the IRS goes to the issue of potential White House involvement in the scandal.

Specifically, Levin and Camp ask: "Did the IRS at any time notify the White House of the targeting of conservative or other groups? Provide all documents and communications between the IRS and the White House on this matter."

Levin and Camp sent this inquiry to the IRS a full day after President Obama publicly declared that he personally had only learned about the IRS targeting of conservative groups when he saw news reports about it at the end of last week.

"I first learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this," Obama said Monday at a joint press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron. "I think it was on Friday."

Levin and Camp also told the IRS that the committee wants all documents and communications relevant to the agency's reported discrimination against pro-Israel groups.

"Media reports have detailed that the IRS conducted special reviews of organizations whose missions involve Israel," Levin and Camp wrote. "Did the IRS undertake special reviews of these and other organizations whose activities contradict or are inconsistent with administration policies? If so, provide all documents relating to these practices."

Levin and Camp additionally directed a question at Acting IRS Commissioner Miller asking why he did not tell the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight about the targeting of conservatives in testimony he delivered to that subcommittee last July.

"In your testimony before the Oversight Subcommittee on July 25, 2012," Levin and Camp wrote Miller, "you were directly asked about the reports that the IRS had been targeting conservative groups, to which you responded 'I am aware that some 200 501(c )(4) applications fell into this category [the determination letter process]. We did group these organizations together to ensure consistency, to ensure quality.'

"It has come to our attention," Levin and Camp continued, "that you were briefed on this issue in May 2012. If at the time of the hearing you knew that IRS personnel had targeted groups for extra scrutiny based on their political beliefs, why didn't you share all of this information with the subcommittee at that time?"

Miller will testify in the full committee on Friday alongside Russell George, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration whose office has just completed an audit of the IRS on this issue.

Levin and Camp have instructed Miller to answer the questions in their letter and provide the documents the committee is requesting by next Tuesday, May 21.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 May 13 - 02:49 PM

Well perhaps Beardy figures that sheer volume will overwhelm facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 13 - 02:59 PM

The FACT that many so-called liberals here would rather let a racist scumbag like you make personal attacks rather than discuss the feet of clay that is being exposed?


Gives me a great standard to judge Liberals by...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 13 - 03:08 PM

From the OP:

"WHo, how and where should the Obama administration place its priorities to turn around the divisions and bitternesses that have poisoned our nation for the last many years, and start healing its Union, and its economy, and its repute, and its political framework. "

We have seen that this administration has encouraged the divisions and bitternesses, and made the previous inept administration look kind and law-abiding. But of course, if all the liberals just attack anyone that disagrees with them, the facts can be ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 May 13 - 03:23 PM

You're right, Beardy, the whole world's out to get you. Probably because you're Jewish.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 May 13 - 06:08 PM

[The Obama] administration has encouraged the divisions and bitternesses, and made the previous inept administration look kind and law-abiding.

Do you really believe that preposterous bullshit, Beardy? Really?

That may be the most delusional statement I can recall you ever making, and believe me, it has some tough competition.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 13 - 06:24 PM

Beardedbruce, your post at 16 May 13 - 01:27 PM is a personal attack on me, which demonstrates that you did not grasp what I said.

I said, in response to GfS's claim that The Politico is Liberal, that it is run by a man who was part of the Reagan administration and patently NOT Liberal. I said nothing about the CONTENT of the article because I hadn't had a chance to read it carefully yet.

By the way, I have heard that allegation against Obama before. I heard it on NPR. And they are waiting for more facts to come in before they comment. As any good news source should.

DO learn to read! (And yes, "DO learn to read" IS intended to be an insult!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 May 13 - 06:47 PM

BeardedBruce just posted a whole slew of posts containing facts, that are carried on most 'news' sources.
Of course, many on here prefer a socialist type government, with a large central government and a nationalized everything....so they are not totally supportive of Bruce's bent toward national policies.
(My bitch has always been with the corruption, between bankster/corporate/government)....and you oppose that as well.
So, let me see, and you can see it for yourself...though you'd never admit it, because you've been slowly seduced with mind control propaganda...BUT You, who favor a National Socialistic Party, answer Bruce's posts, with this:

Greg F.: "You're right, Beardy, the whole world's out to get you. Probably because you're Jewish."

National Socialistic Party???

Don't you know what you've become???...while blaming OTHERS of what you are???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You got sucked in pretty slickly!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 16 May 13 - 07:41 PM

How do you know they are facts, GfinS???

Have you researched the material??? The right has billions and billions to pay people that take chicken shit and write chicken salad with that shit...

If you believe that bloggers that the right hires and bb posts then you are either blind, stupid or downright lazy...

BTW, just a hint... Remember that question I asked of you??? Of course you don't... Hint: It had to do with your sources...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 16 May 13 - 07:42 PM

And 2700...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 May 13 - 10:14 PM

Bobert: "How do you know they are facts, GfinS???"

Been following for a LO-O-O-NG time, as you know....BTW, 'How do you know they are NOT the facts'??

Bobert: "Have you researched the material??

Been following for a LO-O-O-NG time, as you know....

Bobert: "If you believe that bloggers that the right hires and bb posts then you are either blind, stupid or downright lazy..."

Who hired you?

Bobert: "Remember that question I asked of you???"

You've asked so many, and I try to answer them all, so refresh my memory..I'll answer you the best I can....and then you'll try to smear me as....well, I always hoped you could do better than you have....but you get the idea!

BTW, 2701....AND...have you gotten any feedback on your CD?...I believe it was played here.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 May 13 - 08:25 AM

"You were talking earlier about kind of dismissing the Benghazi issue as one that's just political and the president recently said it's a sideshow," said Woodward. "But if you read through all these e-mails, you see that everyone in the government is saying, 'Oh, let's not tell the public that terrorists were involved, people connected to al Qaeda. Let's not tell the public that there were warnings.' I hate to show, this is one of the documents with the editing that one of the people in the state department said, 'Oh, let's not let these things out.' And I have to go back 40 years to Watergate when Nixon put out his edited transcripts to the conversations, and he personally went through them and said, 'Oh, let's not tell this, let's not show this.' I would not dismiss Benghazi. It's a very serious issue. As people keep saying, four people were killed. You look at the hydraulic pressure that was in the system to not tell the truth, and, you know, we use this term and the government uses this term, talking points. Talking points, as we know, are like legal briefs. They're an argument on one side. What we need to get rid of talking point and they need to put out statements or papers that are truth documents. Okay, this is all we know."


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/woodward-i-would-not-dismiss-benghazi-similar-watergate_724707.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 May 13 - 08:30 AM

Sarah Hall Ingram, the IRS executive in charge of the tax exempt division in 2010 when it began targeting conservative Tea Party, evangelical and pro-Israel groups for harassment, got more than $100,000 in bonuses between 2009 and 2012.

More recently, Ingram was promoted to serve as director of the tax agency's Obamacare program office, a position that put her in charge of the vast expansion of the IRS' regulatory power and staffing in connection with federal health care, ABC reported earlier today.

Ingram received a $7,000 bonus in 2009, according to data obtained by The Washington Examiner from the IRS, then a $34,440 bonus in 2010, $35,400 in 2011 and $26,550 last year, for a total of $103,390. Her annual salary went from $172,500 to $177,000 during the same period.

The 2010, 2011 and 2012 bonuses were awarded during the period when IRS harassment of the conservative groups was most intense. The newspaper obtained the data via a Freedom of Information Act request.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., described the Ingram awards as "stunning, just stunning."

Bonuses as large as those awarded to Ingram typically require presidential approval, according to federal personnel regulations.

High-ranking career federal civil servants like Ingram are eligible for recognition through citations known as Distinguished and Merit Service awards that can carry with them cash bonuses of anywhere from five to 35 percent of their base salary.

The largest of such awards, however, require presidential approval, according to the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees the federal civil service workforce.

"If the recommended award is over $25,000, the Director of OPM reviews the nomination and forwards his/her recommendation to the President for approval," according to the OPM guidance.

A key point on OPM's "checklist" for federal bosses considering an employee for such a bonus is making sure that "the proposed award recipient has not been involved in any action or activity that could cause the President embarrassment …"

Ingram has some history as a government lawyer receiving controversial bonuses. According to The Washington Post, she received a $47,900 bonus for distinguished service in 2004 from President George W. Bush.

Earlier Thursday, The Washington Examiner reported that the IRS paid out more than $92 million in bonuses during the four-year period of Ingram's awards to her and nearly 17,000 other agency employees. Those bonuses averaged more than $5,500 per employee.

Go here for a spreadsheet of the salary and bonus data for IRS employees getting bonuses between 2009 and 2012.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 May 13 - 08:41 AM

And I have to go back 40 years to Watergate when Nixon..

The comparison is complete bollocks, Beardy. (Hmmm ... 'Bollocks Beardy" - there may be something there)

Woodward hit his head or something a while back and has, to a degree, gone the way of David Howowitz. And I think he misses the limelight.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 May 13 - 09:28 AM

"Talking points, as we know, are like legal briefs. They're an argument on one side. What we need to get rid of talking point and they need to put out statements or papers that are truth documents. Okay, this is all we know."


THS must be what proves that he is crazy- asking for the truth from a Democratic Administration.

Liberals believe that you only ask for it from Republicans, NEVER from Democrats.

After all, as GregF says, Obama is just "Black, and a Democrat."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 May 13 - 09:43 AM

We are in the midst of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate. The reputation of the Obama White House has, among conservatives, gone from sketchy to sinister, and, among liberals, from unsatisfying to dangerous. No one likes what they're seeing. The Justice Department assault on the Associated Press and the ugly politicization of the Internal Revenue Service have left the administration's credibility deeply, probably irretrievably damaged. They don't look jerky now, they look dirty. The patina of high-mindedness the president enjoyed is gone.

Something big has shifted. The standing of the administration has changed.

As always it comes down to trust. Do you trust the president's answers when he's pressed on an uncomfortable story? Do you trust his people to be sober and fair-minded as they go about their work? Do you trust the IRS and the Justice Department? You do not.

The president, as usual, acts as if all of this is totally unconnected to him. He's shocked, it's unacceptable, he'll get to the bottom of it. He read about it in the papers, just like you.

But he is not unconnected, he is not a bystander. This is his administration. Those are his executive agencies. He runs the IRS and the Justice Department.

A president sets a mood, a tone. He establishes an atmosphere. If he is arrogant, arrogance spreads. If he is to too partisan, too disrespecting of political adversaries, that spreads too. Presidents always undo themselves and then blame it on the third guy in the last row in the sleepy agency across town.

The IRS scandal has two parts. The first is the obviously deliberate and targeted abuse, harassment and attempted suppression of conservative groups. The second is the auditing of the taxes of political activists.

In order to suppress conservative groups—at first those with words like "Tea Party" and "Patriot" in their names, then including those that opposed ObamaCare or advanced the second amendment—the IRS demanded donor rolls, membership lists, data on all contributions, names of volunteers, the contents of all speeches made by members, Facebook FB +0.92% posts, minutes of all meetings, and copies of all materials handed out at gatherings. Among its questions: What are you thinking about? Did you ever think of running for office? Do you ever contact political figures? What are you reading? One group sent what it was reading: the U.S. Constitution.

The second part of the scandal is the auditing of political activists who have opposed the administration. The Journal's Kim Strassel reported an Idaho businessman named Frank VanderSloot, who'd donated more than a million dollars to groups supporting Mitt Romney. He found himself last June, for the first time in 30 years, the target of IRS auditors. His wife and his business were also soon audited. Hal Scherz, a Georgia physician, also came to the government's attention. He told ABC News: "It is odd that nothing changed on my tax return and I was never audited until I publicly criticized ObamaCare." Franklin Graham, son of Billy, told Politico he believes his father was targeted. A conservative Catholic academic who has written for these pages faced questions about her meager freelance writing income. Many of these stories will come out, but not as many as there are. People are not only afraid of being audited, they're afraid of saying they were audited.

All of these IRS actions took place in the years leading up to the 2012 election. They constitute the use of governmental power to intrude on the privacy and shackle the political freedom of American citizens. The purpose, obviously, was to overwhelm and intimidate—to kill the opposition, question by question and audit by audit.

It is not even remotely possible that all this was an accident, a mistake. Again, only conservative groups were targeted, not liberal. It is not even remotely possible that only one IRS office was involved. Lois Lerner, who oversees tax-exempt groups for the IRS, was the person who finally acknowledged, under pressure of a looming investigative report, some of what the IRS was doing. She told reporters the actions were the work of "frontline people" in Cincinnati. But other offices were involved, including Washington. It is not even remotely possible the actions were the work of just a few agents. This was more systemic. It was an operation. The word was out: Get the Democratic Party's foes. It is not remotely possible nobody in the IRS knew what was going on until very recently. The Washington Post reported efforts to target the conservative groups reached the highest levels of the agency by May 2012—far earlier than the agency had acknowledged. Reuters reported high-level IRS officials, including its chief counsel, knew in August 2011 about the targeting.

The White House is reported to be shellshocked at public reaction to the scandal. But why? Were they so high-handed, so essentially ignorant, that they didn't understand what it would mean to the American people when their IRS—the revenue-collecting arm of the U.S. government—is revealed as a low, ugly and bullying tool of the reigning powers? If they didn't know how Americans would react to that, what did they know? I mean beyond Harvey Weinstein's cellphone number.

And why—in the matters of the Associated Press and Benghazi too—does no one in this administration ever take responsibility? Attorney General Eric Holder doesn't know what happened, exactly who did what. The president speaks in the passive voice. He attempts to act out indignation, but he always seems indignant at only one thing: that he's being questioned at all. That he has to address this. That fate put it on his plate.

We all have our biases. Mine is for a federal government that, for all the partisan shootouts on the streets of Washington, is allowed to go about its work. That it not be distracted by scandal, that political disagreement be, in the end, subsumed to the common good. It is a dangerous world: Calculating people wish to do us harm. In this world no draining, unproductive scandals should dominate the government's life. Independent counsels should not often come in and distract the U.S. government from its essential business.

But that bias does not fit these circumstances.

What happened at the IRS is the government's essential business. The IRS case deserves and calls out for an independent counsel, fully armed with all that position's powers. Only then will stables that badly need to be cleaned, be cleaned. Everyone involved in this abuse of power should pay a price, because if they don't, the politicization of the IRS will continue—forever. If it is not stopped now, it will never stop. And if it isn't stopped, no one will ever respect or have even minimal faith in the revenue-gathering arm of the U.S. government again.

And it would be shameful and shallow for any Republican operative or operator to make this scandal into a commercial and turn it into a mere partisan arguing point and part of the game. It's not part of the game. This is not about the usual partisan slugfest. This is about the integrity of our system of government and our ability to trust, which is to say our ability to function.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 May 13 - 09:44 AM

That was


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323582904578487460479247792.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 May 13 - 11:46 AM

There's that serial postarrhoea, again. Something seems to have exacerbated the condition.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 May 13 - 11:55 AM

Constipation of the brain and diarrhea of the mouth.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 May 13 - 12:24 PM

So much for the so-called Liberal viewpoint. Nothing to contribute, just insults.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 May 13 - 12:44 PM

Well, it seems that the arch-conservative right-wingers around here have nothing better to do than cruise the internet looking for anything anti-Obama and anti-administration that they can find, cut and paste, and post vast quantities of verbiage here.

Some of us read the stuff for ourselves, AND read a variety of different viewpoints on the matters under discussion, and make up our own minds rather than swallowing anything that smacks of being anti-Obama as, ipso facto, the Gospel Truth.

But that's one of the oddities of we "so-called Liberals."

Too bad some of you folks don't have a life in the 3-D world.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 May 13 - 12:54 PM

Another oddity is your inability to read facts, reason, or make a post without attacking those you disagree with.

Too bad you are unwilling to share any of "a variety of different viewpoints on the matters under discussion" with us, but I guess you are too busy insulting those that do not slavishly agree with whatever you state,.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 May 13 - 01:08 PM

Too busy learning all we can on all sides of an issue, then being active in the 3-D world and performing our political activism there, rather than taking time trying to argue with people who's minds are already made up.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 May 13 - 01:11 PM

Rep. Charlie Rangel (D., N.Y.), who was notably censured for not paying 17 years worth of taxes on rental income from a Dominican Republic villa he owned, said Friday morning, "This is wrong to abuse the tax system."

Rangel also filed years worth of misleading financial disclosure reports that did not fully disclose his assets.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 May 13 - 01:14 PM

"Too busy learning all we can on all sides of an issue, then being active in the 3-D world and performing our political activism there,"


But NEVER too busy to insult people and make posts that do NOT contribute to the discussion. One would ALMOST think that you were trying to prevent people from having any real discussion of the facts, in case they might conclude other than you state they should.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 May 13 - 01:28 PM

What "discussion", Beardy? You don't "discuss" anything. You post truckloads of cut-and-paste crap & hurl insults.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 May 13 - 01:38 PM

What insults?

I thought you were proud of being a documented racist lying scumbag.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 May 13 - 01:42 PM

Greg has the right of it, Beardy. Anybody disagrees with anything in your cut-and-pastes and YOU take it as a personal insult, then start a volley of insults of your own. Like I say, your mind is already made up, so why should I waste my time trying to inform and educate someone who simply refuses to be informed and educated?

More productive and effective outlets for my time and energy.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 May 13 - 01:46 PM

So you can't even read Gregf's posts, Don??? Or do intentionally ignore what is right in front of you in order to attack me?


You two deserve each other- but what did the rest of us do to have you inflicted upon us?


Back to the THREAD TOPIC:

"NBC's Lisa Myers reported this morning that the IRS deliberately chose not to reveal that it had wrongly targeted conservative groups until after the 2012 presidential election:
The IRS commissioner "has known for at least a year that this was going on," said Myers, "and that this had happened. And did he share any of that information with the White House? But even more importantly, Congress is going to ask him, why did you mislead us for an entire year? Members of Congress were saying conservatives are being targeted. What's going on here? The IRS denied it. Then when -- after these officials are briefed by the IG that this is going on, they don't disclose it. In fact, the commissioner sent a letter to Congress in September on this subject and did not reveal this. Imagine if we -- if you can -- what would have happened if this fact came out in September 2012, in the middle of a presidential election? The terrain would have looked very different."
"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 May 13 - 01:51 PM

Senior Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, who recently slapped Obamacare as a "train wreck," believes that the IRS scandal is just beginning and that "a lot more" damaging information will be revealed, likely at congressional hearings.

"I have a hunch that a lot more is going to come out, frankly," Baucus, whose pending retirement seems to have freed him up to speak bluntly, told Bloomberg Government's "Capitol Gains" TV show.

"It's broader than the current focus. And I think it's important that we have the hearings, and I think that will encourage other information to come out that has not yet come out. I suspect that we will learn more in the next several days, maybe the next couple three weeks which adds more context to all of this," added Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

But a House leader, Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp, said the scandal hasn't reached the level where a special prosecutor is warranted.

"I don't think we're [at the point of appointing a special counsel]. At least I'm not there yet," Camp told the show. "We need to know how and why and certainly try to restore the faith that's been broken and the trust that's been broken as people have been targeted for their political beliefs, which is completely unacceptable."

Camp's committee today opens the first of a series of hearings on the IRS and their political harassment of Tea Party groups.


more at:http://washingtonexaminer.com/democrat-baucus-warns-more-to-come-out-on-irs-scandal/article/2529913

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 May 13 - 01:56 PM

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) official who apologized for targeting conservative nonprofit groups for extra scrutiny is married to an attorney whose firm hosted a voter registration organizing event for the Obama presidential campaign, praised President Obama's policy work, and had one of its partners appointed by Obama to a key ambassadorship.

IRS Exempt Organizations Division director Lois G. Lerner, who has been described as "apolitical" in mainstream press coverage of the IRS scandal, is married to tax attorney Michael R. Miles, a partner at the law firm Sutherland Asbill & Brennan. The firm is based in Atlanta but has a number of offices including in Washington, D.C., where Miles works.

The 400-attorney firm hosted an organizing meeting at its Atlanta office for people interested in helping with voter registration for the Obama re-election campaign.

This is not the first of Lerner's connections to the president to surface. Earlier this week The Daily Caller reported that Lerner personally signed the tax-exemption approval for a shady charity run by Obama's half-brother, after an inexplicably brief one-month application process. (Related: Lois Lerner approved exemption for Obama brother's 'charity')

"Come learn more about how you can create, organize, and host a voter registration event here in Atlanta in the coming weeks. We will be meeting at at 7:30pm at 999 Peachtree St. NE, in the law offices of Sutherland, Asbill, and Brennan," read an event posting on my.barackobama.com.

Longtime Sutherland partner David Adelman, the former Democratic minority whip of the Georgia state senate, serves as ambassador to the Republic of Singapore in the Obama administration.

"Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP announces that its partner and Georgia State Sen. David I. Adelman, has been confirmed by the U.S. Senate to be the U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Singapore. President Obama nominated Sen. Adelman on November 20, 2009," according to a Sutherland press release dated March 19, 2010.

"Sutherland has a great tradition of excellence. It has been a privilege to be a part of such a fine firm," Adelman said at the time of his confirmation, according to the Sutherland press release.

"I am humbled by the confidence President Obama and Secretary Clinton have in me, and I look forward to building on the strong U.S.-Singapore relationship," said Adelman, who joined Sutherland in 1993 and spent his entire career in private practice with the firm.

Sutherland heaped praised on Obama's work in the U.S. Senate on legal issues pertaining to employee misclassification, which Sutherland works intensely enough on to have launched the website workerclassification.com.

"The subject of worker classification is likely to take on increased importance in light of the recent election of Barack Obama as President. While in the Senate, President Obama showed an interest in strengthening workers' rights, particularly with respect to whether they should be classified as employees," according to a Sutherland press release dated April 28, 2009.

"Along with others, he introduced the Independent Contractor Proper Classification Act of 2007. This legislation sought to give regulatory authority to the IRS to establish standards for properly classifying workers and to repeal the Section 530 safe harbor provisions that currently allow employers to rely on industry practice or professional advice as a reasonable basis for classifying workers. Also as a senator, President Obama, along with others, introduced the Employee Misclassification Prevention Act on September 29, 2008, which sought 'to provide a special penalty for employers who misclassify employees as nonemployees," according to the Sutherland press release.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 May 13 - 02:15 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Dozens of tea party groups and other conservative organizations of the kind subjected to improper scrutiny by the Internal Revenue Service operated with small budgets and rarely displayed overt partisan activities, according to an Associated Press review of public tax filings by 93 such activist groups. A few groups built million-dollar operations and political ties that could have been legitimate grounds for IRS investigation, tax law experts said.
The AP reviewed 990 tax returns for nonprofit groups that were made publicly available and posted on both the Guidestar and the Foundation Center websites, searching between 2009 and 2011 under the terms "tea party," ''patriot" and other terms frequently used by tea party groups. Several tea party groups also made their tax returns available to the AP. The returns detailed revenues and expenses for the groups, as well as other details. Donors' identifies, however, are shielded from disclosure under federal tax code provisions.
Only 21 of the 93 groups reported annual gross receipts higher than $25,000 between 2009 and 2011, according to the AP review. The $25,000 figure is a threshold for the IRS because an organization's financial strength and revenue sources are important factors in determining its tax-exempt status. Nonprofit groups reporting less than $25,000 a year are allowed to file a short-form, postcard tax return instead of a detailed filing — one indication of a low-budget operation.
The median income for all the groups was just $16,700 a year. That figure includes several tea party organizations that boasted million-dollar budgets and a cluster of others with more than $100,000 in annual revenues. The well-funded activist groups were led by the Georgia-based Tea Party Patriots Inc., the nation's biggest tea party group, which started out with more than $700,000 in annual revenues in 2009 and grew to $20.2 million annually in 2012.


more at http://news.yahoo.com/tea-party-tax-returns-show-133537463.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 May 13 - 02:47 PM

You certainly have a lot of time on your hands, Beardy.

But if hate mongering is how you want to spend it. . . .

Well, it's STILL a free country, even if you don't think so.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 May 13 - 02:55 PM

Don,

Care to tell us how your last post ( and any others of yours, actually) address the thread topic? This is supposed to be s discussion of the outside view of the Obama administration.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 May 13 - 03:06 PM

From that arch-Liberal rag, TIME Magazine, May 14, 2013:

The IRS is unpopular on its best days, and the past few have been among its worst. The agency's admission that it targeted conservative groups for special scrutiny drew condemnation from across the political spectrum on Monday. "Outrageous," declared Barack Obama. House and Senate leaders from both parties promised an investigation. Some of the Tea Party groups refused to even accept its apology.

All this outrage threatens to obscure an important point: the IRS does need to crack down on political groups masquerading as social-welfare organizations. Many of the nonprofit groups who claim 501(c)(4) status either flout tax law or flirt with the murky line between electioneering and issue advocacy, all while using their tax-exempt status to conceal their donors. The problem isn't that the IRS flagged nonprofit groups for additional review. The problem is that it did so poorly, lavishing special attention on Tea Party outfits when it should have been scrutinizing everyone — or at least more egregious offenders.

After the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in January 2010, donors flocked to 501(c)(4)s as a vehicle to pump cash into elections without disclosing the source of their contributions [emphasis mine, DF]. The number of groups applying for social-welfare status has since doubled. In 2012, the news outlet ProPublica examined 72 501(c)(4) applications from groups that claimed to have no plans to spend money on elections. They compared those documents against the subsequent tax returns. Nearly half of the groups found their plans had changed.

In last year's elections, 501(c)(4) groups spent more than $300 million in dark money, according to Lisa Rosenberg of the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan government-transparency group based in Washington. There is no way to police all these groups, Rosenberg acknowledges. The IRS, was deluged with social-welfare applications at the same time the Tea Party movement was on the rise. "It's the right thing to do to be looking into which of these groups are legitimate social-welfare organizations and which are political organizations. It's absolutely necessary," Rosenberg says. "There's no question the way the IRS apparently went about it was wrong. But the fact that they were doing it is absolutely right."

The method the IRS used to determine which groups to investigate — singling out keywords like tea party, patriot and other conservative terms of art — was "just backwards," says Fred Wertheimer, president of the campaign-finance watchdog Democracy 21. "There are a number of groups that have blatantly been abusing the tax laws in order to hide their donors. Those are the groups that the IRS should have been investigating."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 May 13 - 03:14 PM

I repeat for your convenience, Beardy:

17 May 13 - 01:28 PM
What "discussion", Beardy? You don't "discuss" anything. You post truckloads of cut-and-paste crap & hurl insults.

It seems you haven't noticed that damn near everyone is ignoring your mountains of crap? GuestInsanity doesn't count.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 May 13 - 11:38 PM

Greg F: "GuestInsanity doesn't count."

Nor anything with Sanity!

Bruce, This is a tactic they use, especially Don, when they can't discuss their side, which is rarely based on facts, but rather, 'talking point' propaganda, they distract people with this running insult stuff, so when you get distracted into haggling about it, it inhibits the facts from being put out....which, of course, blows the 'talking point' propaganda, right out of the toilet!...Then they put their heads back up their asses, trying to find something to replace what got blown out of the toilet!...
Don't blame me...I'm just statin' the facts!

Bruce, your posts have been informative, and they HAVE been checking out.....(with what I've been talkin' about for a while, as well)

Don. grooming himself, in the morning, puts his razor back in the medicine cabinet, slaps a little skin bracer on his cheeks....smiles, gives himself a wink, as he inspects himself in the mirror, and says:

Don Firth: "Like I say, your mind is already made up, so why should I waste my time trying to inform and educate someone who simply refuses to be informed and educated?"


No truer words have been spoken from him, and he gazes out the window, through glazed eyes...holds his breath...concentrates...harder.... squints his eyes tighter in sheer determined concentration.........and....let out an exasperated burst of air.......and says, "I almost understand it."

Good Night Gracie,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 May 13 - 07:58 AM

Great. GuestInsanity, president of the Beardy Fan Club. Whoopee.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 May 13 - 08:06 AM

Don,

I agree with the article you posted Date: 17 May 13 - 03:06 PM .


So you agree that the liberal organizations should be held to the same standards that the conservative ones are?

It seems like this administration does not agree with you.


You need to look at what you would be saying if the positions were reversed- If this was a Republican administration, and they were targeting liberal organizations and lying about facts and covering up improper behavior, what would you say?


Oh, that's right- we saw that already, and the liberals called for impeachment...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 May 13 - 08:28 AM

Managing the Oval Office
By DAVID ROTHKOPF
Published: January 19, 2013 191 Comments
FACEBOOK
TWITTER
GOOGLE+
SAVE
E-MAIL
SHARE
PRINT
REPRINTS

BARACK OBAMA's critics and supporters tend to agree: the first four years of the Obama administration have included plenty of disappointment and frustration.
Enlarge This Image

Mark Ulriksen
Related in Opinion

Room for Debate: What Should Obama Say? (January 19, 2013)
Enlarge This Image

Kevin Lamarque/Reuters
Many say President Obama has not empowered his cabinet. On Jan. 10 the president, with the departing Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, right, announced that he was nominating Jacob J. Lew, left, for the post.
Readers' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (191) »
Some of the that can be attributed to inherited challenges like the financial crisis. Some were caused by unexpected developments overseas. Some are the result of a dysfunctional Congress better known for logjams, corruption and ideological intransigence than action. (So much so that a recent poll showed that Americans like Congress less than cockroaches, colonoscopies and root canals.)

But Mr. Obama and his team would benefit, as they begin the second term, by acknowledging that many of the biggest problems facing the administration flow directly from the man at the top. Mr. Obama is a lousy manager. As chief executive he gets a C — and then only if graded on a curve that takes into account his predecessor's managerial weaknesses.

For all of the notable achievements of Mr. Obama's first term — getting troops out of Iraq, passing health care and financial services reform, signing legislation that guarantees that women get equal pay for equal work, removing Osama bin Laden — many of the administration's shortcomings are traceable, at least in part, to troubles connected to the way Mr. Obama has chosen to run the government.

more at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/opinion/sunday/managing-the-oval-office.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 May 13 - 08:54 AM

From WASHPO...


When the Barack H. Obama Foundation sought tax-exempt status to raise money for good works in Kenya, the Internal Revenue Service provided quick help.

The IRS approved charitable status for the foundation, which was run by President Obama's brother and named after his father, in about a month's time. The IRS also agreed to give the group this important financial status retroactively, back to 2009, when it had begun its fundraising.
As more information is disclosed, the factual gaps in Lois Lerner's statements become clearer.

The 34 days the IRS's Cincinnati office took to process the foundation's application stands in contrast to the waits of several months — and sometimes longer than a year — that several conservative groups say they experienced with the same office. Obama has apologized, saying Americans have a right to be angry that the office improperly targeted conservative groups for extra scrutiny.

The IRS handling of the Obama-named group was revealed this week by a conservative watchdog group, the National Legal and Policy Center, and reported by the Daily Caller on Thursday. The Washington Post confirmed reports through public records of the group's application and the IRS approval letter, signed by the unit director Lois Lerner.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 20 May 13 - 09:02 AM

BB writes:

"You need to look at what you would be saying if the positions were reversed- If this was a Republican administration, and they were targeting liberal organizations and lying about facts and covering up improper behavior, what would you say?


Oh, that's right- we saw that already, and the liberals called for impeachment... "-

I assume you're talking about Watergate where the president was covering up a criminal act and resigned to avoid impeachment?

The silver lining in all this for the Democrats (and thereby the country) is that all this shit-slinging by Republicans is keeping the Tea Party alive to continue to heave the GOP further to the right. We saw how that worked out for them in 2012 which produced canidates of the caliber of Todd Akin. So thank you BB and GfSOS. Keep up the good work.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 May 13 - 10:25 AM

"Benghazi. The IRS targeting the Tea Party. Feds snooping on the Associated Press. These dizzying controversies around the Obama administration all carry the same lesson:

Watch what you say.

On Benghazi, set aside for a moment the dust-ups over State Department officials changing talking points, White House officials misleading the media, and congressional Republicans misrepresenting administration emails. Go back to what the administration was saying just after the deadly Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. diplomatic facility.

Many administration officials -- although they may have known better -- blamed the attack, and thus the death of four Americans, on a bad YouTube video called "The Innocence of the Muslims."

Protests outside the U.S. Embassy in Egypt did use the video as a pretext, and White House spokesman Jay Carney responded by calling the video "reprehensible and disgusting." Obama publicly attacked the filmmaker as "sort of a shadowy character who made an extremely offensive video. ..."

Later that month, federal officials arrested this "shadowy character" for probation violations related to making the video.

From the administration falsely blaming the video for Benghazi, to the White House's repeated denunciations, to the federal arrest, the message is clear: Watch what you say.

On the IRS debacle, the speech being policed isn't even offensive -- unless you find it abhorrent to criticize big government or President Obama.

The queries the IRS rained on Tea Party groups in 2010 were aimed at discerning just how political these groups were. What books will your book clubs be discussing? Tell us about your donors -- will any of them run for office?

While targeting Tea Party groups was clearly inappropriate, some of the IRS' questions were actually in keeping with federal law, which restricts 501(c)(4) groups' freedom to oppose candidates for office. This is problematic in itself because it puts the IRS in the business of telling Americans, "Watch what you say about politicians."

The IRS policing political speech is troubling for many reasons. The agency has the power to tax, and thus the power to destroy. Also, IRS employees are overwhelmingly Democrats, campaign finance data suggest. The result is powerful and sometimes partisan officials, acting on little legislative guidance to determine whether a group is "primarily engaged in promoting in some way the common good" and whether it is "participat[ing] in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to" any candidates.

The decision to target Tea Party groups doesn't seem to have come from Washington, but the deep distrust of these groups sure did. When critics showed up at town halls in 2009 to criticize Obamacare, the White House attacked the protesters and questioners as "manufactured" and "funded by K Street lobbyists."

Speech and debate are important. Political speech -- specifically, criticism of people in power -- is the primary reason the First Amendment exists. Does anyone think it's healthy to have the IRS interrogating grass-roots groups and warning "watch what you say about the president"?

Finally, the administration secretly tracked the phone calls of the Associated Press to root out who leaked the report of a drone strike. Then the CIA told AP to hold off on the story so that Obama could announce it first.

This has a chilling affect on journalists. But it's also the latest salvo in the Obama administration's war on whistleblowers. Liberal writer Jane Mayer wrote in 2011 that Obama has used "the Espionage Act to press criminal charges in five alleged instances of national-security leaks -- more such prosecutions than have occurred in all previous administrations combined."

More than any of its predecessors, the Obama administration tells its underlings, "Watch what you say."

All of these stories broke this month. But the Obama team has shown intolerance to dissent from the beginning. Remember during the Obamacare debate when the White House asked Americans to report any "fishy" emails about the health care bill? Linda Douglass, communications director for Obama's Office of Health Reform, said at the time her job includes collecting "disinformation" about Obamacare -- probably stuff like, if you like your health plan, you might not be able to keep it.

The three scandals of the past two weeks differ in their severity and in the White House's level of culpability. But they all have the same message: "My fellow Americans, watch what you say.""

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 May 13 - 10:42 AM

You need to look at what you would be saying if the positions were reversed- If this was a Republican administration, and they were targeting liberal organizations and lying about facts....

Only one problem, Beardy - there's absolute no evidence that the ADMINISTRATION knew or did any of what you accuse them of.

Check back with us if there ever is any such evidence.

TeaPublican/BuShite bloviation, invention, distortion and disinformation is not evidence, by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 May 13 - 11:06 AM

There were meaningful Benghazi lies after all
By Steve Benen Fri May 17

Given what we now know, congressional Republicans saw all of the materials in March, couldn't find anything controversial, and moved on. But last week, desperate to manufacture a scandal, unnamed Republicans on Capitol Hill started giving "quotes" from the materials to reporters, making it seem as if the White House made politically motivated edits of Benghazi talking points.

As Major Garrett reported last night, the "quotes" Republicans passed along to the media were bogus. The GOP seems to have made them up. ABC's Jonathan Karl didn't know that, and presented them as fact, touching off a media firestorm.

Why would Republicans do this, knowing that there was evidence that would prove them wrong?

Probably because Republicans assumed the White House wouldn't disclose all of the internal deliberations that went into writing the Benghazi talking points. When the White House did the opposite on Wednesday, giving news organizations everything, the GOP had been caught in its lie.

So, it appears there's a Benghazi scandal after all. It's not the wrongdoing Republicans alleged; it's the wrongdoing Republicans committed.

The question for Darrell Issa is pretty straightforward: when does the investigation begin as to which Republicans lied to journalists and when?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 May 13 - 11:24 AM

Steve Benen (born May 15, 1973) is an American political writer and blogger, an MSNBC contributor, and a producer for The Rachel Maddow Show.
...Benen was born and raised in Miami, Florida, and received his B.A. in Political Science from Florida International University. He received a Master's degree in Political Management from the George Washington University, and was an intern in President Bill Clinton's White House Office of Speechwriting. In 1996, he was the communications director for an unsuccessful Democratic congressional campaign in Pennsylvania.





" the "quotes" Republicans passed along to the media were bogus. The GOP seems to have made them up."

And I should believe this why? Where are the quotes and the evidence against them?

Or will YOU now accept anything I post from Fox without supporting evidence?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 May 13 - 11:26 AM

Greg F: "Only one problem, Beardy - there's absolute no evidence that the ADMINISTRATION knew or did any of what you accuse them of."

You REALLY NEED to find a new 'news' source!!! Maybe watch some media that isn't just a PR firm for the Administration.

No evidence????..Jeez, Greg..the evidence is all over the place. You don't even have to look too hard at all....maybe that stuff in your colon is blocking the view.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 May 13 - 11:29 AM

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?
By Jeffrey Lord on 5.20.13 @ 6:11AM
President met with anti-Tea Party IRS union chief the day before agency targeted Tea Party.
"For me, it's about collaboration." — National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley on the relationship between the anti-Tea Party IRS union and the Obama White House
Is President Obama directly implicated in the IRS scandal?
Is the White House Visitors Log the trail to the smoking gun?
The stunning questions are raised by the following set of new facts.
March 31, 2010.
According to the White House Visitors Log, provided here in searchable form by U.S. News and World Report, the president of the anti-Tea Party National Treasury Employees Union, Colleen Kelley, visited the White House at 12:30pm that Wednesday noon time of March 31st.
The White House lists the IRS union leader's visit this way:
Kelley, Colleen Potus 03/31/2010 12:30
In White House language, "POTUS" stands for "President of the United States."
The very next day after her White House meeting with the President, according to the Treasury Department's Inspector General's Report, IRS employees — the same employees who belong to the NTEU — set to work in earnest targeting the Tea Party and conservative groups around America. The IG report wrote it up this way:
April 1-2, 2010: The new Acting Manager, Technical Unit, suggested the need for a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases. The Determinations Unit Program Manager Agreed.
In short: the very day after the president of the quite publicly anti-Tea Party labor union — the union for IRS employees — met with President Obama, the manager of the IRS "Determinations Unit Program agreed" to open a "Sensitive Case report on the Tea party cases." As stated by the IG report.
The NTEU is the 150,000 member union that represents IRS employees along with 30 other separate government agencies. Kelley herself is a 14-year IRS veteran agent. The union's PAC endorsed President Obama in both 2008 and 2012, and gave hundreds of thousands of dollars in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles to anti-Tea Party candidates.
Putting IRS employees in the position of actively financing anti-Tea Party candidates themselves, while in their official positions in the IRS blocking, auditing, or intimidating Tea Party and conservative groups around the country.
The IG report contained a timeline prepared by examining internal IRS e-mails. The IG report did not examine White House Visitor Logs, e-mails, or phone records relating to the relationship between the IRS union, the IRS, and the White House.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 May 13 - 11:31 AM

Page 2 of 8)
In fact, this record in the White House Visitors Log of a 12:30 Wednesday, March 31, 2010 meeting between President Obama and the IRS union's Kelley was not unusual.
On yet another occasion, Kelley's presence at the White House was followed shortly afterwards by the President issuing Executive Order 13522. A presidential directive that gave the anti-Tea Party NTEU — the IRS union — a greater role in the day-to-day operation of the IRS than it had already — which was considerable.
Kelley is recorded as visiting the White House over a year earlier, listed in this fashion:
Kelley, Colleen Potus/Flotus 12/03/2009 18:30
The inclusion of "FLOTUS" — First Lady Michelle Obama — and the 6:30 pm time of the December event on this entry in the Visitors Log indicates this was the White House Christmas Party held that evening and written up here in the Chicago Sun-Times. The Sun-Times focused on party guests from the President's home state of Illinois and did not mention Kelley. Notably, the Illinois guests, who are reported to have attended the same party as Kelley, included what the paper described as four labor "activists": Dennis Gannon of the Chicago Federation of Labor, Tom Balanoff of the Service Employees International Union, Henry Tamarin of UNITE, and Ron Powell of the United Food and Commercial Workers.
Six days following Kelley's attendance at the White House Christmas party with labor activists like herself, the President issued Executive Order 13522 (text found here, with an explanation here). The Executive Order, titled: "Creating Labor-Management Forums To Improve Delivery of Government Services" applied across the federal government and included the IRS. The directive was designed to:
Allow employees and unions to have pre-decisional involvement in all workplace matters….
However else this December 2009 Executive Order can be described, the directive was a serious grant of authority within the IRS to the powerful anti-Tea Party union. A union that by this time already had the clout to determine the rules for IRS employees, right down to who would be allowed a Blackberry or what size office the employee was entitled to. The same union that would shortly be doling out serious 2010 (and later 2012) campaign contributions to anti-Tea Party candidates with money supplied from IRS employees. The union, as noted last week here in this space, already has the authority to decide all manner of IRS matters, right down to who does and does not get a Blackberry.
It is the same union whose IRS employee-members were being urged in 2012 by Senate Democrats (Chuck Schumer, Al Franken, Max Baucus, and others) to target Tea Party and other conservative groups.
Which, as the IG records, they did.
Both Mr. Obama and the NTEU's Kelley have been by turns evasive and tight-lipped about their roles in the blossoming IRS scandal.
Kelley refused to open up to the Washington Post. In an article titled "IRS, union mum on employees held accountable in 'sin' of political targeting," the Post quoted the following:
"NTEU is working to get the facts but does not have any specifics at this time. Moreover, IRS employees are not permitted to discuss taxpayer cases. We cannot comment further at this time," NTEU President Colleen M. Kelley said via e-mail.
A call to the NTEU office in Cincinnati resulted in a similar response: "We've been directed by national office. We have no comment."
The President approached things in a more evasive manner.


6 more pages here:

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/05/20/obama-and-the-irs-the-smoking/

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 May 13 - 11:34 AM

"Steve Benen (born May 15, 1973) is an American political writer and blogger, an MSNBC contributor, and a producer for The Rachel Maddow Show."

That carries about as much credibility, as writing for the 'Simpsons', or 'Family Guy'.

If you want to break out of your brain-lock, get out of MSNBC...they are completely bogus...even been busted three times this past year for doctoring clips, to alter the reporting!!!....Infotainment!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 May 13 - 12:09 PM

CBS NEWS

controlled by the Commies too, Beardy?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 May 13 - 12:10 PM

GuestInsanity: Piss off.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 May 13 - 12:20 PM

So, look at the actual emails rather than what either side claims.








"The emails reveal how the first draft of CIA talking points prepared for U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and select members of Congress watered down direct references to al Qaeda links to the Benghazi attacks and warnings about potential attacks.

The first version of the Benghazi talking points was produced by the CIA at 2:27 p.m. on Sept. 14, 2012. It says that the Benghazi assault may have been "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. consulate."

It also said, "We know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack." It cites at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi and that "we cannot rule out that individuals had previously surveiled the U.S. facilities."

The final version, after numerous revisions, produced at 12:13 p.m. on Sept. 15, kept the concept of a spontaneous demonstration, but removed references to al Qaeda or affiliated groups, previous attacks on diplomatic facilities or the possibility of premeditated surveillance.

One page shows how much of it happened in handwritten changes ordered by CIA Director Michael Morrell after a White House meeting Sept. 15. Top CIA officials told us Morrell's changes coincidentally reflected those reflected by top State Department officials."


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57584737/wh-releases-e-mails-showing-changes-to-benghazi-talking-points/

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 May 13 - 01:43 PM

The Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General published a new report Monday that confirms former U.S. Attorney for Arizona Dennis Burke leaked a document intended to smear Operation Fast and Furious scandal whistleblower John Dodson.
The DOJ IG said it found "Burke's conduct in disclosing the Dodson memorandum to be inappropriate for a Department employee and wholly unbefitting a U.S. Attorney."
"We are referring to OPR our finding that Burke violated Department policy in disclosing the Dodson memorandum to a member of the media for a determination of whether Burke's conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct for the state bars in which Burke is a member," the IG wrote.
Burke resigned from his post as U.S. Attorney over the incident in August 2011, the first major Department of Justice official to leave his or her post in the Fast and Furious scandal. He said after the fact, in interviews with congressional investigators, that he now views leaking the document as a "mistake."
In addition to Burke's involvement in leaking the document, emails the IG uncovered show senior officials at the Department of Justice discussed smearing Dodson.
One of those was Tracy Schmaler, the Director of the Department's Office of Public Affairs, who resigned her position at the DOJ after emails uncovered through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request showed that she worked with leftwing advocacy group Media Matters for America to smear whistleblowers and members of Congress and the media who sought to investigate DOJ scandals under Attorney General Eric Holder.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 May 13 - 01:54 PM

ANALYSIS/OPINION:
Scandals are nothing new in Washington. Just about every president has faced an accusation of misconduct, whether moral or criminal. It should be no surprise that the Obama administration finds itself in the midst of one (well actually three).
Many Republicans have been quick to declare this the end of President Obama, even calling for impeachment. However, these scandals are not the personal failings of Mr. Obama himself, rather they are the failings of the liberal philosophy which he and his entire administration espouse. In case you were out camping without a cellphone last week, here is a brief recap in order of appearance:
• Benghazi: The White House has been criticized for failing to prevent the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate and of misleading the public about it.
• IRS: Conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status were targeted for extra scrutiny, beginning shortly after Scott P. Brown's special election U.S. Senate victory in Massachusetts in 2010 through the 2012 presidential campaign. Also, confidential tax documents of prominent conservatives were leaked to the media.
• TheAssociated Press: The Department of Justice acquired the phone records of AP reporters over two months in an effort to locate an administration leak.
APgate is troubling, but the problem for the Republicans is that acquiring phone records is legal and part of the Patriot Act. Attempts to roll this particular part of the legislation back have been convincingly voted down by both parties. Suddenly, the Republicans realize that an overreaching Patriot Act may not have been a good thing, but that stance looks to be driven by politics rather than ideology.
The IRS scandal is the most relatable and represents the most immediate problem for our country. Only a fool would believe that two to four field workers took it upon themselves to institute a policy of red taping conservative groups. The scandal rises higher, but I seriously doubt Mr. Obama directed such actions.
Benghazi was undoubtedly a tragedy. Was there negligence? Yes. Was there a poor attempt at spin? Most definitely. Were departments pointing fingers at each other? As sure as the sun shines. Is anything that happened impeachable? No. More than anything Benghazi is another example of an administration getting caught flat-footed and stumbling to fudge the facts for fear that Americans could not handle the truth, especially so close to the elections.
And that, my dear readers, gets to the heart of what the week was really about: the competence of a government ruled by a party that thinks the solution to every problem is more government.
This is not about Obama the man, or even about Obama the president. This is not even about Republicans and Democrats. This is about the fundamental failure of progressive liberal ideology.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/19/williams-a-week-of-scandals-proves-the-incompetenc/#ixzz2TrAMkBxe
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 May 13 - 02:08 PM

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/19/williams-a-week-of-scandals-proves-the-incompetenc/


An interesting viewpoint, whether one agrees with all of it or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 May 13 - 02:09 PM

Veteran CBS newsman Bob Schieffer on Sunday morning unloaded on a top White House official, comparing the Obama administration's handling of the ongoing Internal Revenue Service scandal to former President Richard Nixon's initial strategy for dealing with Watergate.
The assertion came after White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer said the president will continue with his objectives and will not become bogged down by the IRS debacle, the Benghazi affair or other missteps.
"I don't want to compare this in any way to Watergate … but I have to tell you, that is exactly the approach the Nixon administration took. You're taking exactly the same line," Mr. Schieffer said.
He then castigated the White House for taking credit when the federal government does something right, but passing the buck when problems arise. Republicans and other critics have made similar claims that Mr. Obama seems to have little knowledge of what's happening in his own federal government.
"When the executive branch does things right, there doesn't seem to be any hesitancy for the White House to take credit for that," Mr. Schieffer said, citing the killing of Osama bin Laden as an example. "When these [scandals] happen, you seem to send out officials many times who don't even seem to know what's happened."
He even demanded to know why Mr. Pfeiffer was making the rounds on Sunday talk shows, rather than a higher-ranking official.
"Why are you here today? Why isn't the chief of staff here today?" Mr. Schieffer asked.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/may/19/cbs-bob-schieffer-unleashes-white-house-official-w/#ixzz2TrEIMB11
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 May 13 - 02:23 PM

"What difference, at this point, does it make?"
— Hillary Rodham Clinton, in House testimony on Benghazi

Just when Benghazi has reached critical mass, the Obama administration, which has had only one scandal (Fast and Furious early in term 1, and that fizzled fast and furiously), suddenly has two more scandals? Coincidence, yes?
No. Not at all. They were dropped, on purpose, at a most convenient time, and they're already played out. Exactly according to plan.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/19/benghazi-is-the-only-scandal-that-matters/


The whole ham-handed game play is comical. Just as shocking testimony emerged on the Benghazi scandal, the administration rolls out two scandals, with the targets just coincidentally — the media and right-wing conservatives. Absurd. But fairly brilliant. The self-absorbed media predictably swooned over its plight — this is the biggest scandal ever. And the right-wingers grew indignant, finally able to say "We told you so." Well played, Obama administration.

......

But be warned, White House: Bob Woodward, who knows a thing or two about scandals and cover-ups, isn't falling for the double head fake.
"If you read through all these emails," the Watergate reporter said, "you see that everyone in the government is saying, 'Oh, let's not tell the public that terrorists were involved, people connected to al Qaeda. Let's not tell the public that there were warnings.' I have to go back 40 years to Watergate when Nixon put out his edited transcripts to the conversations, and he personally went through them and said, 'Oh, let's not tell this, let's not show this.'"
"I would not dismiss Benghazi."
Too bad, Bob. Washington's press corps already has.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 20 May 13 - 02:29 PM

Ah yes, the "Moonie" perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 May 13 - 04:58 PM

No, no, gillymore, Beardy's is the LOONIE perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 May 13 - 07:47 PM

Bruce is the 'LOONIE perspective' here??????

Greg,....Dear Greggie Boy,...was THAT the extent of your intellectual, insightful, informative rebuttal to the topic?????????????

That's IT???

Is that supposed to be 'righteous indignation', to play on the heart strings of fellow 'so-called liberal' bleeding heart feelings???

I'm swayed!!!!
(rolls eyes).....

GfS

P.S. You, and your ilk, do as much to boost Bruce's credibility, as the facts he is posting.....get over it, and hop on the ol' clue train!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 May 13 - 08:32 PM

Bruce's credibility,

As is the case with Glenn's, Rush's (& their fellow travellers) and yours, "Bruce's Credibility" is an oxymoronic expression.

Or possibly simply moronic.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 May 13 - 01:19 AM

I has a lot to do with the 'news' services (read propaganda) that caters to which side of the 'divide' you happen to listen to.
I have little doubt that both of you two are sincere people, in your own ways...what causes the 'distance' of points of view, happens to be shaped by the media's biases, that create, then exploit controversies, instead of doing what they are supposed to do, and that is keep the people INFORMED, with the TRUTH, so the electorate can make informed decisions, and keep their elected people accountable.
This isn't going on...instead, you have corporate interests governing the way people are led to think about various things..NOT for the interest or well being of the people, to whom they are reporting to, but for positioning masses of people, to swallow whatever crap, and be misinformed..while the real culprits get away with murder, fraud, wars, swindling, manipulations of the economy, etc etc, solely for the 'best' interests, of their power mongering. Obama is just as fucked up as Bush, and just as big of a phony...AND they are doing, and continue on doing the SAME things!.....and/or continuations of the same 'projects'....for their string pullers, behind the scenes.
Truth to tell, if people knew what was REALLY going on, and what decisions are being made, in closed doors, they'd ALL be in jail!!..along with most of our 'so-called' representatives!!!
Bruce posts reports....the left, (almost) posts countering 'reports'. The fact is, there is a lot of ass covering going on, for a lot of treasonous, if not felonious, activities going on....and who gets hurt??..virtually every family, every plan to succeed, and to the freedoms that too many have just taken for granted!
The IRS debacle, Benghazi, the intrusive snooping, NDAA, phony corporate bailouts, manufactured 'bubbles', designed to burst,..all of it, and more, are not here to benefit the common citizen....neither is the covering up, of what is either incompetence, or corruption.
I think we could agree on that....but this partisan, ideological, theatrical soap opera, has been NOTHING BUT a drain on the country, as a whole, benefited no one, and, in fact, has been elevated to the 'grand distraction', to keep these crooks free from scrutiny.....wouldn't you say??

I'll leave you with that....if you're going to respond, keep it on topic......shooting the messenger doesn't work anymore...we already know you're out of bullets!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 May 13 - 07:24 AM

I'm getting a bit sick of this blythe assumption that none of us has the capacity to think for ourselves, except for a self obsessed clown who cannot string three sentences of coherent thought togather to save his life.

Give your delusions of intelligence a rest for a while, and devote a little time to learning some minute amount of basic English grammar (a minute amount should be within your capabilities), then you may be able to poduce comprehensible prose.

I'm not holding my breath though!

Truly you are Gone far from Sanity.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 21 May 13 - 08:48 AM

GfS(OS)
Re your latest semi-coherent rant, citing the Washington Times as a "news service" reveals the degree of your delusion. They are widely known as the propaganda arm of the GOP and more broadly all conservative/reactionary causes. Do a little digging if you really are interested in the truth. If you're not so inclined heed the words of Thomas Jefferson, "it's better to be ignorant than misinformed". Maybe you should take up basket weaving.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 May 13 - 09:02 AM

How Hope and Change Gave Way to Spying on the Press
by Kirsten Powers May 21, 2013 4:45 AM EDT


Much of the Fourth Estate shrugged when the Obama administration attacked Fox News, writes Kirsten Powers. But now it's coming for them, too.

First they came for Fox News, and they did not speak out—because they were not Fox News. Then they came for government whistleblowers, and they did not speak out—because they were not government whistleblowers. Then they came for the maker of a YouTube video, and—okay, we know how this story ends. But how did we get here?

James Rosen (Fox News, via Media Matters)

Turns out it's a fairly swift sojourn from a president pushing to "delegitimize" a news organization to threatening criminal prosecution for journalistic activity by a Fox News reporter, James Rosen, to spying on Associated Press reporters. In between, the Obama administration found time to relentlessly persecute government whistleblowers and publicly harass and condemn a private American citizen for expressing his constitutionally protected speech in the form of an anti-Islam YouTube video.

Where were the media when all this began happening? With a few exceptions, they were acting as quiet enablers.

It's instructive to go back to the dawn of Hope and Change. It was 2009, and the new administration decided it was appropriate to use the prestige of the White House to viciously attack a news organization—Fox News—and the journalists who work there. Remember, President Obama had barely been in office and had enjoyed the most laudatory press of any new president in modern history. Yet even one outlet that allowed dissent or criticism of the president was one too many. This should have been a red flag to everyone, regardless of what they thought of Fox News. The math was simple: if the administration would abuse its power to try and intimidate one media outlet, what made anyone think they weren't next?


President Obama went after Fox News in this 2009 interview with CNBC.
These series of "warnings" to the Fourth Estate were what you might expect to hear from some third-rate dictator, not from the senior staff of Hope and Change, Inc.
"What I think is fair to say about Fox … is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party," said Anita Dunn, White House communications director, on CNN. "[L]et's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is." On ABC's "This Week" White House senior adviser David Axelrod said Fox is "not really a news station." It wasn't just that Fox News was "not a news organization," White House chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel told CNN's John King, but, "more [important], is [to] not have the CNNs and the others in the world basically be led in following Fox, as if what they're trying to do is a legitimate news organization …"

These series of "warnings" to the Fourth Estate were what you might expect to hear from some third-rate dictator, not from the senior staff of Hope and Change, Inc.

Yet only one mainstream media reporter—Jake Tapper, then of ABC News—ever raised a serious objection to the White House's egregious and chilling behavior. Tapper asked future MSNBC commentator and then White House press secretary Robert Gibbs: "[W]hy is [it] appropriate for the White House to say" that "thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a 'news organization'?" The spokesman for the president of the United States was unrepentant, saying: "That's our opinion."

Trashing reporters comes easy in Obama-land. Behind the scenes, Obama-centric Democratic operatives brand any reporter who questions the administration as a closet conservative, because what other explanation could there be for a reporter critically reporting on the government?

Now, the Democratic advocacy group Media Matters—which is always mysteriously in sync with the administration despite ostensibly operating independently—has launched a smear campaign against ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl for his reporting on Benghazi. It's the kind of character assassination that would make Joseph McCarthy blush. The main page of the Media Matters website has six stories attacking Karl for a single mistake in an otherwise correct report about the State Department's myriad changes to talking points they previously claimed to have barely touched. See, the problem isn't the repeated obfuscating from the administration about the Benghazi attack; the problem is Jonathan Karl. Hence, the now-familiar campaign of de-legitimization. This gross media intimidation is courtesy of tax-deductable donations from the Democratic Party's liberal donor base, which provides a whopping $20 million a year for Media Matters to harass reporters who won't fall in line.

In what is surely just a huge coincidence, the liberal media monitoring organization Fairness and Accuracy in the Media (FAIR) is also on a quest to delegitimize Karl. It dug through his past and discovered that in college he allegedly—horrors!—associated with conservatives. Because of this, FAIR declared Karl "a right wing mole at ABC News." Setting aside the veracity of FAIR's crazy claim, isn't the fact that it was made in the first place vindication for those who assert a liberal media bias in the mainstream media? If the existence of a person who allegedly associates with conservatives is a "mole," then what does that tell us about the rest of the media?

What all of us in the media need to remember—whatever our politics—is that we need to hold government actions to the same standard, whether they're aimed at friends or foes. If not, there's no one but ourselves to blame when the administration takes aim at us.



http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/21/how-hope-and-change-gave-way-to-spying-on-the-press.html?utm_source=feedburner&

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 May 13 - 09:33 AM

And now Faux News, caught in outright lies so many times that everyone has lost count, and with the documented distinction that people who rely on Faux News are more ignotant and misinformed than people who watch no news at all.

Beardy, please tell us that you don't REALLY believe this horseshit - people keep saying that you're an intelligent guy- but that can't be true if you fall for the garbage Fox puts out.

And by the way, paraphrasing Pastor Niemöller in this connection is really offensive.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 May 13 - 09:59 AM

Hey SFB,


The post was NOT from Fox-


The Daily Beast was founded in 2008 as the vision of Tina Brown and IAC Chairman Barry Diller. Curated to avoid information overload, the site is dedicated to breaking news and sharp commentary. In 2011, The Daily Beast became the online home of Newsweek magazine, which has served as the world's preeminent conversation starter since its founding in 1933. Tina Brown, former editor of Vanity Fair, The New Yorker and Talk, serves as editor-in-chief of both publications. The combined operation now regularly attracts over 18 million unique online visitors a month and the magazine reaches millions more through its tablet and international editions.




Try reading the post before letting the vacuum out of your head.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 May 13 - 10:23 AM

Poll: Majority believe IRS targeting of Tea Party was intentional
By Meghashyam Mali         - 05/21/13 07:41 AM ET
   
A new poll finds that a majority of Americans believe the Internal Revenue Service targeting scandal was an intentional effort to harass conservative political groups.
In a Washington Post/ABC News poll released Tuesday, 56 percent said the IRS use of higher scrutiny on Tea Party groups seeking tax exempt status was a deliberate move, with 31 percent calling it an "administrative mistake."

A strong majority, 74 percent, said the IRS moves were inappropriate to 20 percent who said they were appropriate. Fifty-one percent also said they believe those actions were illegal to 44 who said they were inappropriate but not against the law.
A plurality also believe the administration is not being forthcoming about the targeting scandal. Forty-five percent said the administration is trying to cover up facts, with 42 percent saying the White House has honestly disclosed what they know.
The controversy over the IRS, the Justice Department's seizure of reporters' phone records and the administration's Benghazi talking points have kept the White House on the defensive this month.
The WP/ABC News poll, however, suggests the scandals have yet to damage the president's personal standing.
Obama holds a 51 percent approval rating to 44 percent negative.
Lawmakers though are pressing for answers on when senior officials at Treasury and the White House first learned about the political bias at the IRS and what steps they took to stop it.
On Monday, the White House acknowledged that senior officials were aware of an inspector general report into the improper targeting, but decided not to tell President Obama. White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler learned about the Treasury audit in April.
Press secretary Jay Carney defended the decision to not inform Obama, who has said he learned about the scandal when it became public on May 10. Carney said that informing the president could have led to charges that the administration was improperly trying to influence the investigation.
But the disclosure that the president's top lawyer knew about the scandal weeks before will likely intensify congressional scrutiny.
On Monday, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and ranking Republican Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) called for the IRS to turn over more documents on the targeting scandal, broadening their investigation. Their panel will hold its first hearing on the IRS scandal on Tuesday.
The House Ways and Means Committee last week heard testimony from acting IRS commissioner Steven Miller, who offered his resignation after the scandal broke.
Calls also grew for a special investigator to probe the matter. On Sunday Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) said he believed a special counsel would be "necessary" to ensure a fair inquiry
The poll was conducted from May 16 to 19 and has a 3.5-point margin of error.


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/300895-poll-majority-believe-irs-targeting-of-tea-party-was-intentional#ixzz2TwAAjMqJ
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 May 13 - 10:25 AM

Poll: Majority suspicious of Benghazi cover-up
By Justin Sink         - 05/21/13 09:32 AM ET
   
A majority of Americans believe that the Obama administration is trying to cover up the facts about the Sept. 11 attack on a U.S. installation in Benghazi and the administration's immediate response, according to a new poll released Tuesday.
The survey, by ABC News and the Washington Post, found that 55 percent of Americans believe the Obama administration is actively attempting to cover up the facts of the Benghazi attack. By contrast, only a third say the White House is honestly disclosing what it knows.
At the same time, respondents were split on whether the Republican criticism of the Obama Administration's handling of the attack was rooted in legitimate concerns. While 44 percent say that the GOP had asked legitimate questions, 45 percent say that Republicans are just engaging in political posturing.

And despite her central role as Secretary of State during the Benghazi attack, Americans still strongly approve of how Hillary Clinton handled her tenure in Foggy Bottom. Of those surveyed, 62 percent approve of Clinton's handling of her job, while 28 percent disapprove.
By contrast, 51 percent approve of President Obama's handling of his job, while 44 percent disapprove.
Last week, the White House released emails it says validate their contention that the talking points used by administration officials after the attack — which suggested the violence grew out of a spontaneous protest, rather than deliberate terrorist plotting — had been driven entirely by the CIA.
But the emails also revealed that talking points underwent extensive edits before they were released, and that the State Department repeatedly expressed concern over initial drafts. The emails also show that then-CIA Director David Petraeus had advocated for fuller disclosure in the initial talking points.


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/300921-poll-majority-suspicious-of-benghazi-cover-up#ixzz2TwAe2OoD
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 May 13 - 10:28 AM

Report: Top Obama lawyer told of IRS targeting in April
By Meghashyam Mali         - 05/20/13 06:22 AM ET
   
President Obama's top lawyer was notified in April that the Treasury Department's inspector general had finished an audit of the Internal Revenue Service and uncovered the targeting of conservative groups, according to a report.
The Wall Street Journal reported late Sunday that a senior administration official said White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler learned about the inspector general's conclusions during the week of April 22, including that IRS agents had directed unfair scrutiny toward Tea Party groups and others who were seeking tax exemption.

Obama press secretary Jay Carney had previously acknowledged that the counsel's office knew that the audit had been completed in April.
The report that White House lawyers may have known the report's findings weeks before they became public will likely fuel GOP questions about when other senior administration officials first learned about the scandal and if the president should have been notified sooner.
President Obama has said he first learned about the IRS misconduct when the public did, on May 10.
The inspector general's office said it notified Treasury Secretary Lew about the audit in March, but that he did not learn about the report findings until they went public.
The White House declined to say if Ruemmler had shared knowledge of the inspector general's findings with other senior administration staff, according to the Journal.
The disclosure of the IRS political targeting has brought criticism from both parties, with Congress beginning hearings. President Obama called the conduct "outrageous" last week and sought and received the resignation of Steven Miller, the acting director of the IRS.
Despite those actions, many GOP lawmakers are questioning if the political targeting was directed or ordered by senior officials in the administration and want further answers on when top Treasury and White House officials first learned of the scandal.
On Sunday, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) said he believed that a special counsel would eventually be "necessary" to look into the IRS.
The White House, also fighting criticism over the Justice Department's seizure of journalists' phone records and questions over its handling of the Benghazi terror attack, pushed back on Sunday, with senior Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer mounting a vigorous defense of their handling of the IRS matter.
Pfeiffer vowed that the White House would thoroughly investigate the scandal and ensure it "never happens again."
He denied that the White House in any way influenced or pressured IRS employees to take tougher actions against conservative groups and, citing the inspector general's report, said that no one in the White House had seen the details of the audit beforehand.
"It's important to know what we actually knew, which is just that there was an investigation; it was coming to conclusion. Not that we knew the results. We didn't see the report until it was released last Wednesday," he said on ABC's "This Week."


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/300639-report-top-obama-lawyer-knew-of-irs-audit-findings-in-april#ixzz2TwBCLo00
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 May 13 - 10:58 AM

Many liberal reporters and commentators have dismissed or downplayed the emerging Benghazi and Internal Revenue Service scandals as non-scandals or trifling bureaucratic errors.

But reports that the Justice Department has been targeting journalists, first reporters at The Associated Press and now Fox News' James Rosen, has caused the generally Obama-admiring press to question the purity of their redeemer.

Here are 10 tweets from liberal commentators and reporters expressing outrage on Monday over Rosen-gate:


My experience dealing with @jamesrosenfnc was unpleasant and contentious. And I fully support him against this unwarranted act by DOJ
— Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) May 20, 2013
The New Yorker's excellent long-form writer Ryan Lizza:


If James Rosen's "clandestine communications plan" were illegal, every journalist in Washington would be locked up. Unreal.
— Ryan Lizza (@RyanLizza) May 20, 2013


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/20/olbermann-liberal-media-figures-turn-against-obama-over-reporter-targeting/#ixzz2TwIUeUI6

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 May 13 - 11:10 AM

"More whistleblowers will emerge shortly in the escalating Benghazi scandal, according to two former U.S. diplomats who spoke with PJ Media Monday afternoon.

These whistleblowers, colleagues of the former diplomats, are currently securing legal counsel because they work in areas not fully protected by the Whistleblower law.


According to the diplomats, what these whistleblowers will say will be at least as explosive as what we have already learned about the scandal, including details about what really transpired in Benghazi that are potentially devastating to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The former diplomats inform PJM the new revelations concentrate in two areas — what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi and the pressure put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.

Stevens' mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming "insurgents" with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.

Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted "to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap."

This left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the "insurgents" actually were al-Qaeda – indeed, in the view of one of the diplomats, the same group that attacked the consulate and ended up killing Stevens."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 May 13 - 11:14 AM

"The thoughtful Carl Cannon has written a piece, "Richard Milhous Obama," concluding that our current president has more in common with our 37th than President Obama's partisans would like to acknowledge. The estimable Victor Davis Hansen has weighed in, defending against liberal dissents the proposition that "Nixon Is a Fair Comparison" with Obama.


I protest. Will no one stand up for Richard Nixon? Richard Nixon was a combat veteran, a staunch and brave anti-Communist, a man who took on the liberal establishment and at times his own party's as well, a leader who often thought for himself and had the courage of his convictions, a president who assembled a first-rate Cabinet and one who—while flawed both in character and in policy judgment—usually tried to confront the real problems and deal with challenges of his times. Richard Nixon led neither the country nor his own administration from behind.

I worked for Richard Nixon (well, I worked for two months in the Nixon White House in 1970 as a summer intern). I voted for Richard Nixon (in 1972, my first vote, against George McGovern—and one about which I have no regrets). I knew Richard Nixon (very slightly—I met him on a few occasions in groups in the late 1970s and the 1980s, and then a couple of times when I worked for Vice President Quayle). And so I feel obliged to rise to Richard Nixon's defense, and to say, with all due respect, to our current president: Barack Obama, you're no Richard Nixon."


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/he-s-no-nixon_728610.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 May 13 - 11:51 AM

Yet another bout of Postarrhoea from Beardie, re-posting from various groups suffering from acute Blogarrhoea. Must be a chronic condition on his part rather than episodic, and complicated by Fulminating Factaversion.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 May 13 - 12:11 PM

And obviously GregF is the typical Mudcat Liberal, who makes judgement without any information about the topic, especially anything he does not already agree with.

As his voice is the only one here, I have to presume others of his ilk are in agreement with his statements and tactics.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 May 13 - 12:54 PM

Come on, Greg...another pathetic attack on Bruce??? Why not address the topic??? You are convincing NO ONE!
If you disagree, with what is becoming common knowledge, at least try employing common sense, (a rare commodity these says), and post a link of SOMETHING that gives another side of the story...but these juvenile rhetorical assault/insults are just indicative of how frazzled the 'so-called liberals' are of watching their 'Hope and Change' become frustration and the same ol' thing.
Your posts are the equivalent of 'Na-na nee nan naa'!....and then we are supposed to jump up and declare, 'Yeah, I think he's got a point'!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 May 13 - 01:20 PM

I AM adressing the topic, RefufgeeFromSanity, and directly: the posting of huge amounts of cut-and-past horseshit. And, I'm attacking the mounds of horseshit, not the horse.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 May 13 - 01:21 PM

Oh, and Beardy: You're right, of course - they're all out to get you. Probably because you're Jewish.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 May 13 - 01:50 PM

Sharyl Attkisson's computers compromised

By DYLAN BYERS | 5/21/13 11:18 AM EDT

Sharyl Attkisson, the Emmy-award winning CBS News investigative reporter, says that her personal and work computers have been compromised and are under investigation.

"I can confirm that an intrusion of my computers has been under some investigation on my end for some months but I'm not prepared to make an allegation against a specific entity today as I've been patient and methodical about this matter," Attkisson told POLITICO on Tuesday. "I need to check with my attorney and CBS to get their recommendations on info we make public."

In an earlier interview with WPHT Philadelphia, Attkisson said that though she did not know the full details of the intrustion, "there could be some relationship between these things and what's happened to James [Rosen]," the Fox News reporter who became the subject of a Justice Dept. investigation after reporting on CIA intelligence about North Korea in 2009.

On Sunday, The Washington Post reported that the Justice Dept. had searched Rosen's personal e-mails and tracked his visits to the State Dept. The court affadavit described Rosen as "at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator" of his government source, presumably because he had solicited classified information from that source -- an argument that has been heavily criticized by other journalists.

Attkisson told WPHT that irregular activity on her computer was first identified in Feb. 2011, when she was reporting on the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal and on the Obama administration's green energy spending, which she said "the administration was very sensitive about." Attkisson has also been a persistent investigator of the events surrounding last year's attack in Benghazi, and its aftermath.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 May 13 - 01:54 PM

When confronted with its worst scandal in decades, the IRS broke virtually every public relations rule on the books.
The agency could have first informed Congress that it was improperly targeting conservative groups for additional scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status. It could have issued a comprehensive press release. It could have even leaked to a friendly media outlet to get out in front of the story.

The IRS did none of those things. Instead, it took the highly unusual step of planting a question in the audience at an obscure law conference to get the word out about the controversial program.

Crisis managers can only cringe at the fallout that's sent President Barack Obama into a defensive tailspin and his team scrambling to manage the fallout. The scandal would be tough to confront in the best of circumstances, but the agency's poor management of the story is being blamed for deepening the sense of crisis gripping Washington.
"If it's a minor league team, it'd be below single A. And you're insulting the minor leagues," said Lanny Davis, a former special counsel to President Bill Clinton who guided the administration through a series of second-term campaign finance scandals.
Davis called the decision by Lois Lerner, the director of the agency's nonprofit division who orchestrated the Q&A during an American Bar Association conference, an exercise in "upside down crisis management."
(Also on POLITICO: IRS scandal: Who knew what when?)
"Now this looks doubly manipulative — fake and you have a bad story," he said.
Members of the ABA told POLITICO they were blindsided that their public forum — normally a place for polite questions for government staffers — ended up being used to air some of the IRS's dirtiest laundry.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/irs-how-not-to-handle-a-scandal-91647.html#ixzz2Tx1GkoZX

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 May 13 - 02:32 PM

In case anyone wants to see the Liberal defense... Greggie's last 5 days of posting- two are actually on the thread topic!



Oh, and Beardy: You're right, of course - they're all out to get you. Probably because you're Jewish.



I AM adressing the topic, RefufgeeFromSanity, and directly: the posting of huge amounts of cut-and-past horseshit. And, I'm attacking the mounds of horseshit, not the horse.



Yet another bout of Postarrhoea from Beardie, re-posting from various groups suffering from acute Blogarrhoea. Must be a chronic condition on his part rather than episodic, and complicated by Fulminating Factaversion.



And now Faux News, caught in outright lies so many times that everyone has lost count, and with the documented distinction that people who rely on Faux News are more ignotant and misinformed than people who watch no news at all.

Beardy, please tell us that you don't REALLY believe this horseshit - people keep saying that you're an intelligent guy- but that can't be true if you fall for the garbage Fox puts out.

And by the way, paraphrasing Pastor Niemöller in this connection is really offensive.



Bruce's credibility,

As is the case with Glenn's, Rush's (& their fellow travellers) and yours, "Bruce's Credibility" is an oxymoronic expression.

Or possibly simply moronic.


No, no, gillymore, Beardy's is the LOONIE perspective.



GuestInsanity: Piss off.


*** A REAL POST!!! ***********
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F. - PM
Date: 20 May 13 - 12:09 PM

CBS NEWS

controlled by the Commies too, Beardy?


Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F. - PM
Date: 20 May 13 - 11:06 AM

There were meaningful Benghazi lies after all
By Steve Benen Fri May 17

Given what we now know, congressional Republicans saw all of the materials in March, couldn't find anything controversial, and moved on. But last week, desperate to manufacture a scandal, unnamed Republicans on Capitol Hill started giving "quotes" from the materials to reporters, making it seem as if the White House made politically motivated edits of Benghazi talking points.

As Major Garrett reported last night, the "quotes" Republicans passed along to the media were bogus. The GOP seems to have made them up. ABC's Jonathan Karl didn't know that, and presented them as fact, touching off a media firestorm.

Why would Republicans do this, knowing that there was evidence that would prove them wrong?

Probably because Republicans assumed the White House wouldn't disclose all of the internal deliberations that went into writing the Benghazi talking points. When the White House did the opposite on Wednesday, giving news organizations everything, the GOP had been caught in its lie.

So, it appears there's a Benghazi scandal after all. It's not the wrongdoing Republicans alleged; it's the wrongdoing Republicans committed.

The question for Darrell Issa is pretty straightforward: when does the investigation begin as to which Republicans lied to journalists and when?




You need to look at what you would be saying if the positions were reversed- If this was a Republican administration, and they were targeting liberal organizations and lying about facts....

Only one problem, Beardy - there's absolute no evidence that the ADMINISTRATION knew or did any of what you accuse them of.

Check back with us if there ever is any such evidence.

TeaPublican/BuShite bloviation, invention, distortion and disinformation is not evidence, by the way.




Great. GuestInsanity, president of the Beardy Fan Club. Whoopee.



I repeat for your convenience, Beardy:

17 May 13 - 01:28 PM
What "discussion", Beardy? You don't "discuss" anything. You post truckloads of cut-and-paste crap & hurl insults.

It seems you haven't noticed that damn near everyone is ignoring your mountains of crap? GuestInsanity doesn't count.




What "discussion", Beardy? You don't "discuss" anything. You post truckloads of cut-and-paste crap & hurl insults.



There's that serial postarrhoea, again. Something seems to have exacerbated the condition.





[The Obama] administration has encouraged the divisions and bitternesses, and made the previous inept administration look kind and law-abiding.

Do you really believe that preposterous bullshit, Beardy? Really?

That may be the most delusional statement I can recall you ever making, and believe me, it has some tough competition.



You're right, Beardy, the whole world's out to get you. Probably because you're Jewish.



Well perhaps Beardy figures that sheer volume will overwhelm facts.




Looks like Beardie's down again with a case of Chronic Postarrhoea. Must be his supply od paregoric ran out.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 May 13 - 02:35 PM

Just remember, Liberals- This is what you are willing to have represent YOUR viewpoint.


And not a word of protest...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 May 13 - 05:09 PM

I TOLD ya, Beardy, all them libruls is ALL out to getcha.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 21 May 13 - 05:21 PM

Reading cut and paste blogs as serious sources of information is like reading the stuff people write on the walls in bar room bathrooms as a guide for moral living...

I don't read them because I don't have the time to fact check them for accuracy... I mean, just fact checking one might take hours and at the end, okay, you might expose all the lies but have just allowed that blogger, who BTW is more than likely being paid well by people who are trying to impose their wishes on everyone else, to eat you a portion of your life...

Most positions can be stated plainly and without the cut and paste length but with perhaps a couple references...

Cut and paste is lazy and academically dishonest... Unless you yourself have fact checked it objectively... I doubt that BB has done that with any of his...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 May 13 - 06:23 PM

Beardedbruce and Songwronger, and from time to time a couple of others, spew reams of hate-mongering material, pretty obviously cut-and-paste from various anti-administration web sites and blogs against Barack Obama, blaming him for such things as the IRS catching Tea Party and other conservative groups red-handed hiding campaign contributions—President Obama learned about the Internal Revenue Service targeting these groups applying for tax-exempt status only after it had come out in the media (even Fox News admitted that!)—but they blame him for instigating the investigation—and for practically everything else.

It would not surprise me if they even blamed him for the tornadoes in Oklahoma! I mean, why not, guys!??

And their basic message, beyond their hatred for Obama, is that the entire political system is so corrupt that nothing can be done about it! Okay, if nothing can be done, why even attempt to improve things?

Is that what you want? It sure sounds like it.

And where do these guys get the TIME to glean and post all this material? Do they not have jobs like most of us?

And that cringing little sycophant, Guest from Unsanitary—

I will no longer waste my time reading or responding to this daily barrage of garbage. I get my news from reliable sources—indeed, several different sources that do not necessarily agree with each other, and I have the knowledge and intelligence to make up my own mind.

Now, watch for Goofball to fire off a volley of lies and personal attacks at me, trying to get me to respond. He does that sort of thing. And he really hates it when I just ignore him. If I don't respond, he starts attacking my family, about which he knows nothing, so he makes up lies.

Neither they nor I need defending from the likes of him.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 May 13 - 10:38 PM

Wow!..What a distorted view!!

...and Don, I won't 'attack' your family...you don't have one, you abdicated your responsibility, when you could have had one....so I'm not impressed with your lesser feats of 'accomplishments'.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 May 13 - 08:20 AM

So, the factual articles I have posted are being accepted by all here, since there has been NO effort to show any false or incorrect interpretation of the facts brought out to date?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 May 13 - 08:34 AM

"Obama administration officials who were in key positions on Sept. 11, 2012, acknowledge that a range of mistakes were made the night of the attacks on the U.S. missions in Benghazi, and in messaging to Congress and the public in the aftermath.

The officials spoke to CBS News in a series of interviews and communications under the condition of anonymity so that they could be more frank in their assessments. They do not all agree on the list of mistakes and it's important to note that they universally claim that any errors or missteps did not cost lives and reflect "incompetence rather than malice or cover up." Nonetheless, in the eight months since the attacks, this is the most sweeping and detailed discussion by key players of what might have been done differently.

"We're portrayed by Republicans as either being lying or idiots," said one Obama administration official who was part of the Benghazi response. "It's actually closer to us being idiots."

The Obama administration's chief critics on Benghazi, such as Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., remain skeptical. They see a pattern, even a conspiracy, to deflect attention from the idea that four Americans had been killed by al Qaeda-linked attackers, on the president's watch. "There is no conclusion a reasonable person could reach other than that for a couple of weeks after the attack, [the Obama administration was] trying to push a narrative that was politically beneficial to the president's re-election," Graham told CBS News.

The list of mea culpas by Obama administration officials involved in the Benghazi response and aftermath include: standing down the counterterrorism Foreign Emergency Support Team, failing to convene the Counterterrorism Security Group, failing to release the disputed Benghazi "talking points" when Congress asked for them, and using the word "spontaneous" while avoiding the word "terrorism.""

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57584921/officials-on-benghazi-we-made-mistakes-but-without-malice/

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 May 13 - 08:47 AM

Proclaiming an article factual and it ***being*** factual are two different things...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 May 13 - 08:50 AM

As has been pointed out. So show any falsehoods, or admit you are just being unreasonable.

Look at the Bush thread- HOW many of the posted "facts" were NYT editorials, and the liberals here demanded that they be considered.

Here I post from what I consider a liberal source ( though not as openly bigoted as MSNBC) and you will not even tell me what the facts are that you dispute- just that I am wrong.

Well, Bobert, in this case, YOU are in the wrong until you demonstrate what is falsely reported.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 May 13 - 08:58 AM

"Proclaiming an article factual and it ***being*** factual are two different thing"



Or are you now admitting that all your posts about Bush were bogus, since you were using the same sources ( NBC/CNS/CNN/NYT) that I have been posting from, and you NEVER verified that they were true when they were critical of Bush?


Pick one Bobert- YOU CAN"T HAVE BOTH WAYS.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 May 13 - 09:16 AM

So, Bobert, what statement do you believe is incorrect, and what evidence do you have to support your belief?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 May 13 - 09:42 AM

the factual articles I have posted are being accepted by all here

You're getting a little ahead of yourself, Beardy.

Just so soon as you actually post some factual articles, you'll probably get comments on them.

Not worth anyone's time- except yours, apparently, to comment on the horseshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 May 13 - 10:30 AM

Greggie,

Go stick your head back up your ass- the rest of the world is looking at what is happening, and talking about it.

If Liberals have nothing to say, they must be seeing that the rest of us are correct in what is being said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 May 13 - 10:36 AM

Oh, that right:

Obama in Jedi mode:

"These are not the scandals you are looking for."









For Greggie ( since I doubt he is aware enough to recognize the quote from Star Wars:

Stormtrooper: Let me see your identification.
Obi-Wan: [with a small wave of his hand] You don't need to see his identification.
Stormtrooper: We don't need to see his identification.
Obi-Wan: These aren't the droids you're looking for.
Stormtrooper: These aren't the droids we're looking for.
Obi-Wan: He can go about his business.
Stormtrooper: You can go about your business.
Obi-Wan: Move along.
Stormtrooper: Move along... move along.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 May 13 - 11:00 AM

Listen, bruce...

Homey ain't your stooge, dude...

It ain't up to me to spend hours laboring over your BS... If you post it then you have an academic responsibility to fact check it... If you want to post a link to it, that's different... But when you use band-width under your name then you f'n own it...

Fact check yer own stuff, man...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 May 13 - 11:08 AM

I have- yet you call it lies.

I called you on many claims in the Bush threads, and YOU stated it was up to me to disprove them.

Sounds like you have one set of rules for those you agree with, and another for those you disagree with.

This is the basic definition of bigotry.


I have posted the sources- and most are the same news outlets that YOU have used in the past to criticize Bush. So now, I ask for the same courtesy that YOU were given, in NOT calling false what you cannot prove as false. Or do you think that Obama should NOT be held to the same standard you held Bush to, because of his race? THAT is more racist than those of us who voted against Obama because we disagreed with his politics, who YOU called racist.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 May 13 - 11:12 AM

IRS tea-party bloodbath continues in Congress, as evidence emerges that IRS's own internal probe ended in May 2012, six months before election, but was hidden from legislators
By DAVID MARTOSKO IN WASHINGTON
PUBLISHED: 09:19 EST, 22 May 2013 | UPDATED: 10:06 EST, 22 May 2013
Comments (0)
Share

Tempers flared in a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing Wednesday, with members on both sides of the aisle castigating the Internal Revenue Service for targeting conservative groups with special scrutiny, and then hiding the practice from Congress.
Rep. Darrel Issa, the committee's chairman, said that the committee learned just yesterday that the IRS completed its own investigation a year before a Treasury Department Inspector General report was completed.
But despite the IRS recognizing in May 2012 that its employees were treating right-wing groups differently from other organizations, Issa said, IRS personnel withheld those conclusions from legislators.
'Just yesterday the committee interviewed Holly Paz, the director of exempt organizations, rulings and agreements, division of the IRS,' Issa said. 'While a tremendous amount of attention is centered about the Inspector General's report, or investigation, the committee has learned from Ms. Paz that she in fact participated in an IRS internal investigation that concluded in May of 2012 - May 3 of 2012 - and found essentially the same thing that Mr. George found more than a year later.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2329067/Congress-hosts-IRS-bloodbath-slamming-tax-authorities-partisan-targeting-conservatives-official-refuses-answer-questions.html#ixzz2U2D4FOKb
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 May 13 - 11:16 AM

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) told IRS officials on the panel that there will be "hell to pay" if they refuse to answer the committee's questions — a message clearly targeted at Lois Lerner, whose lawyer has said she will plead the Fifth Amendment and not answer questions.
"If you refuse to answer," Lynch said, "you will leave us no choice but to ask for a special counsel or the appointment of a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of this."
Lynch added: "I hope that's not the approach of the IRS going forward, because there will be hell to pay."
Lynch's superior on the committee, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), previously asked the committee to respect Lerner's right to plead the Fifth.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 May 13 - 11:30 AM

Go stick your head back up your ass

Wow, Beardy, that sounds like a personal attack - you know, those things you never, ever make?

Will the horseshit never end????

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 May 13 - 11:33 AM

From the shit that pours out from you, I think it is proven that you keep your head up your ass.

At least those racist TEA party members don't call someone who is "Black, and a Democrat " a "dumb Ni**er" like you do.


But Bobert is OK with that, since even if you are a racist scumbag, you agree with him. Or is it BECAUSE you are a racist scumbag?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 May 13 - 11:52 AM

The US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Ronald C. Machen - the man responsible for the aggressive surveillance and phone record scrutiny at Fox News - is also a big donor to the Obama Campaigns. At the time of his appointment, the Washington Post wrote a profile on Machen including this tidbit:
Over the years, he has donated $4,350 to Obama's campaigns. He gave $250 to Obama's U.S. Senate campaign in 2003, a year before Obama, then an Illinois state senator, emerged on the nation's political radar, according to campaign finance records.
Furthermore, in June of 2012, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) questioned Attorney General Eric Holder about the appointment of Mr. Machen to head-up the leaks investigation. During the questioning Sen. Cornyn revealed that not only was Machen a donor to the Obama campaign, he was also a volunteer for Obama for America. Cornyn called into question whether he could conduct the leaks investigation in a fair and non-partisan way.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/21/US-Attorney-Investigating-Fox-News-Big-Obama-Donor

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 May 13 - 12:03 PM

Thanks for answering my question, Beardy viz: the horseshit WILL never end.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 May 13 - 12:06 PM

Crucial evidence needed to develop an accurate answer to that question would include the records of any communications that went back and forth between the IRS and the White House on the topic.

In a May 14 letter signed by Chairman Dave Camp and Ranking Member Sander Levin, the House Ways and Means Committee demanded precisely those records from the IRS. In the same letter, the committee also demanded the records of any communications between IRS and the Treasury on the matter, plus other information and records that would help the committee understand the facts about IRS actions that subjected to heightened scrutiny conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status.

Chairman Camp and Ranking Member Levin gave the IRS a deadline of Tuesday, May 21 to comply with their committee's demand for the information and records.

The IRS--which requires working Americans to file their tax returns by an April 15 deadline each year or else face penalties--did not comply with this deadline imposed by the congressional committee that has oversight over its activities.

"The Committee has not received a response to the Camp-Levin letter," House Ways and Means Spokeswoman Sarah Swinehart told CNSNews.com late Tuesday after the IRS had closed for business for the day.

"Chairman Camp expects the IRS to comply and provide full and complete responses to the letter since many of these questions were asked, but went unanswered, in Friday's hearing," said Swinehart.

The letter that Camp and Levin sent to the IRS a week ago Tuesday asked the agency to answer thirteen questions about its targeting of conservative groups and, where relevant, provide all internal agency documents and communications substantiating its answers.

Two of the committee's questions sought records of any communications between the IRS and the Treasury and the IRS and the White House about the targeting of conservatives groups.

"As the Committee on Ways and Means continues its investigation into these IRS practices," Camp and Levin wrote the IRS, "we request that the IRS provide the following information by May 21, 2013: …"

"Did the IRS at any time notify the Treasury Department of the targeting of conservative or any other groups?" Camp and Levin asked. "Provide all documents and communications between the IRS and Treasury on this matter."

"Did the IRS at any time notify the White House of the targeting of conservative or any other groups?" asked Camp and Levin. "Provide all documents and communications between the IRS and the White House on this matter."

In their letter, Camp and Levin said the IRS had not been "completely truthful" with the committee in the past on this matter.

"We are deeply troubled by the recent admission of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that the agency has been singling out organizations for additional review based on their political beliefs," Camp and Levin said in their letter to the agency. "Despite repeated calls for cooperation, the agency failed to be completely truthful in its responses to the committee during its nearly two-year long investigation of this matter, and in testimony before the committee."

On Monday through Tuesday morning, CNSNews.com made multiple phone and email inquiries to the IRS press office asking if the agency intended to comply with this request for information and records from the House Ways and Means Committee. The IRS did not respond.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 May 13 - 12:08 PM

Typical liberal...

When the facts aren't what they want, just call it bullshit and don't bther to ook at it.


NOW I am certain that Greggie is truly representative of the Liberal Viewpoint- I"t is not a lie if it benefits the Liberal View."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 May 13 - 12:35 PM

Who knows how much of your cut and pastes are facts or mythology... No one, other than you read 'um, bb... And I'm not sure you do...

No matter...

BTW, what is "the liberal viewpoint", anyway???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 May 13 - 12:52 PM

the Liberal Viewpoint- "It is not a lie if it benefits the Liberal View."


But since you will not bother to look at facts presented by those you disagree with, YOU have no right at all to have others look at any facts that YOU bring up in regards to what you consider important. You have declared that you have no interest in the truth, just whatever you believe, regardless of the facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 May 13 - 01:14 PM

And the horseshit flows on, untrammeled, to the sea.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 May 13 - 01:18 PM

Yes, we noticed your post, Greggie

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 May 13 - 02:18 PM

Greg F: "And the horseshit flows on, untrammeled, to the sea."

Then stop posting!

OR, at least find out what's going on!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 May 13 - 04:41 PM

By the way.....Is there anyone in here, who can give an explanation, on other possible reasons, as to why the events are unfolding as they are, with such a trail of lies and cover-ups?? Can anyone justify their own perceived position as to WHY this should not be investigated further??? ....without the childish attempts at trying to smear those who have brought you the posts, that are taken right from the 'news' media???

Give it a shot....if there is another part of the TRUTH that people need to know...what is it??
Fair enough??

GfS

...and if you can't come up with anything...could or would you even consider that those who have brought you 'cut and paste' posts, from the 'news', may have been doing you a service, rather than just fucking with ya'???

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 May 13 - 08:43 AM

GfS,

See my post of Date: 22 May 13 - 10:36 AM



Obi-Wan Obama has our best interest at heart- he even told you that! It is NOT like ANY Jedi would go over to the Dark Side, you know......

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 24 May 13 - 12:48 PM

Expecting either one of those political parties to prove the least bit trustworthy once in office is like expecting mercy, compassion, and kind affection from the kingpins of organized crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 May 13 - 06:40 PM

Well, 'Guest', I really wish you'd post a name for yourself..we can't tell if you are one of many 'Guests'.....regardless, I happen, for one, to agree with your last post. I've been posting that same thing for QUITE a while....the 'partisans' neither 'gets it', or gets all nasty when I tell them the completely obvious.
Hey, put up a name, so we know one 'guest' from another.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 24 May 13 - 08:33 PM

Yup, you gotta love the "classless and free" haters... On one hand they blast Obama over and over and over and over and over...

On the other hand they say it's both sides...

Pick one story, haters...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 May 13 - 09:37 PM

Bobert: "Pick one story, haters..."

How about a government that the people can trust, whether you agree with them or not, and who stick to the rule of law, and who don't have to work overtime covering up their corrupted ways???
Can I pick that one??
Can you??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 May 13 - 09:44 AM

Talk about a nonstory; Obama isn't Nixonian
The president needs to do a better job refuting such scandalous comparisons
By LLOYD CONSTANTINE, Commentary
Published 11:34 pm, Saturday, May 25, 2013

The momentary elation of commenting on the story du jour, that President Barack Obama was starting to be perceived like former President Richard Nixon, is quickly overwhelmed by the depressing realization that the premise is baseless but nevertheless has legs.

This is an opportunity for the increasingly lazy press to waste a month spinning the analogy rather than reporting important news. Moreover, the disloyal opposition in Congress would seize this latest excuse to obstruct the progress of our nation rather than participate in its governance.

I once was a law professor, a doctoral candidate in government during the Nixon administration and senior adviser to a New York governor who experienced one serious and one terminal scandal. From this perspective, the Obama/Nixon comparison is absurd.

First, one must reread the articles for the impeachment of Nixon passed by the House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 1974. That would have led to Nixon's removal by the Senate and likely criminal prosecution had he not resigned Aug. 9, 1974, and been pardoned by President Gerald Ford on Sept. 8 of that year.

Nixon was charged with personally obstructing justice, withholding evidence, making false statements and inducing others to lie with the use of payoffs. He also was charged with personally interfering with the FBI, CIA, Department of Justice and Office of Special Prosecutor and using campaign funds to set up a secret unit in the White House that utilized the CIA to engage in unlawful and covert activities, including rigging a criminal trial.

Neither the known facts about Benghazi, the government's subpoena of Associated Press reporters' phone records or the IRS' stopping and frisking of conservative groups nor the administration's candor about these activities support the Obama to Nixon comparison. There is not a speck of evidence that Obama knew about any illegality in these activities.

And so far, only the IRS, acting under the supervision of George W. Bush's appointees, suggests possible illegality. Nixon frequently and personally used the IRS to go after opponents, as when he asked White House counsel John Dean "How come we haven't pulled McGovern's file on his income tax?" — referring to the Democratic presidential candidate in 1972.

Nixon's "high crimes and misdemeanors" contrast with asserted errors in judgment by federal employees far removed from Obama, and from policy disputes, like those involving the AP, where the press establishment wants a federal shield law, but none in fact exists.

No better credentialed observer than Dean, who served hard time for the Watergate crimes he committed at Nixon's instruction, has dismissed the Obama/Nixon comparison, stating "whoever is making the analysis is challenged in their understanding of history. ... There are no comparisons. They're not comparable."

Assuming we need one, then, what is an apt comparison?

The movie "42" chronicling Jackie Robinson's heroic breaking of major league baseball's color barrier in 1947 suggests that the president is anachronistically channeling the Dodgers' second baseman. In "42," we see Branch Rickey, the Brooklyn general manager, telling Robinson that they need a man strong enough not to fight back when vicious verbal and physical assaults are hurled at him — as they were.

Robinson was that hero in the year I was born. Still, it's not clear whether we all wouldn't have been better off had Robinson cracked a bat across the skull of someone who assaulted him — say, Philadelphia Phillies manager Ben Chapman, who had been a blatant racist and anti-Semite, tolerated by the baseball establishment for decades.

Without resolving that old dispute, Obama's emulation of Robinson is counterproductive. When the president recently was confronted by the press with the inane comparison to Nixon, he said "I'll let you guys engage in those comparisons" — inviting them to frolic and detour for awhile until the next easy diversion comes their way.

The president, a constitutional scholar of the highest order, probably can recite, verbatim, the charges against Nixon. Why not use that knowledge and his extraordinary rhetorical skill?

If Jackie Robinson had the right demeanor for 1947, that model just won't work in 2013 — not after an African-American was re-elected with a clear electoral mandate.

Take off the gloves, Mr. President. If you need to channel someone from back then, a better and more useful model might be Harry Truman. Give 'em hell.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 May 13 - 01:39 PM

Amen!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 26 May 13 - 07:10 PM

Yeah, Obama doesn't have to run in another election so why not just kick out the jambs???

I would...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 May 13 - 08:20 PM

Well, he COULD have run again Bobert, if the FDR-hating Republicans hadn't queered the deal & the will of the people be damned.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 May 13 - 02:45 PM

Applicable words........
Good advice......

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 May 13 - 02:59 PM

I do.

You really ought to try it sometime.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,another brat on the playground
Date: 27 May 13 - 04:23 PM

"I know you are, but what am I?"

"Takes one to know one!"

"Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 May 13 - 02:32 AM

Good call, 'another brat'!....but so far they just don't 'get it'...and can't see why not!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 May 13 - 11:03 AM

"In the wake of recent political targeting scandals, Tennessee Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn is calling on the Obama administration to fully explain the 2011 raids on the Gibson Guitar Corp.

"The recent scandals surrounding this administration raise a number of questions about who they choose to target and why," Blackburn said. "The arrogance and lack of transparency displayed by this President and his cabinet officials in events such as the raids on Gibson Guitar and the IRS targeting of conservative groups show a complete disregard for the rule of law."

In 2011, federal agents raided Gibson's facilities in Nashville and Memphis in response to the company's alleged use of wood that is illegal to obtain in India. The company was charged under the Lacey Act, which made the transportation and sale of plants and wildlife that were illegally obtained overseas a crime. Gibson's facilities were also raided in 2009 under suspicion of illegal wood from Madagascar.

Last week Investor's Business Daily highlighted the fact that Gibson CEO Henry Juszkiewicz has contributed to Republican politicians, including Blackburn. It further noted that the CEO of C.F. Martin & Co — one of Gibson's competitors, which has used the same type of Indian wood with impunity — is a long-time Democratic donor.

"It is clear that this administration made a choice to use excessive regulatory methods to intimidate conservative groups and individuals who disagree with their political ideology," Blackburn said. "Not only is this wrong, but it is illegal. No one should have to live in fear of their government."

"President Obama owes the American people a full explanation as to why these decisions were made, and anyone responsible for plotting these politically motivated attacks should be punished to the fullest extent of the law," she added.

This is not the first time Blackburn has questioned the Obama administration about its treatment of Gibson. After the 2011 raid, Blackburn, the vice chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, joined other members of the committee in asking the justice and interior departments to provide more information about the decision to raid Gibson.

The departments' response, which was delivered two weeks later, "frustrated" Blackburn at the time, as she said it provided no real answers.

Last August, Gibson settled with the Justice Department, agreeing to pay a $300,000 penalty and a community service payment of $50,000 to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 May 13 - 11:40 AM

Dear God, this is really reaching, even for Beardy! Guess he's spiralling downhill at a faster rate than anticipated.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 May 13 - 11:44 AM

Crawl back under your rock, Greggie boy.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 May 13 - 11:58 AM

This bears repeating, as to Transparency, and what happened, from the left's point of view!

Ironic how these 'so-called liberal' devotees are trying to convince people that they are in favor of a dishonest regime, and then turn around and think that the dishonest regime is dishonest to everyone but THEM!!!

Flaming idiots!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 May 13 - 01:26 PM

"IRS Crosses Green Line
Pro-Israel groups felt wrath of Obama IRS, WFB investigation reveals
   
AP
      
BY: Alana Goodman
May 30, 2013 4:59 am

A Washington Free Beacon investigation has identified at least five pro-Israel organizations that have been audited by the IRS in the wake of a coordinated campaign by White House-allied activist groups in 2009 and 2010.

These organizations, some of which are too afraid of government reprisals to speak publicly, say in interviews with the Free Beacon that they now believe the IRS actions may have been coordinated by the Obama administration.

Many of the charities openly clashed with the Obama administration's policy of opposing Israeli settlement construction over the so-called "Green Line," which marks the pre-1967 boundary between Israel and the West Bank and West and East Jerusalem.

After the Obama administration took up the Israeli-Palestinian peace process as one of its most prominent foreign policy priorities in early 2009, and made a cessation of Israeli settlement construction the cornerstone of its approach, the nonprofits were subjected to a string of unflattering media reports.

White House-allied lobbying groups joined the media criticism by challenged the nonprofits' tax-exempt status, arguing that they undercut President Barack Obama's Middle East policies.

"Our concern at that time was that these articles weren't just appearing by happenstance, but may have reflected an evolving policy shift in the Obama administration to scrutinize charitable giving by organizations on behalf of Jewish communities and institutions over the Green Line," said Jerusalem-based attorney Marc Zell, who convened a private meeting of pro-Israel groups in August 2009 to discuss these concerns.

Tax-exempt charities that support Israeli settlements have been the subject of controversy for years. But the issue came to a head after Obama made opposition to settlement construction a focus of his Middle East policy in 2009 and demanded Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu halt all construction beyond the Green Line, including in the Israeli capital of Jerusalem.

While it is not illegal for these charities to contribute to groups and individuals across the Green Line, critics say that they should not receive tax-exempt status because they support communities the administration views as antagonistic to administration policy.

The media scrutiny began as early as March 26, 2009, when the Washington Post's David Ignatius published a column questioning the groups' tax-exempt status.

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) announced the next day that it would begin a campaign of filing legal complaints with the IRS and the Treasury Department to investigate groups "allegedly raising funds for the development of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank."

ADC is closely tied to the Obama White House. The president recorded a video greeting to the group's annual conference and sent two senior administration officials to attend.

The ADC announced in October 2009 that it had expanded its legal campaign against pro-Israel charities and was "working with a number of coalition partners, both nationally and internationally, in conducting this ongoing campaign."

The chief negotiator for the Palestinian Authority raised the issue two days later during a meeting with U.S. Consul General Daniel Rubenstein, according to a State Department cable revealed by Wikileaks.

"[Palestinian negotiator Ahmad Quraya] gave the Consul General a copy of an article by Uri Blau and Nir Hasson, published in Israeli daily Haaretz newspaper on August 17, entitled 'American Non-profit Organization Raises Funds for Settlement,' and asked the USG to review the situation with an eye toward eliminating organizations' tax exempt status if they are funding settlement activity," said the cable.

On July 5, 2010, the New York Times published its 5,000-word cover story on the groups, following up with a Room for Debate series two days later. The article quoted an unnamed senior State Department administration official calling such groups "a problem" and "unhelpful to the efforts that we're trying to make."
The story also quoted a senior Obama Middle East adviser, Daniel Kurtzer, saying the groups "drove us crazy."

J Street, a pro-Palestinian lobbying group that was closely aligned with the White House in 2009 and 2010, called the following week for an investigation into U.S. charities that contribute to settlements.

One pro-Israel targets was HaYovel, which was featured prominently in the New York Times article. Six months after the article was published, the IRS audited the Nashville-based charity, which sends volunteers to work in vineyards across the Green Line.

"We bookend that [New York Times] story. We were the first [group mentioned]. They really kind of focused on us," said HaYovel's founder Tommy Waller. "Then six months later we had an audit."

Shari Waller, who cofounded HaYovel with her husband, said the couple received a phone call from the IRS in December 2010. She said she was not aware of anything in their tax documents that may have prompted the audit, and added that the additional scrutiny came during the group's first five years of existence when audits tend to be rare.

"They contacted us the week of Christmas and told us they wanted to audit us, right now," she said. "The most unusual thing to me was they contacted us at a time [that] for most people is a very hectic time, and we had just returned from Israel. To think about taking calls for an audit on the telephone—official business is usually conducted through the mail."

Tommy Waller said he found the timing of the audit "suspicious" and believes it may have been politically motivated.

"We 100-percent support Judea and Samaria, and Jewish sovereignty in that area, and the current administration is 100 percent opposed to Jewish sovereignty in that area of Israel," he said. "That's why we suspected that we would have to deal with [an audit]."

Two other organizations—the American arm of an educational institution that operates across the Green Line and the American arm of a well-known Israeli charity that was mentioned in the New York Times article—say they were also audited.

Another organization that was criticized in multiple articles during 2009 and 2010 was audited last year. The organization, like many of the groups with whom the Free Beacon spoke, asked to remain anonymous out of fear of political retaliation and concern that exposure would harm fundraising efforts.

"The IRS carried out an examination of our organization, reviewing all of our accounting records, tax returns, bylaws, bank records, grant awards, etc, for the relevant period," said a senior official of this organization.

"There was no vindictiveness in the audit itself and it was completed within a matter of months. Our feeling at the time was that this order must have come from above. The IRS seemed to be responding to a request or a complaint from higher up."

Concerns that the IRS was targeting pro-Israel groups were first raised publicly by Z Street, a pro-Israel organization run by Lori Lowenthal Marcus.

Z Street filed a lawsuit against the IRS in 2010, alleging its application for tax-exempt status was delayed because it disagreed with the Obama administration's Israel policy.

According to the suit, Marcus's attorney was informed by IRS official Diane Gentry that Z Street's "application for tax-exempt status has been at least delayed, and may be denied because of a special IRS policy in place regarding organizations in any way connected with Israel, and further that the applications of many such Israel-related organizations have been assigned to "a special unit in the D.C. office."

Neither the IRS nor Gentry responded to a request for comment.

Marcus said Z Street has not funded anyone or any groups in the settlements. But, she added, the problems her organization faced could be related to the administration's concerns over settlement-supporting groups.

Z Street's application for tax-exempt status first ran into trouble with the IRS on July 19, 2010, two weeks after the lengthy New York Times article was published."



thread.cfm?threadid=115883&messages=2819&page=1&desc=yes

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 May 13 - 01:29 PM

The scandals swirling around the Obama administration have many journalists scratching their heads as to how "hope and change" seem to have been supplanted by "arrogance and fear." Perhaps it's time they revisit one of their original premises about Barack Obama: that he wasn't influenced by the Chicago Daley machine. You know: the machine that boosted his career and whose protégés — including Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, and his wife, Michelle — he brought to Washington with him.

The liberal take on the president was best summed up by Slate magazine's Jacob Weisberg, who wrote last year that Obama "somehow passed through Chicago politics without ever developing any real connection to it." It's true that Obama initially kept some distance from the machine. But by the time he ran for the Senate in 2004, his main political Sherpas were Axelrod, who was then the chief consultant to Mayor Richard M. Daley, and Jarrett, the mayor's former deputy chief of staff. As Scott Simon of NPR noted: "While calling for historic change globally, [Obama] has never professed to be a reformer locally." The Daley machine, which evolved over 60 years from a patronage-rich army of worker bees into a corporate state in which political pull and public-employee unions dominate, has left its imprint on Obama. The machine's core principle, laid out in an illuminating Chicago Independent Examiner primer on "the Chicago Way," is that at all times elections are too important to be left to chance. John Kass, the muckraking columnist for the Chicago Tribune who for years has warned that Obama was bringing "the Chicago way" to Washington, sums up his city like this: "Once there were old bosses. Now there are new bosses. And shopkeepers still keep their mouths shut. Tavern owners still keep their mouths shut. Even billionaires keep their mouths shut."
"We have a sick political culture, and that's the environment Barack Obama came from," Jay Stewart, the executive director of the Chicago Better Government Association, warned ABC News when Obama ran in 2008. He noted that Obama had "been noticeably silent on the issue of corruption here in his home state."


http://nationalreview.com/article/349610/obamas-chicago-way-john-fund

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 May 13 - 02:12 PM

The truth is, that many of the 'so-called liberal' fanatics for Obama, see him as 'black and Democratic' and are blinded to the FACT that he is so far to the RIGHT, he's able to pull the wool over most of their glazed eyes!..so much that they can't see their support for him is nothing more than their own bigotry....working in reverse!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 May 13 - 02:21 PM

A little-noticed part of President Obama's Affordable Care Act channels some $12.5 billion into a vaguely defined "Prevention and Public Health Fund" over the next decade–and some of that money is going for everything from massage therapists who offer "calming techniques," to groups advocating higher state and local taxes on tobacco and soda, and stricter zoning restrictions on fast-food restaurants.

The program, which is run by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has raised alarms among congressional critics, who call it a "slush fund," because the department can spend the money as it sees fit and without going through the congressional appropriations process. The sums involved are vast. By 2022, the department will be able to spend $2 billion per year at its sole discretion. In perpetuity.

What makes the Prevention and Public Health Fund controversial is its multibillion-dollar size, its unending nature (the fund never expires), and its vague spending mandate: any program designed "to improve health and help restrain the rate of, growth" of health-care costs. That can include anything from "pickleball" (a racquet sport) in Carteret County, N.C. to Zumba (a dance fitness program), kayaking and kickboxing in Waco, TX.

"It's totally crazy to give the executive branch $2 billion a year ad infinitum to spend as they wish," said budget expert Jim Capretta of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center. "Congress has the power of the purse, the purpose of which is to insure that the Executive branch is using taxpayer resources as Congress specified."

The concerns are as diverse as the critics. The HHS Inspector General, in a 2012 "alert," was concerned that the payments to third-party groups came dangerously close to taxpayer-funded lobbying. While current law bars lobbying with federal money, Obama administration officials and Republican lawmakers differ on where lawful "education" ends and illicit "lobbying" begins. Nor have federal courts defined "lobbying" for the purposes of this fund. A health and Human Services (HHS) department spokesman denies that any laws were broken and the inspector general is continuing to investigate.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/05/30/obamacares-slush-fund-fuels-a-broader-lobbying-controversy/

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 May 13 - 03:44 PM

Economics doesn't mean crap to an ideological driven agenda....the live in a world of their 'sense of entitlement'. Only when the World Bank tells the President what THEY are going to do, must he divert the public from the reality going on behind the scenes....while they still THINK HE is actually for 'liberals'...He's NOT!..Get a fucking clue!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 May 13 - 04:12 PM

"Why would you trust the bureaucracy with your health if you can't trust the bureaucracy with your politics?"

"How can you put Obamacare under an Internal Revenue Service? Remember, this is an administration which will not profile terrorists, but will profile patriots, profile constitutional groups."

"The parallel between Benghazi and the IRS story is amazing, Lying, then lying about lying, and then hiding from the fact that they're lying. Then seeking to apologize for the lies they claim they didn't tell."



Even a broken clock is right...twice a day!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 May 13 - 06:36 PM

Ah, jeez, here's another episode of postarrhoea. Poor guy, you have to feel sorry for him. Not his fault - its a medical condition.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 May 13 - 08:45 PM

Care to address the issue??...or just spout what has become the 'so-called liberal's' tactic of 'nothing really to say'..so say something childish...it beats thinking, huh?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 May 13 - 08:00 AM

And it does seem that Greggie boy is the BEST that the Liberals here can come up with.

That reflects poorly on them- I had hoped to have a discussion of facts, and instead get lying racist scum like Greggie making personnal attacks with not one word of comment from the "responsible" liberal members.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 May 13 - 08:32 AM

Re: my assumption that Greggie represents the ENTIRE Liberal community here:


The maxim is "Qui tacet consentire": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent". If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented.
—Thomas More in A Man For All Seasons[


I have heard NOTHING against him or his tactics here on Mudcat, by liberals.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 May 13 - 08:40 AM

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1899


"American voters say 76 - 17 percent, including 63 - 30 percent among Democrats, that a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate charges the Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative groups, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.

President Barack Obama gets a negative 45 - 49 percent job approval rating, compared to 48 - 45 percent positive in a May 1 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University, conducted before the IRS allegations surfaced.

The president's biggest drop is among independent voters, who give him a negative 37 - 57 percent score, compared to a negative 42 - 48 percent May 1. He gets a negative 9 - 86 percent from Republicans and a positive 87 - 8 percent from Democrats, both virtually unchanged. Women approve 49 - 45 percent while men give a negative 40 - 54 percent score.
"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 May 13 - 09:20 AM



How many times do I have to tell you? The whole damn world's out to get you, Beardy, most likely 'cause you're Jewish.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 May 13 - 12:19 PM

That's ironic...because Jewish voters happen to lean heavily for the Democrats....maybe you ought to listen to what he has to say...he may be on YOUR side, but you aren't listening to your friends.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 May 13 - 12:22 PM

Though MOST Jews would not be friends with someone who calls people who are "Black, and a Democrat" "dumb Ni**ers".

Like Greggie boy has.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 12:21 AM

Ah, that 'under the surface' bigoted racism rears its nasty head again...actually meaningless to those of us who don't have those 'feelings'.
...but like I said before, the people who DID vote for him because he was 'black and a Democrat', were motivated by trying to be 'tragically hip'...and launder their own racism...and that's exactly what it is. If you voted for him, or support him, (or not) solely on the basis of his color, YOU are the racist!.....maybe that's why they're so trigger happy to pull up that word to use in on those who piss them off!
...I didn't say 'Maybe' did I?
The weak accuse others of their motives!
Frankly, I don't even think about race shit at all....who gives a rat's hemorrhoid!..played great music with all kinds....Did I say 'All kinds'?,...well that's silly..we are either musicians or not...and the best of musicians don't give a crap about politics...they're thinking about music!....being as that really is the case, it gives one a rather objective perspective of viewing...a lie is a lie is a lie...I don't give a fuck who's telling it....hmmm. if I like 'white lies' better than 'black lies', does that make me bigoted???
Naw, I think I'll stick to disliking all lies, regardless of the color of the mouth they fall out of!
Some of you guys can 'negotiate' with yourselves, if that holds for you.......but watch out for that 'under the surface' bigoted racism' and then clean up your own act!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 11:52 AM

"agency designed to be apolitical but that is increasingly charged with implementing policies tied to political agendas"

Should the IRS be more political? Is that what we want, and would we want it if this was a conservative administration?



Article:

"Former IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman was cleared to go to the White House nearly 150 times during his tenure, often meeting with high-ranking administration officials.
Republicans have seized on the visits — which, according to visitor logs, totaled at least 147 between 2010 and 2012 — to cast doubt on assertions by Shulman that he never told White House officials about the IRS practice of targeting conservative groups seeking a tax exemption.

But rather than evidence of an unusually close relationship with White House officials, the visitor logs and questions surrounding Shulman's visits reflect the challenge of running an agency designed to be apolitical but that is increasingly charged with implementing policies tied to political agendas on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
(PHOTOS: 8 key players in IRS scandal)
During Shulman's time in office, the IRS was tasked with playing an instrumental role in some of the administration's top policy initiatives, including the economic stimulus and President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, dragging it even more into the political spotlight."


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/doug-shulman-irs-white-house-visits-92087.html#ixzz2VAWq4S4c

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 01:01 PM

Republicans have seized on the visits to cast doubt on assertions by Shulman that he never told White House officials about the IRS practice of targeting conservative groups

Looks like Beardy & the TeaPublicans have siezed on the tactics of good old Tailgunner Joe.

Not only bullshit, but particularly slimy bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 01:09 PM

Looks like our resident slime ball has come back out to represent the liberal viewpoint.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 11:55 AM

beardedbruce: "Looks like our resident slime ball has come back out to represent the liberal viewpoint."

Yes!..I'd like to hear their 'viewpoint'....leaving out the snide, name calling, of course....just WHAT exactly is it????

I'm not even sure they know.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 12:03 PM

Does any responsible liberal have any comment about this? Besides blaming the writer for not going along with the required "Obama is always right." mantra?




"Welcome to the era of Bush-Obama, a 16-year span of U.S. history that will be remembered for an unprecedented erosion of civil liberties and a disregard for transparency. On the war against a tactic—terrorism—and its insidious fallout, the United States could have skipped the 2008 election.
It made little difference.
Despite his clear and popular promises to the contrary, President Obama has not shifted the balance between security and freedom to a more natural state—one not blinded by worst fears and tarred by power grabs. If anything, things have gotten worse.
Killing civilians and U.S. citizens via drone.
Seizing telephone records at the Associated Press in violation of Justice Department guidelines.
Accusing a respected Fox News reporter of engaging in a conspiracy to commit treason for doing his job.
Detaining terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, despite promises to end the ill-considered Bush policy."


http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/welcome-to-the-bush-obama-white-house-they-re-spying-on-us-20130606


"One thing we've learned about the Bush-Obama White House is that words don't matter. Watch what they do."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 12:39 PM

The way I see it is once an "American citizen" leaves the United States and takes up arms against US then he or she becomes fair game to be taken out regardless of what kind of weapon is used...

But the righties want to make it sound as if the US is targeting Americans here in the US with drones... That's pretty much the way we hear them frame it... And lot's of mental midgets believe it... You oughtta hear what folks here in the South say... They actaully believe that Obama is flying drones over the US killing American citizens on our soil...

Of course the resident righties will deny that they are saying this but if they weren't saying it in a manner that completely distorts the truth then why are there so many tin foilers repeating this mythology as if it were true...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 12:42 PM

"The way I see it is once an "American citizen" leaves the United States and takes up arms against US then he or she becomes fair game to be taken out regardless of what kind of weapon is used...
"


I agree with Bobert on this 100%

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 12:45 PM

"
Of course the resident righties will deny that they are saying this but if they weren't saying it in a manner that completely distorts the truth then why are there so many tin foilers repeating this mythology as if it were true...
"


Bobert, YOU are the one repeating this, and claiming that the right is saying it- But I hear it ONLY from YOU.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 12:50 PM

Beardedbruce: ""One thing we've learned about the Bush-Obama White House is that words don't matter. Watch what they do."

Seems like I've heard that before...Oh yeah, I posted the same thing before...but it falls on deaf ears.

By the way, there is a film out, You can and should see it, maybe on Netflix, or where ever..it's called 'The Promised Land'.....and you are going to root for one side or the other..but the 'surprise' comes at the very end...which should be VERY reminiscent of reading certain posts, in Mudcat. It should be a wake up call, for all those who have been dozing for the last 40 years!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 12:54 PM

But I hear it ONLY from YOU.

Yo BullshitBruce: you got an earwax problem? Or have you stuck your fingers in your ears while loudly repeating " La La La La La ... "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 02:07 AM

Greg, is there a vision of what you'd like to see, in this country??...and please relay how these things that are happening, with the scandals, are moving in that preferred direction, and to what end??

Just wondering, not only because of your posts, that are just venting, (and poorly), but maybe you can explain, that this stuff going on is good for all of us.
Fair enough?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 08:56 AM

Within hours of the disclosure that federal authorities routinely collect data on phone calls Americans make, regardless of whether they have any bearing on a counterterrorism investigation, the Obama administration issued the same platitude it has offered every time President Obama has been caught overreaching in the use of his powers: Terrorists are a real menace and you should just trust us to deal with them because we have internal mechanisms (that we are not going to tell you about) to make sure we do not violate your rights.

Those reassurances have never been persuasive — whether on secret warrants to scoop up a news agency's phone records or secret orders to kill an American suspected of terrorism — especially coming from a president who once promised transparency and accountability.

The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive branch will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it. That is one reason we have long argued that the Patriot Act, enacted in the heat of fear after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by members of Congress who mostly had not even read it, was reckless in its assignment of unnecessary and overbroad surveillance powers.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?_r=0

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 09:03 AM

Reuters) - A misfired email from a U.S. Internal Revenue Service employee in Cincinnati alerted a number of Washington IRS officials that extra scrutiny was being placed on conservative groups in July 2010, a year earlier than previously acknowledged, according to interviews with IRS workers by congressional investigators.

Transcripts of the interviews, reviewed by Reuters on Thursday, provided new details about Washington managers' awareness of the heightened scrutiny applied by front-line IRS agents in Cincinnati to applications for tax-exempt status from conservative groups with words like "Tea Party" in their names.



http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/07/us-usa-irs-scrutiny-idUSBRE95605X20130607

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 09:48 AM

NSA and PRISM. Way to go Obama. The new Bush, just like the old Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 10:45 AM

Atta boy, Beardy. More horseshit.

Please list the laws that were broken and the names of any groups that were unfairly denied tax-free status.

Ooops. Answer in both cases: NONE.

Of course, in the fact-free and reality-challenged environment you operate in, it makes no difference that

1. Concress requires - and has done since 1913- that the IRS & its pedecessor agencies review every application to weed out organizations that are partisan, political, or generate private gain.

2. Many of the right-wing groups scrutinized - NOT "AUDITED" - are, in fact, blatantly political operations masquerading as "social welfare" organizations.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 10:47 AM

Sorry, Fugitive From Sanity, but I haven't has any visions since the last time I took peyote over 40 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 10:49 AM

Greggie boy,

When the targetted groups ( all on one side of the political spectrum) are delayed status until AFTER the election, while the ones supporting the administration are railroaded thought BEFORE the election, even a shit for brains like you would have to wonder if the election was being rigged.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 12:12 PM

More make-believe horseshit, Beardy. Now its "rigged elections". Make up what passes for your mind.

Oh, and how about addressing the topic & the facts I posted.

Good thing you deplore and don't make personal attacks or call people names, eh. But then, you have no use or respect for the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 12:29 PM

"The most compelling evidence of that is what happened to the National Organization for Marriage. Its chairman, John Eastman, testified before the House Ways and Means Committee, and the tale he told was different from the now-familiar stories of harassment and abuse.

In March 2012, the organization, which argues the case for traditional marriage, found out its confidential tax information had been obtained by the Human Rights Campaign, one of its primary opponents in the marriage debate. The HRC put the leaked information on its website—including the names of NOM donors. NOM not only has the legal right to keep its donors' names private, it has to, because when contributors' names have been revealed in the past they have been harassed, boycotted and threatened. This is a free speech right, one the Supreme Court upheld in 1958 after the state of Alabama tried to compel the NAACP to surrender its membership list.

The NOM did a computer forensic investigation and determined that its leaked IRS information had come from within the IRS itself. If it was leaked by a worker or workers within the IRS it would be a federal crime, with penalties including up to five years in prison.

In April 2012, the NOM asked the IRS for an investigation. The inspector general's office gave them a complaint number. Soon they were in touch. Even though the leaked document bore internal IRS markings, the inspector general decided that maybe the document came from within the NOM. The NOM demonstrated that was not true."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323844804578529713576219412.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 12:42 PM

All US elections are rigged, and they always have been! ;-) The thing is, they are rigged from both sides, see? The side that does the most successful job at riggin' the election...which usually involves how much money they can get ahold of and how much cheatin' and false promises and shameless scaremongerin', character assassination, and gerrymanderin' they can do...wins.

Standard stuff. Only the losers will complain after the fact! The winners congratulate themselves on havin' "saved the nation" from the horrors of bein' governed by the satanic forces in the other party. Har! Har! It's good for a laugh if you don't let it depress you too much.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 01:08 PM

And yet MORE horseshit, Beardy! Now its leaked documents- or rather A leaked document. You really DO have to make up your mind exactly what you're complaining that the IRS has actually done.

If you read the rest of the Noonan's hatchet job - more her opinion than a news story, Beardy, it will become apparent (even to you!) that it has plenty of innuendo, suggestion, and supposition and damn little evidence, facts, or proof.

Its also obvious that the "National Organization for Marriage" is a political lobbying group, and not a "public service" group.

And playing the Nixon card is only a bit more reprehensible than playing the Nazi card.

"Those were the days"??? Gimmie a fuckin' break.

Oh, and by the way, re: Noonan, Click Here

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 01:14 PM

Sorry, Greggie boy. Your source is slightly less reputable than Fox News....



SO by the Silly Rubber Stooge rule it can be ignored, and you have said nothing of any significance.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 02:19 PM

Your source is slightly less reputable than Fox News....

1. Didja read it, Beardy? Of course not. Or follow the references? Of course not. Plenty of other coverage of Noonan's several faux pas & mis-statements on pretty much any news source you'd care to pick.

2. The only source that's possibly less reputable than Fox News[sic] (which I thought you lionized) is yourself.

And you STILL haven't addressed the facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 02:31 PM

Facts- The IRS violated it's own rules, and committed possibly illegal acts, on the ordr of un-named "higher ups", to give the liberals an advantage in the last election, and Greggie thinks that is ok. After all, the important thing is that the correct party wins the election.

Of course, if the other side had done this, there would ( have been?) calls for impeachment by the same people who think that Liberals should get their own set of rules, to be sure they end up in control.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 03:31 PM

More horse shit from BullshitBruce:

and committed possibly illegal acts

Which acts, and which laws were violated. "Possibly"? This is an accusation, not a fact.

on the order of un-named "higher ups"

More fantasy - they are unnamed because it didn't happen.

give the liberals an advantage in the last election

How, exactly, did it give the liberals an advantage. Have any documentation that such a advantage existed and had any actual effect?

And Beardy, you STILL haven't addressed the facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 03:39 PM

Greggie,

If you can't read, too bad- just go on denying the facts. .

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 04:15 PM

"We have arrived at a defining moment for the progressive movement in this nation.
The New York Times editorial board, which has generally given this president a lot of leeway throughout his career, wrote a scathing denunciation Friday of the Obama administration's use of data mining, claiming that "the administration has now lost all credibility" on the issue of balancing civil rights with national security.
Every progressive with even a shred of moral consistency should side with the New York Times against the White House.
The events of the past month – from the Associated Press subpoena to the James Rosen search warrant to the revelation that our government has been indiscriminately collecting phone records data – have forced liberals to make a choice between complacency and outrage, between keeping silent because one of our own is in the White House and calling him out on betraying the principles for which we have fought for so long.
Every progressive with even a shred of moral consistency should side with the New York Times against the White House.
Consistency has never been the fiber of political discourse but it is nonetheless a vital ingredient of credibility.
Progressives rightly denounced the overreach of the Bush administration when it came to abuses of the Patriot Act. We should just as strongly denounce the expansion of those abuses by this administration.
Many of us did not buy the previous administration's excuse that overreaching infringement upon the civil rights of ordinary Americans was a necessary step in keeping those same ordinary Americans safe. We should not buy it from this administration now, simply because this president is ostensibly one of us.

If this White House truly wanted to level with the American people, the president would have gone on national television to explain the necessity of these programs and the trade-offs between civil liberties and security he believes are consistent with his policies.
That he has failed to do this for nearly six years is evidence of the fact that there is likely no excuse for such blanket surveillance upon the American public, aside from the usual "it's necessary to keep us safe" bromide.

Once the shock of 9/11 wore off for a lot of us, it became apparent that our government was happy to use its pretext for all sorts of questionable activity.
From the invasion of Iraq to the nearly unanimous passage of the Patriot Act, elected officials on both sides of the aisle did not hesitate to grab as much power as possible under the guise of national security.
This behavior was not limited to one political party or the other – so the criticism of this behavior should not be emanating from one party and not the other.

Over the past several days, conservatives have pilloried this administration for a policy that began under the previous one with the mantra that Bush only went after terrorists, while Obama is going after regular Americans.
This is as ridiculous as it is false.
No one should give any president a blank check to vastly expand executive power based on his word that he is doing it in the national interest.
The phone records of millions of Americans have been collected and analyzed by both administrations without any explanation of how violating our privacy protects our security.
As progressives, we cannot remain silent when a president, whom we worked hard to elect and defend at every turn, betrays the very values upon which he ran five years ago.
The New York Times was right to call out the administration on this, just as others have been right to call out its egregious behavior towards the Associated Press and James Rosen.
Progressives should stand with the Times on this. Otherwise, we are just rooting for the name on the jersey, and not for the values that the jersey represents.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 04:21 PM

previous from:

J"ulie Roginsky has served as a senior political strategist for Senator Frank Lautenberg and Congressmen Frank Pallone, Jr., Albio Sires and Steve Rothman, among others. She was previously the Capitol Hill communications director for Senator Jon Corzine."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 05:32 PM

Source for your latest bout of postarrhoea, Beardy?

Also, I can't remember you being outraged when Bush and the BuShites passed the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act, which permits all of this.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 06:54 PM

PS Beardy : If, as you say, FOX News[sic] is not credible, why are you citing one of its paid propagandists, Julie Roginsky ?

Again, ya gotta make up your mind - or are you just talking (lying?) out of both sides of your mouth at once?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 07:31 PM

Greg F(who doesn't know what he wants): "Also, I can't remember you being outraged when Bush and the BuShites passed the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act, which permits all of this."

Joe Biden was the author of the 'Patriot Act', Greggie, in the mid '90's....probably about the time Bill Clinton was repealing Glass-Steagal....so don't get a twist in your 'whitey tighties'!

It is obvious that a clue hasn't dawned on you.
Chongo makes far more sense!
Well I'll be a monkey's uncle!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 07:59 PM

Very delusional; and ignornat post, GfinS...

You seem to have no (as in zero) knowledge of recent American history...

That's why you come off as a tin-foil Republican...

Both of your two claims you just made are nothing but Tea Party mythology... Patently false...

Don't bother telling us how you are some classless and free apolitical person... You are eat-up TEA PARTY Republican... Dripping variety...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 08:01 PM

Actually, Clinton already repealed it..Bush was President while Biden and crew came up with it...but it was NOT a conflict of interest...they all work for the same outfit!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 08:10 PM

Here, Bobert..multiple sources....trade your tinfoil hat for titanium???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 08:11 PM

Okay, GfinS, lets do Glass-Steagall first...

What major corporation pushed for the repeal of Glass-Steagall??? Who did they support in Congress and who did most of their donations go to???

Who was it in Congress who pushed it thru???

What were the political circumstances surrounding Clinton when he signed a bill he previously had nothing to do with???

This ougtta be interesting as I often wonder how people who are so eat up with tin-foil think...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jun 13 - 12:05 AM

Bobert: "Who was it in Congress who pushed it thru???
What were the political circumstances surrounding Clinton when he signed a bill he previously had nothing to do with???"

Enough 'fancy footwork'.....WHO SIGNED THE BILL????

Jeez! Political Party Dosey-Do....spin your partner 'round and 'round!

Bobert,..they both do it...they both do it together. follow the money and influence peddling trail!
No brainer....adjust your tin foil hat, to even a smaller size.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Jun 13 - 07:39 AM

Typical Republican avoidance...

Normal...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jun 13 - 10:03 AM

I worry about those who support the government's actions, ALL done in secrecy, INCLUDING the laws that made it legal. I think it's a matter that requires the concern and thought of all people regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jun 13 - 11:35 AM

WHICH government?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jun 13 - 11:46 AM

Bobert: "Typical Republican avoidance..." ???????????????????????

You gave us a load of crap how it was everybody's fault, except the guy who signed it...and then you turn around and say I avoiding telling you that he signed it ?????...and to top it off, you say 'REPUBLICAN AVOIDANCE'...Shit! I'm not even a Republican???
The FACT is YOU are avoiding seeing that Bill Clinton signed it...nobody else could....did you think somebody in Congress was holding Monica Lewinski's thongs for ransom, or something???...or Hillary was making soup with her panties??? What gives???
Sounds more like Democratic avoidance to me...being as you can't come up with an valid answer....maybe your waiting for that famous cigar...

GfS

P.S. You could always smoke it, you know...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jun 13 - 06:22 PM

Hurray!..another success story(?)

Take note..I know several who have already dropped out!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Jun 13 - 07:41 PM

Get real, GfinS...

You are an A+'er on the accusation/proclamation side and an F-'er on backing up your accusation/proclamations...

You just run you mouth and when asked to put up or shut up you either change the subject of wiggle away from your crap as if you never said it...

If you want to post this crap and not be willing to back it up with facts then you are no better than your average KKK'er... Just ignorant noise...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jun 13 - 07:48 PM

This crap?????

"Bobert: "Typical Republican avoidance..." ???????????????????????

You gave us a load of crap how it was everybody's fault, except the guy who signed it...and then you turn around and say I avoiding telling you that he signed it ?????...and to top it off, you say 'REPUBLICAN AVOIDANCE'...Shit! I'm not even a Republican???
The FACT is YOU are avoiding seeing that Bill Clinton signed it...nobody else could....did you think somebody in Congress was holding Monica Lewinski's thongs for ransom, or something???...or Hillary was making soup with her panties??? What gives???
Sounds more like Democratic avoidance to me...being as you can't come up with an valid answer....maybe your waiting for that famous cigar..."

GfS

P.S. You just did it again!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 11:03 AM

"(CBS News) CBS News has uncovered documents that show the State Department may have covered up allegations of illegal and inappropriate behavior within their ranks.

The Diplomatic Security Service, or the DSS, is the State Department's security force, charged with protecting the secretary of state and U.S. ambassadors overseas and with investigating any cases of misconduct on the part of the 70,000 State Department employees worldwide.

CBS News' John Miller reports that according to an internal State Department Inspector General's memo, several recent investigations were influenced, manipulated, or simply called off. The memo obtained by CBS News cited eight specific examples. Among them: allegations that a State Department security official in Beirut "engaged in sexual assaults" on foreign nationals hired as embassy guards and the charge and that members of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's security detail "engaged prostitutes while on official trips in foreign countries" -- a problem the report says was "endemic."

The memo also reveals details about an "underground drug ring" was operating near the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and supplied State Department security contractors with drugs.

Aurelia Fedenisn, a former investigator with the State Department's internal watchdog agency, the Inspector General, told Miller, "We also uncovered several allegations of criminal wrongdoing in cases, some of which never became cases."

In such cases, DSS agents told the Inspector General's investigators that senior State Department officials told them to back off, a charge that Fedenisn says is "very" upsetting.

"We were very upset. We expect to see influence, but the degree to which that influence existed and how high up it went, was very disturbing," she said.

In one specific and striking cover-up, State Department agents told the Inspector General they were told to stop investigating the case of a U.S. Ambassador who held a sensitive diplomatic post and was suspected of patronizing prostitutes in a public park.

The State Department Inspector General's memo refers to the 2011 investigation into an ambassador who "routinely ditched ... his protective security detai" and inspectors suspect this was in order to "solicit sexual favors from prostitutes."

Sources told CBS News that after the allegations surfaced, the ambassador was called to Washington, D.C. to meet with Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy, but was permitted to return to his post.

Fedenisn says "hostile intelligence services" allow such behavior to continue. "I would be very surprised if some of those entities were not aware of the activities," she said. "So yes, it presents a serious risk to the United States government."

A draft of the Inspector General's report on the performance of the DSS, obtained by CBS News, states, "Hindering such cases calls into question the integrity of the investigative process, can result in counterintelligence vulnerabilities and can allow criminal behavior to continue."
"

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57588456/state-department-memo-reveals-possible-cover-ups-halted-investigations

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 02:06 PM

May have, could have, might have, would have, seems to, could be, it is said, blah blah blah.

Got any more bullshit weasel-words for us, Beardfy?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 04:41 AM

You may find this interesting........(no commentary...just what it was...)

"Articles of Impeachment: Article 2

    Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.

    This conduct has included one or more of the following: 1.He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 10:00 AM

Interesting?

No.

Displaying absolutely no grasp of the reality of the current situation?

Certainly.

Irrelevant and idiotic?

Most assuredly.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 12:22 PM

Most, if not all US Presidents frequently violate the Constitution of the USA. It goes with the job, regardless of which party they belong to. Conquering world empires are not won by obeying Constitutional law, they are won by violating it...wars of choice being the greatest violation of all. Obama's just the latest one to do it, that's all. To be afraid to criticize him merely because he's not a Republican is hypocritical. If a Republican was in office right now, he might be even worse than Obama, yes...but that's no excuse for supporting Obama just because he isn't a Republican. Those 2 parties both stink to high heaven in any case. They're 2 halves of the same imperial monster.

I remember the day Obama got elected. I was very happy about it at the time, because I thought he might change things. He has not changed things. It's business as usual, and the phony "War on Terror" goes on, prosecuted by the chief terrorists in the world, who are the people in power in Washington.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 01:26 PM

Most, if not all US Presidents frequently violate the Constitution of the USA. It goes with the job...

Yo, Hawk: Blow me.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 01:33 PM

Sorry, old chap. I can't argue with you until you pay me the usual fee. 5 pounds. You know how it works. Five pounds for five minutes.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 01:37 PM

I think he meant 'Blow me off!'.....that part is both easy and free!

gfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 01:45 PM

I hope he did. The thought of the alternative makes me feel a bit queasy...! ;-) I think he may have caught something from Catspaw49.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 02:12 PM

Just rabid frothing, based on a co-opted political view, laced with ideological rhetoric, that the 'top' doesn't believe, anyway...that leaves the subscribing participant, completely vision-less, except for the left-over feeling of contempt!

That pretty much sums it up, for all levels of wannabe partisan lemmings.

Dummies will get lost in the 'figuring it out' or claim they 'don't understand it!!!

Regards, Little Hawk!

GfS

P.S. Amos could make heads or tails of it....and agree..that is, if his 'heads and tails' go to 'right or left'!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 09:03 AM

At Tuesday's congressional hearings on the IRS, witnesses provided shocking details about the agency's abuse of conservative groups.

The IRS leaked the donor list of The National Organization for Marriage to their political opponents, the pro-gay-marriage Human Rights Campaign. This is not idle speculation: The documents had an internal IRS stamp on them. The list of names was then published on a number of liberal websites and NOM's donors were harassed.

The IRS demanded that all members of the Coalition for Life of Iowa swear under penalty of perjury that they wouldn't pray, picket or protest outside of Planned Parenthood. They were also asked to provide details of their prayer meetings.

Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash. -- who was ordered by the D.C. Circuit Court to pay more than $1 million to John Boehner in 2008 for the sleazy maneuver of publishing an illegally taped private conversation -- blamed the conservative groups themselves. "Each of your groups was highly political," he lectured them, noting that they wouldn't have been asked any questions if they hadn't requested tax-exempt status.

Even a fair-minded person -- not to be confused with Jim McDermott -- might hear about the IRS' harassment of groups with "tea party," "patriot" or "liberty" in their names and think: "How do we know the IRS wasn't equally hard on left-wing groups?"

What might be more helpful than clips of IRS staff line-dancing would be for reporters, say at Fox News, to mention a few examples of the wildly partisan left-wing groups that the IRS has certified as tax-exempt.


Among the many left-wing groups with tax-exempt status are:

-- ACORN (now renamed as other organizations, but all still tax-exempt), "community organizers" who engage in profanity-laced protests at private homes, dump garbage in front of public buildings and disrupt bankers' dinners in order to get more people on welfare in order to destroy the capitalist system and incite revolution;

-- Occupy Wall Street, which -- in its first month alone -- was responsible for more than a dozen sexual assaults; at least half a dozen deaths by overdose, suicide or murder; and millions of dollars in property damage;

-- Media Matters for America, a media "watchdog" group that has never noticed one iota of pro-Obama bias in the media;

-- Moveon.org, which ran ads comparing Bush to Hitler under its 501(c)(4) arm;

-- The Center for American Progress, an auxiliary of the Democratic National Committee funded by George Soros and staffed by former Clinton and Obama aides to promote the Democratic agenda;

-- The Tides Foundation, which funnels money to communist and terrorist-supporting organizations;

-- The Ford Foundation, which has never found a criminal law that isn't "racist."

These groups are regarded by the IRS as nonpartisan community groups, merely educational, while dozens of patriotic, constitutional, Christian or tea party groups are still waiting for their tax exemptions.

That's to say nothing of Planned Parenthood, PBS and innumerable other Democratic front-groups that not only have tax exemptions, but get direct funding from the government.

By contrast, the conservative groups being raked over the coals by the IRS actually were nonpartisan. The tea party forced sitting Republican senators off the ticket in Alaska and Indiana, and toppled "establishment" Republicans in Utah, Delaware, Nevada, Florida and Texas. Far from being a secretly pro-Republican group, the tea party has been a nightmare for Republicans.

Show me one instance where the Center for American Progress was more of a problem for Democrats than Republicans.

It is obviously in the interest of the left to show us liberal groups also harassed by the IRS, so it's striking that they haven't been able to produce one yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 09:52 AM

More right wing blather, fantasy, misinformation, innuendo and absolute unsubstantiated nonsense from our own Beloved Bearded Purveyor of Horseshit.

S'matter, Beardy - you get personally turned down for a tax exemption?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 10:06 AM

Care to give ANY example that you think is false???



I thought not. Typical liberal.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 11:27 AM

Care to support any of your outrageous claims and statements with evidence, Beardy?

I thought not. Typical limp-dick shit-stirring asshole.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 11:48 AM

Boy, this is better than the drunken brawls at Chongo's bar. Such sparkling repartee from the reliable Greg F. Good going, guys! I tune in first thing every day, get a good laugh, it starts the day off with a smile. Then I check in again at night for more of the same. You know what? I think you gentelemen should go on internet video...a sort of Siskel & Ebert of the political world.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 12:05 PM

Greg F: "More right wing blather, fantasy, misinformation, innuendo and absolute unsubstantiated nonsense from our own Beloved Bearded Purveyor of Horseshit."

Greg F: "Care to support any of your outrageous claims and statements with evidence, Beardy?
I thought not. Typical limp-dick shit-stirring asshole."

Besides being well known, that breadedbruce's post is indeed accurate, though citing some of the more well known 'orgs'....Greg responds with the very typical, and tiresome 'so-called liberal' mudslinging....WITHOUT ONE countering, legitimate, reasonable facsimile of anything resembling a fact. One would have to think that he is doing this because he is either COMPLETELY in the dark, when it comes to what is going on, or simply that 'so-called liberal' whiners are so DUMBED DOWN, that they are incapable of an original thought.....you would figure that they would have a clue, when confronted with the fact, that they have NO facts to back up their whiny bitching.
How many more clues does anyone need, before they begin to re-think their whole rap???
Let me point the direction...................
You've been manipulated and duped!.....and have NO rap...get a fucking clue!.........and consider...for just a moment....that down deep, you're really shallow!

That being said, the 'so-called conservatives' are somewhat in the same boat.
The whole, of the 'national dialogue' is purposely set up by the corporate owned press, to steer people, and keep people AWAY from the real debate. Both sides are working for the same end. All you have to do is follow the 'progress' of what has been happening, and get your lazy asses off the rhetoric they are using to do it!
...and ask yourselves this: "Would you rather be controlled by corporations/bankers?..or corporate/banker owned government...or a government owned by the corporation/bankers???...would you rather be controlled by socialists?..capitalists??..fascists??...communists??..or ANY totalitarian state????...pick one...........but don't overlook NOT being CONTROLLED by any of them!
Maybe whiners are just used to being fed their bottle, every time they whine.....which SHOULD be your clue!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 04:17 PM

Gee, GuestInsanity, I'm sure that Limp-Dick Beardy is appreciative of you jumping in with more of your usu8al worthless horseshit to support his usual worthless horseshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 05:00 PM

Beardedbruce:

"Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash. -- who was ordered by the D.C. Circuit Court to pay more than $1 million to John Boehner in 2008 for the sleazy maneuver of publishing an illegally taped private conversation -- blamed the conservative groups themselves. 'Each of your groups was highly political,' he lectured them, noting that they wouldn't have been asked any questions if they hadn't requested tax-exempt status."

McDermott was given a tape of a cell-phone conversation that was inadvertently intercepted and taped on a police radio. Those who made the tape were surprised when they recognized the voices of those on the tape as Newt Gingrich and John Boehner—and they were plotting something that they recognized as unethical and illegal.

They gave the tape to Rep. Jim McDermott, who turned the tape over to the Senate Ethics Committee. The Ethics Committee sat on the tape and indicated that they would do nothing about it.

So--McDermott, feeling that the voters had a right to know how their elected officials were behaving, turned a copy of the tape over to the press.

John Boehner filed a law suit, and for some cockamamie reason, the court ruled against McDermott!

What Boehner and Gingrich were up to was both illegal and unethical, and essentially, they've gotten away with it.

Jim McDermott is one of the good guys! He—and the American voters—are the ones who are getting screwed!

Don Firth

P. S. Gee, Beardy, aren't FACTS damned inconvenient?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 05:10 PM

P. S. Gee, Beardy, aren't FACTS damned inconvenient?

Facts? FACTS? I don't gots to show you no steenkin' FACTS!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 07:11 PM

Righties don't do facts, Greg... It's not in their DNA...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 07:23 PM

Oh, good. More people have come out to play. Excellent! I'm making popcorn here, guys. Go to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 08:00 PM

Yo, Hawk! Blow me!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 08:24 PM

Dante.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 11:18 PM

Greg F: "Gee, GuestInsanity, I'm sure that Limp-Dick Beardy is appreciative of you jumping in with more of your usu8al worthless horseshit to support his usual worthless horseshit."

Well that's about three times on this page of the thread you've managed to go with 'worthless horseshit', and 'limp dick Beardy'...which certainly indicate that I was correct...you really aren't capable of an original thought, are you?
I was hoping there would have been more creative, and insightful people on here.....you really are a disappointment....PLUS, we've only listen to you piss and moan and call names.....do you actually have a point of view????
If so, post it....because the impression you're giving is stereotypical of a whiny, sniveling, 'cat calling', wimp, who is somehow opposed to learning anything.....in other words, a 'so-called liberal'....(that's not to be confused with a real one, with a real political point of view!).

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 08:05 AM

"McDermott, feeling that the voters had a right to know how their elected officials were behaving, turned a copy of the tape over to the press.

John Boehner filed a law suit, and for some cockamamie reason, the court ruled against McDermott!"



It happens to be against US Law to tape radio transmissions and use them for gain. Check the FCC rules. I can listen all I want- IF I send the tapes to the press, I am in violation of the FCC rules.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 08:06 AM

And aren't the JUDGES supposed to decide points of law, NOT the politicians who gain by their own interpretations?



P. S. Gee, Donnie boy, aren't FACTS damned inconvenient?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 08:11 AM

Since the Liberal contingent has not been able to provide any factual basis to negate my posts, and has been using ad homonym arguments, indicating they have nothing valid to say, I will presume that Bobert is incorrect-

"Righties don't do facts, Greg... It's not in their DNA..."


It has been shown by their own postings that it is the Left posting here that is incapable of factual argument, but I do not know if it is the training in false belief or some genetic failing that causes it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 09:34 AM

"Trust me" is President Barack Obama's preferred mode of action in times of crisis — and his go-to comment to nervous staffers has always been some version of "Relax, I got this."
But that message is an increasingly hard sell for Obama in his second term, following revelations that the man who once railed against the Bush administration over civil liberties abuses has himself surreptitiously quarterbacked the greatest expansion of electronic surveillance in U.S. history.

Obama's trust problems

Obama: 'Nobody is listening to your telephone calls'

Obama's call for trust, patience and near blanket secrecy is increasingly falling on deaf ears in his own party, spurring a backlash among Democrats who say it's time for the "most transparent president in history" to provide the American people with a comprehensive explanation of a secret program that dragnets most phone records and much of the Internet.

So far, Obama and his aides have resisted that call: He's intent on defending the national security powers of the presidency and simply believes that nobody alive has his unique capacity — as a chief executive and law professor — to strike the appropriate balance between civil liberties and public safety, according to people close to him.
But Obama's own allies say his day of reckoning is nigh.
"The president or his people need to be more forthcoming. … Look, we understand the need for secrecy, I get it, but the fact is we also need a lot more transparency on the process," said Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), who has joined a bipartisan group of eight senators in calling on the White House to declassify legal decisions that allowed the wide-net phone and Internet surveillance revealed in bombshell stories by the U.K.-based Guardian and The Washington Post last week.

"I'm not sure people are confident that the administration has this totally under control," he told POLITICO. "It seems that there's something new every day — the IRS, this — and that's giving people lack of confidence in government. … This is the kind of stuff people used to only see in the movies, that the government can listen to everybody's calls."
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who called for a re-examination of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law on which the the surveillance is based, told MSNBC that the White House had created the system with "secret legal interpretations" and had given "the public no chance to examine it."
Obama is both a constitutional law professor and a commander in chief, and those dueling identities seem to be arm-wrestling since a pair of bombshell reports that he had OK'd the collection of nearly all the country's cell phone data and that he expanded a Bush-era program that trawled the Internet for foreign-linked terrorist activity.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/challenging-obama-knows-best-transparency-nsa-92624.html#ixzz2W6RijjpH

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 11:03 AM

In a broader sense you negate your own posts, BB. I see your name at the top and I know this guy has a hard-on for our most excellent, if imperfect , president. Like your fellow traveller goofus, your reputation precedes you.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 12:03 PM

Gillymor,..Hey 'pal', you go back through my posts, and you'll find I've been ahead of the 'partisan talking points curve'..even calling stuff BEFORE it happened...and what do you and some of your 'so-called liberals' have??..nothin!.. but whining, some name calling, and feeble attempts at slurring people, who, by the way, are not all the time 'conservatives' or Republicans. You guys get a notion in your heads, that tranquilizes you into your own little comfort zone, and then fuck with anyone who tries to awaken you out of your self induced slumbers....and, of course, like sleeping lazy fools, you start bitching at anyone trying to wake you up, so you can pull the wool back over your own eyes, and fall back to sleep!..Problem is, you've all been administered the same sleeping pill...called 'talking point propaganda'!!!.....so drowsily, you rub your eyes, grumble a few 'non-facts', and call some names, and sloppy insults, and think you've accomplished something...but state NOTHING!
scroll back over almost any thread, and look.....and then you all scratch your butts, and wonder why folk music has no more impact!
......It's because your bullshit is irrelevant, and boring. You don't have to agree with everything, but for goodness sakes, at least make an attempt at trying to THINK!
Firth is a bit of an exception...he does think...he thinks everyone should be in awe of his infinite wisdom and knowledge, and admire him, for making bullshit sound so elitist, and sophisticated.....it's like trying to make mousse out of old dogshit!...just whip it up and spin it around!...serve it up, and the stray cats come rushing to it!!...and lick it up with great delight!
What's your excuse? You do music,(allegedly), you write??.....having a bit of a writer's block??....Start exercising your mind! Think outside the box, which has been 'neatly provided for you' by 'talking point parrots'..but it's really only mousse flavored dog crap.
Give a position on what you think, or perceive, instead of whining about having to impress someone, about a position, that you can't seem to articulate!
Fair enough?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 12:27 PM

Goofus, I confess I didn't read your last post but I think I got the gist of it anyway: "Liberal hypocrites blah,blah,blah. Democrats same as republicans blah, blah,blah."
Feel free to copy and paste that for all your future posts, save you a lot of typing. My point being that I can't take anything you and BB post seriously due to your obsessive hatred for liberals and President Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 12:36 PM

"My point being that I can't take anything you and BB post seriously due to your obsessive hatred for liberals and President Obama."


Yet all here seemed just fine with the" obsessive hatred for conservatives and President Bush" in other threads.


When we post facts, you ignore them because *WE* post them

When we post opinions, YOU do not allow that anyone might think differently about something than you do.


What a bunch of hypocritical bigots.

But my opinion of Liberals has only been verified by your posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 12:44 PM

When we post facts, you ignore them because *WE* post them

No, Beardy, when you post bullshit- as you invariably do - that you claim as "facts" we ignore it.

Because its bullshit. Not because your "We" posts them.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 01:17 PM

Great!!..Gillymor posts that he doesn't even read the post, but he claims to 'get the gist of them'..in other words, he's to asleep and lazy to even think..which is EXACTLY what my post said, and now he brags with great 'pride' that he is too ignorant to even know what he's talking about!...Need you say more??

Same with Greg F...: No, Beardy, when you post bullshit- as you invariably do - that you claim as "facts" we ignore it."

You ignore his posts....counter with NOTHING..and then expect ANYONE to 'respect' your point of view...which no one know what it is!
Your dreamin'...go back to sleep.....personally, I don't know how you type, with your fingers up your butt!

If you have a position, post it...if not, then it's YOUR POSTS that should be completely ignored!...you don't say anything anyway!

Either that, or tune up your strings, and play a pantomime!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 01:27 PM

Ralph Nader last week had some harsh words for the current President of the United States.

Appearing on Democracy Now!, Nader asked host Amy Goodman, "Has there been a bigger con man in the White House than Barack Obama?"

AMY GOODMAN: Let's go to President Obama in February in his State of the Union address calling on Congress to raise the minimum wage to $9.00 an hour from $7.25 and to automatically adjust it with inflation.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Tonight, let's declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty, and raise the federal minimum wage to $9.00 an hour. We should be able to get that done. This single step would raise the incomes of millions of working families. It could mean the difference between groceries or the food bank, rent or eviction, scraping by or finally getting ahead. For businesses across the country, it would mean customers with more money in their pockets. And a whole lot of folks out there would probably need less help from government. In fact, working folks shouldn't have to wait year after year for the minimum wage to go up, while CEO pay has never been higher. So here's an idea that Governor Romney and I actually agreed on last year: Let's tie the minimum wage to the cost of living, so that it finally becomes a wage you can live on.
AMY GOODMAN: So that's President Obama in February in his State of the Union address.
RALPH NADER: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: Isn't that what you're calling for?
RALPH NADER: Yeah, has there—has there been a bigger con man in the White House than Barack Obama? He hasn't lifted a finger since he made those statements. And when he made the statements in the 2008 campaign, he said nothing for four years on raising the minimum wage. He made no pressure on Congress. He hasn't even unleashed people in his own White House on this issue.

As Andrew Kirell observed Thursday, this wasn't the first time Nader referred to Obama as a con man. He did so in 2010.

Readers are advised that Nader made these recent comments on June 4 prior to Edward Snowden's revelations concerning the National Security Agency reviewing everyone's phone records.

Imagine what Nader might say about Obama now.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 02:03 PM

Once upon a time Barack Obama was known as a good speech-giver. That's how he debuted in 2004 and why he almost always relies on a teleprompter; so he can concentrate on the delivery, not the content.
Does he even know how often he rotely says "I am absolutely confident"? Watch him on these day-trip photo ops. This afternoon Boston. Tonight Miami. He's like a tired actor in a long-running Broadway play, reciting the same lines over and over with less and less conviction.
For the big summit with China's new president the other day, America's first lady didn't even bother to go. She sent a letter instead to China's first lady.
Recall last week when Obama had no teleprompter and staff forgot to deliver his speech to the podium? The most powerful man in the world was speechless, literally. Flummoxed. Improv not his thing. Had no idea what to do or say. Reduced to mocking his own staff.

Turns out though, we now know, Obama might sound good. But he's actually an awful communicator.
There've been past signs of this weakness: He and the Mrs. are totally tone-deaf to political optics. Thousands die in Japan's double-tsunami; Obama plays golf. The worst environmental disaster in the nation's history hits the Gulf coast. Obama takes days to visit, weeks to address the country, wife goes to Spain on luxury vacation before the family hits Martha's Vineyard for another.
As unemployment soars and the economy sours, the Chicago crowd parties at the White House with Hollywood glamor pals and bundlers. While three dozen Obama staffers fall a third-of-a-million dollars behind in income taxes.
Now, comes the first year of Obama's second term and the man Bill Clinton once called "the amateur" is flailing, clearly in over his head.
Reduced to saying he didn't know about this scandal or that investigation. Imagine how bad the real reasons must be for the President of the United States to publicly admit he's so badly out of the loop in his own administration. At one point he even talked of the Internal Revenue Service as if the department wasn't his responsibility.
Hello, South Sider. Can you hear me now?
Second terms are problematic for many presidents. Can you say Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica? But this avalanche of adversity in the 53rd month of Obama's reign is all self-made. Who kept Eric Holder onboard, the first attorney general in history cited for contempt of Congress?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from sanity
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 03:36 PM

Some people just take a LONG time to figure it out...some never do!
Now I suppose we'll hear from some of them..but with no salient observations, as to what is REALLY going on!!!

From 29 Aug 2008 - 01:18 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Observations of the Dem. Nat. Convention
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 01:18 AM

Just been reading the posts....some really shallow stuff there! No mention of his accomplishments or his policies that most people think about..or that effect all of us....Any word on dissolving our borders, without even getting the public's feedback..??Same with our currency, and form of money..not a word...immigration....shhhh....getting our rights back, from all that was done in the Bush years(make that Bush, Clinton, Bush,jr,...not to mention the president Bush heaped upon himself the most sweeping, additions of power to the presidency, in our history...is Obama going to get rid of them...or ..(?). Waffling on the middle east??....and just HOW, or what's his plan, specifically to turn the economy around, more than just saying, 'We'll do it'?? And by the way, 'Change'...?..what to?..another form of government, without the will of the people???..the government enacting more 'safeguards' (read: intrusion), into our lives?..Why not?...they tell us we need them to do everything else for us?
And Amos, my dear pal Amos, you should re-read your posts! You sound like a gullible naive, starry eyed adolescent with a jar of Vaseline, as big as a basketball!
Maybe the reason for the stage, being just like the Greek Gods, and just like Bush's...ever stop to think, its run by the same outfit, with a great big propaganda media, to keep us blind, and/or distracted from the real throne of power??? ..of which is not elected??
Anyway..its obvious....all hype, no substance!"

So it looks like Nader isn't alone!.....and I'M the only one???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 05:19 PM

..and now for your listening 'entertainment'.....
RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
Enjoy?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 05:48 PM

Another spate of chronic postarrhoea from Beardy, full of sound and fury, signifying horseshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 08:32 PM

And, if course, his stooge, Goofball.

Don Fieth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 10:56 PM

Well, I guess it bears repeating...."Look, screwball..I called it accurate 41/2 - 5 years ago..I ..............BEFORE IT HAPPENED!!!!
...and I have posted plenty more.....precisely...and then I'm supposed to listen to YOU, telling me that I'M the stooge?????
Shove it, buddy!

Personally, I'd think I'd call it 'gifted'.....but then who cares?....I'm not with the party, I'm with the band.....which reminds my Donnie-Babas...stick to music, and the history of the composers. Your political 'analysis' is so far off that it might even fuck up your credibility, in regards to your knowledge of musical stuff...and THAT is about the ONLY thing you have got going for ya'!

As far as Greg, he is both blind and vision-less!...So really, who cares what new name someone tells him to call us....(he really is incapable of an original thought, ya' know?)....

Hoped you liked the music video......

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 07:23 AM

More like goofted.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 09:43 AM

Ah..He's waxing poetic!....Creativity must be rubbing off!
Now all you have to do is tie it in to some sort of relevancy to the topic......come on, you can do it....baby steps at first....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 11:42 AM

There is little public support for the sweeping and unaccountable nature of the National Security Agency surveillance program along with concerns about how the data will be used.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of voters nationwide believe it is likely the NSA data will be used by other government agencies to harass political opponents. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that just 30% consider it unlikely and 14% are not sure.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2013/57_fear_government_will_use_nsa_data_to_haras

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 11:50 AM

There is no evidence that the FBI has contacted a single tea party group in its criminal investigation of the Internal Revenue Service, according to the groups the IRS abused.

"We have not been contacted by any federal investigative agency and, to date, none of our clients have been contacted or interviewed by the FBI," Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice told The Daily Caller on Thursday. The ACLJ has filed suit against the IRS on behalf of 25 conservative groups, with additional groups being added in the next couple weeks, according to a spokesman.

"I have been very surprised that I have not heard from anybody and frankly, none of my clients have. I talk to other tea party leaders on a regular basis," said Cleta Mitchell, the lawyer largely credited with pushing the IRS abuses to the forefront.

"It's been a month and I can't see any evidence of an investigation of the IRS," Mitchell told TheDC Thursday. She represents nine tea party groups targeted by the IRS.

Tea Party Patriots — a group with thousands of local chapters — "has not been contacted by the FBI" either, according to Jameson Cunningham, the group's spokesman.

The revelation suggests that the FBI is in no hurry to get to the bottom of the scandal, despite the Obama administration's promise to investigate the IRS's multi-year abuse of conservative groups.

"Americans are right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it," Obama said in a White House statement on May 15. "I will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency but especially in the IRS, given the power that it has and the reach that it has into all of our lives."

Attorney General Eric Holder promised in mid-May that the FBI would get to the bottom of the IRS's behavior by opening a criminal investigation.

"I can assure you and the American people that we will take a dispassionate view of this," Holder told congressional investigators on May 15. "This will not be about parties, this will not be about ideological persuasions. Anybody who has broken the law will be held accountable."

But in separate testimony before congressional investigators Thursday, FBI Director Robert Mueller seemed completely unaware of the progress of any such investigation.

Republican Rep. Jim Jordan lit into Mueller for his lack of knowledge during a House judiciary committee hearing.

"This is the most important issue in front of the country in the last six weeks, and you don't know who the lead investigator is?" Jordan asked, sounding shocked.

"At this juncture, no I do not," Mueller responded.

"Do you know if you've talked to any of the victims?" Jordan went on. "Have you talked to any of the groups that were targeted by their government? Have you met with any of the tea party groups since May 14, 2013?"

"I don't know what the status of the interviews are by the team that's on it," Mueller said.

Reached for comment Thursday afternoon, the FBI's Washington, D.C. press office transferred TheDC to a long-ringing phone line and eventually hung up.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 12:26 PM

Well, it's pretty obvious, that despite Barracko's empty 'promises' and almost slick rhetoric, they DON'T want to get to the bottom of anything...I think they're trying to wait it out, hoping the American public will get tired of it..Nixon did the same thing..in fact, Nixon even stated as much when he said, "Oh, it'll take about two weeks for this to blow over"....referring to "America's attention span of lasting about two weeks"...

Hey, Bruce....I know you take a lot of shit on here, but 'Thank You!' for posting your news items. It's pretty much known, that the 'liberals' don't gravitate to hard news stories, that are critical to 'their'(?) political versions of the Kardasians.

Thank You, and Regards,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 12:32 PM

Remember this from last month? On the heels of the revelation that the Department of Justice had been snooping on James Rosen's e-mails because of his attempt to gain classified information on the administration's efforts on North Korea from a leaker, Sharyl Attkisson told Chris Stigall on his radio show that her computer had been mysteriously hacked. Attkisson, who has reported on Operation Fast and Furious and Benghazi and sparked ire from the White House while doing do, demurred on the source of the hacking but said CBS News was investigating it.

Erik Wemple reported earlier that CBS has corroborated Attkisson's claim, and that whoever conducted it went after her material:

"A cyber security firm hired by CBS News has determined through forensic analysis that Sharyl Attkisson's computer was accessed by an unauthorized, external, unknown party on multiple occasions late in 2012. Evidence suggests this party performed all access remotely using Attkisson's accounts. While no malicious code was found, forensic analysis revealed an intruder had executed commands that appeared to involve search and exfiltration of data.

This party also used sophisticated methods to remove all possible indications of unauthorized activity, and alter system times to cause further confusion.

CBS News is taking steps to identify the responsible party and their method of access."
Attkisson took to Twitter to report the official statement herself:

What was going on in "late 2012″? Well, that would have been the controversy over the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi. And, checking the record, we see that Attkisson had a very interesting scoop on October 20th, relying on anonymous military sources that called into question the Obama administration's claim that they couldn't have responded in time to assist in the attack:

CBS News has been told that, hours after the attack began, an unmanned Predator drone was sent over the U.S. mission in Benghazi, and that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft apparently observed the final hours of the protracted battle.

The State Department, White House and Pentagon declined to say what military options were available. A White House official told CBS News that, at the start of the attack, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta "looked at available options, and the ones we exercised had our military forces arrive in less than 24 hours, well ahead of timelines laid out in established policies."

But it was too late to help the Americans in Benghazi. The ambassador and three others were dead.

A White House official told CBS News that a "small group of reinforcements" was sent from Tripoli to Benghazi, but declined to say how many or what time they arrived.

Retired CIA officer Gary Berntsen believes help could have come much sooner. He commanded CIA counter-terrorism missions targeting Osama bin Laden and led the team that responded after bombings of the U.S. Embassy in East Africa.

"You find a way to make this happen," Berntsen says. "There isn't a plan for every single engagement. Sometimes you have to be able to make adjustments. They made zero adjustments in this. They stood and they watched and our people died."

Until CBS News releases more from its investigation, we won't know who hacked into Attkisson's computer. It could have been a competitor, or someone else with a grudge against her, although one would expect that kind of hack to go after personal details rather than work product. Before the Rosen revelation, the DoJ would hav been unthinkable as a suspect. If I were CBS now, though, I'd be executing a FOIA demand to know whether Eric Holder and the Department of Justice acquired a Rosen-like warrant on Attkisson in the days after that scoop went live.


http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/14/cbs-news-someone-was-pulling-data-from-sharyl-attkissons-computer/

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 12:40 PM

Just look at what the so-called "liberals" here have posted- insults and claims of bullshit, with NO comment on what they disagree with, NO factual comments about the postings, and NO contribution to the discussion.

In fact, the most interesting thing IMO is that the "Left" is so silent (or approving) on the claims that show the present administration was doing EXACTLY what they ran ( in 2008) on STOPPING. It must be OK, when the correct people do it, and only wrong, evil, and impeachable when the other side does it.

If I ran on stopping X, then continued and expanded doing X, some here might say I had run on a fraudulent promise. But that just could not be- Obama said that he would not lie to us, and would have a transparent and open administration with no lobbyists, right?????????

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 12:50 PM

the most interesting thing IMO is that the "Left" is so silent (or approving) on the claims that show the present administration was doing

There ya go with the 24-karat horseshit again, Beardy. The "claims" don't "show" jack shit. They are "claims".

Kinda like "claims" that hummans are regularly abducted by space aliens.

Maybe you'd better review your own comments in the Zimmerman thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 01:00 PM

So, greggie boy, YOU are stating the the President of the US is lying to all of us???


Isn't that what the "Liberals" here wanted to impeach Bush for?


Or is the fact that Obama is "Black, and a Democrat" enough for you to hold him to lower, or non-existant standards????

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 01:44 PM

Multiple choice #4: None of the above, BullshitBruce, none of the above.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 01:48 PM

So,greggie boy, if the President is NOT lying, since HE stated that the information collection is going on, you admit it is, and thus you are calling yourself bullshit??????



Seems like the only reasonable conclusion. Hardly for me to argue you out of such a conclusion- as I think that you ARE full of shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest too
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 02:36 PM

"Goofted" Ha,ha! He is that. Good one Gillymore.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 04:32 PM

Yeah, i had to give him a bit of credit for being just a bit creative, on that one.....then he disappoints without any further substance.
....and BTW, why are you hiding???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 15 Jun 13 - 09:00 AM

Thank you, Guest too, but I'm merely deflating an overweening gasbag periodically in the interest of public saftey. Besides it's a pretty soft target. Here's some substance for you to chew on while I'm off camping for a few days, Goofted.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Jun 13 - 11:19 AM

gillymor: "Thank you, Guest too, but I'm merely deflating an overweening gasbag periodically in the interest of public saftey.."

Well now you have a clue of why opinions smell like they do....and really, when you have the need to 'deflate an overweening gasbag periodically', maybe you should excuse yourself, and do it in private.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Jun 13 - 02:33 PM

That's a darned good list of accomplishments you've linked to, GUEST,gillymor. Thank you.

It struck me as I read through the list that these really valuable and desirable accomplishments on President Obama's part are the very reasons that many of the clowns on this and other threads hate his guts!

And beardedbruce's remark of accusation up-thread a bit, "Or is the fact that Obama is 'Black, and a Democrat' enough for you to hold him to lower, or non-existant (sic) standards????" is very revealing of what's foremost in his mind and the minds of many people who hate Obama. Their problem is that Obama is "Black, and a Democrat."

I am not friends with, but I am acquainted with a couple of people (immigrants from one of the Southern states) whose main problem with Obama is that, in their alleged minds, he's an "uppity n****r, and he's in the White House!!" (Snarl, spit, hiss!!).

I—and others—do NOT hold him to a lower standard. I hold him to the same standard that I would hold ANY President, and although I am disappointed that he has not been able to accomplish many things that I wanted him to-—and that he wanted to—I am fully aware that, for the most part, a cold-eyed, pig-headed Republican Congress, hell-bent on obstructing anything and everything he attemptx to do, has prevented him.

Not HIS fault!

Don Firth

P. S. And Goofballupagus follows his usual pattern of not being able to come up with a decent insult of his own, so bereft of creative thought, he has to take those of others, twist them, and throw them back. Dumb!! If there is a rank stench pervading these threads, HE is one of the major sources.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Jun 13 - 08:04 PM

Firth: "That's a darned good list of accomplishments you've linked to, GUEST,gillymor. Thank you."

Except the 'list' was written by a very NON-objective 'devotee'...and because of it, he failed to be accurate...and failed to cover the liabilities....and I'm not going to labor it...there is PLENTY of evidence on these threads, and in the 'news' that validates what I just posted.
Call me anything you want, because of it..it's OK...you are just making a fool of yourself.....and I'm trying to spare you the embarrassment!

See ya'!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 11:27 AM

The State Department investigator who accused colleagues last week of using drugs, soliciting prostitutes, and having sex with minors says that Foggy Bottom is now engaged in an "intimidation" campaign to stop her.

Last week's leaks by Aurelia Fedenisn, a former State Department inspector general investigator, shined a light on alleged wrongdoing by U.S. officials around the globe. But her attorney Cary Schulman tells The Cable that Fedenisn has paid a steep price: "They had law enforcement officers camp out in front of her house, harass her children and attempt to incriminate herself."

Fedenisn's life changed dramatically last Monday after she handed over documents and statements to CBS News alleging that senior State Department officials "influenced, manipulated, or simply called off" several investigations into misconduct. The suppression of investigations was noted in an early draft of an Inspector General report, but softened in the final version.

Erich Hart, general counsel to the Inspector General, did not reply to a request for comment. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said last week that "we hold all employees to the highest standards. We take allegations of misconduct seriously and we investigate thoroughly." She also announced that the department would request additional review by outside law enforcement officers on OIG inspection processes.

After the CBS News made inquiries to the State Department about the charges, Schulman says investigators from the State Department's Inspector General promptly arrived at Fedenisn's door. "They talked to both kids and never identified themselves," he said. "First the older brother and then younger daughter, a minor, asking for their mom's place of work and cell phone number ... They camped out for four to five hours."

Schulman says the purpose of the visit was to get Fedenisn to sign a document admitting that she stole State Department materials, such as the memos leaked to CBS. Schulman says it was crucial that she didn't sign the document because her separation agreement with the State Department includes a provision allowing disclosures of misconduct. Furthermore, none of the materials were classified.

Schulman charged that sending law enforcement officers to pressure her into signing an agreement was heavy handed. "Why not simply mail it, courier it, send it Federal Express or deliver it by any other normal means by which one delivers a demand letter? Why send two federal law enforcement agents?" he asked. He also said that officials from the Inpsector General's Office told him they'd be having a "no kidding get together with the DOJ," implying to him that they would push criminal charges if his client didn't cooperate.

In discussing the chain of events with Kel McClanahan, a D.C. attorney who has represented several agency whistleblowers, McClanahan said the case smacked of intimidation.

"This type of intimidation technique is all too common when an agency wants something from you that it is not entirely confident it can get without your cooperation, and more often than not people who don't know any better fall for it," he told The Cable. "Regardless of what you may think of Fedenisn's motives, she worked for these guys for years and she knows their playbook ... I would have been shocked if she did anything except promptly hire a lawyer and call their bluff."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 10:30 AM

When Regal Entertainment Group (RGC) in April blamed ObamaCare for the fact that it was cutting some of its workers' hours, backers of the law mounted a furious backlash against the theater chain, among other things filling its Facebook page with boycott threats.
"Greed and selfishness make me sick," one of them said.
Darden Restaurants (DRI) felt this intense heat last year after suggesting it might shift to more part-time work to minimize the cost of the law's mandate that companies offer coverage to all their full-time workers. CEO Clarence Otis even blamed its lowered outlook for 2013 in part on "recent negative media coverage" over "how we might accommodate health care reform."

Yet while private companies are getting all this unwelcome and hostile attention, local governments across the country have been quietly doing exactly the same thing — cutting part-time hours specifically so they can skirt ObamaCare's costly employer mandate, while complaining about the law in some of the harshest terms anyone has uttered in public.
The result is that part-time government workers — many of them low-income — face pay cuts that can top $3,000 a year, and yet will still be left without employer-provided benefits.

http://news.investors.com/061913-660419-local-governments-cut-hours-to-avoid-obamacare-mandate.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 10:55 AM

And the Obama Administration controls these local governments HOW, exactly BeardedBullshit?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 10:59 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/world/europe/president-obama-berlin.html?_r=0

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 11:57 AM

reggie boy,

"so they can skirt ObamaCare's costly employer mandate,"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 12:02 PM

I kinda like the name Reggie, Beardy.

Now try answering the question; I repeat:

And the Obama Administration controls these local governments HOW, exactly BeardedBullshit?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 12:29 PM

So you claim that Obama had nothing to do with "Obamacare"?

Or can't you read?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 12:42 PM

I can read, Beardy, but apparently YOU can't- so I'll try to simplify things for you:

How is the Obama Admin. responsible for private OR public employers' attempts to skirt the law?

This IS a thread about the Obama Admin, isn't it?

So, try again to answer the question.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 01:10 PM

Try again to read the post:


The thread is Popular Views ABOUT the Obama Administration, as the title says.


The fact that local governments are bending over backwards to avoid being under ObamaCare tells a viewpoint.


Care to contribute to the thread, or will you just continue to stalk me- Against Mudcat rules, but you have some mudelf hanging on your every word...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 02:11 PM

WASHINGTON — The CEO of the Associated Press told an audience Wednesday that the Department of Justice has succeeded in muzzling government employees from talking to AP reporters in the weeks since the seizure of AP phone records was revealed.
"What I learned from our journalists should alarm everyone in this room and I think should alarm everyone in this country. The actions of the DOJ against AP are already having an impact beyond the specifics of this particular case," AP CEO Gary Pruitt told an audience at the National Press Club. "Some of our longtime trusted sources have become nervous and anxious about talking to us, even about stories that aren't about national security. In some cases, government employees that we once checked in with regularly will no longer speak to us by phone, and some are reluctant to meet in person."
After it was made public that the Justice Department took AP Washington bureau phone records as part of the Obama administration's aggressive anti-leak operation, Pruitt said the fear among potential sources has spread to reporters from other outlets.
"I can tell you that this chilling effect is not just at AP, it's happening at other news organizations as well," he said. "Journalists from other news organizations have personally told me it has intimidated sources from speaking to them."
Pruitt said he believes government officials are happy to see the process of newsgathering become more difficult in Washington.
"The government may love this. I suspect that they do," he said. "But beware the government that loves secrecy too much."
During a question-and-answer session after his speech, Pruitt said he did not believe the Obama administration has had a different relationship with the press than past administrations, but he said that the Obama administration's aggressive attempts to prosecute leakers have put the administration's view of the press front and center.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 03:34 PM

Oh, stir that bullshit round, round
Add the horseshit, clown clown
Only song Beardy can sing is lay that bullshit down.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 06:04 PM

Greg, if you want to win people to your side of the argument, you have to present one....your childish, nit-picky, pouting rants are hardly anything of substance, that can cause ANYONE to see your side, other than you are being rather immature. Give it a shot, say something other than venting your resentment to Bruce, because he's presenting facts, that you don't like, against your 'nothing'...at least if you feel so strongly about something, state 'why'....because frankly, your antics leaves one with the impression of, 'Who wants to be like this idiot?!?!'...or in other words, 'Idiots like you just coincidentally, also are Obama supporters'.
Enlighten us...give it a shot.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 06:31 PM

Enlighten YOU? No chance. Jesus himself couldn't enlighten you.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 07:15 PM

Yo' head may be shaped like a light bulb, but you ain't too bright.
Is that the best you can do??
Do you have a position?..and if so, what is it??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 08:35 PM

It's immediately to the rear of a very unfortunate sheep...

(That was a joke, folks!)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jun 13 - 08:27 AM

2nd try

No, LH, greggie boy uses hamsters and duct tape. But he must have run out of duct tape, from his recent posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jun 13 - 01:49 PM

When John F. Kennedy delivered his "Ich Bin Ein Berliner" speech in front of the Branden"burg Gate on June 26, 1963, 450,000 people flocked to hear him. Fifty years later a far more subdued invitation-only crowd of 4,500 showed up to hear Barack Obama speak at the same location in Berlin. As The National Journal noted, "he didn't come away with much, winning just a smattering of applause from a crowd that was one-hundredth the size of JFK's," and far smaller than the 200,000 boisterous Germans who had listened to his 2008 address as a presidential candidate. JFK had a clear message when he came to Berlin a half century ago – the free world must stand up to Communist tyranny. 24 years later, President Reagan stood in the same spot famously calling on the Soviets to "tear down this wall." Reagan's speech was a seminal moment that ushered in the downfall of an evil empire, and gave hope to tens of millions of people behind the Iron Curtain. It was a display of strength and conviction by the leader of the free world, sending an unequivocal message of solidarity with those who were fighting for freedom in the face of a monstrous totalitarian ideology.

In stark contrast to that of his presidential predecessors, Barack Obama's message on Wednesday was pure mush, another clichéd "citizens of the world" polemic with little substance. This was a speech big on platitudes and hopeless idealism, while containing much that was counter-productive for the world's superpower. Ultimately it was little more than a laundry list of Obama's favourite liberal pet causes, including cutting nuclear weapons, warning about climate change, putting an end to all wars, shutting Guantanamo, ending global poverty, and backing the European Project. It was a combination of staggering naiveté, the appeasement of America's enemies and strategic adversaries, and the championing of more big government solutions.
There was little in this speech that advances US interests, or makes the world a safer place. Completely missing from Obama's address was a call for the West to stand up to the rising threat of Islamist militancy, the defence of Christians facing huge levels of persecution and intimidation in the Middle East, strong condemnation of Iran and North Korea's nuclear ambitions, and any criticism of growing authoritarianism in Russia. The president paid lip service to the NATO alliance, which has proved critical in preserving Europe's security for over 60 years, but made no call for the alliance to be strengthened in the wake of waning support and investment in Europe.
President Obama's words may well have pleased his German government hosts, content to see a United States whose ambitions as a military power have been significantly clipped since George W. Bush left office in 2009. But Barack Obama underscored again why he is no JFK or Ronald Reagan. In front of the Brandenburg Gate, Obama sounded more like the president of the European Commission than the leader of the free world. It is never a good sign when a US president parrots the language of a Brussels bureaucrat when he is supposed to be a champion of freedom. Obama's distinctly unimpressive speech in Berlin was another dud from a floundering president whose leadership abroad is just as weak as it is at home."



http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100222637/barack-obama-bombs-in-berlin-a-weak-underwhelming-address-from-a-flound

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jun 13 - 02:38 PM

"CHRIS MATTHEWS: So here we have a president who is really talking back to the United States by talking to the kids of Europe -- the youth, well educated kids of Humboldt University, down the street there about Gitmo. Why do they care about Gitmo? Well, they do.

EUGENE ROBINSON: They care a lot about Gitmo. They care about that as a symbol of --

MATTHEWS: Why is he talking to them to get to our students, our kids, our young people?

ROBINSON: Well, there is an echo here. remember the speech before the election when he spoke to 250,000 people, in Berlin. And one of the things, one of the hopes that they and a lot of people around the world invested in President Obama was he would end a lot of the Bush-era policies that were condemned around the world, literally. It's very important stuff to people to end the torture and Guantanamo.

MATTHEWS: Even the wars.

ROBINSON: That was a huge symbol of all of that. And there is disappointment that he hasn't, that he hasn't done it.

MATTHEWS: Is that because, Howard, they sort of in a cartoon way thought African-American Democrat, he's a man of the simple left like a lot of those students are?

HOWARD FINEMAN: That's right.
"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Jun 13 - 03:01 PM

Little things amuse little minds...so, is the message, "Let's be small'??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Jun 13 - 08:19 PM

And still more blogoshit from BullshitBruce - will the horseshit never end?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Jun 13 - 08:51 PM

It's all he knows...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Jun 13 - 08:55 PM

Hey!..Blogs have opinions...some are good opinions, in regards to the facts, and some you might not agree with....it doesn't mean the person shouldn't be quoted, just because it's a 'blog'..I mean, if somebody had something to say, that was really good, shit, you'd repeat it?..wouldn't you..just like if you said something on here that was worth....aw, never mind...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Jun 13 - 09:51 PM

If one uses a blog as a "reference" then one is academically responsible for its content...

Some folks don't even read the blog... We know the folks I am talking about... So these people just fire them off, probably unread, because they know that that blogger thinks like them...

That is dishonest and lazy...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 12:08 AM

Good thought!!!

Can I quote you?

gfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 08:25 AM

Bobert,

"
That is dishonest and lazy...
"

What is truly lazy and dishonest is to claim that an entire group is racist because they disagree with you.

I have never like the policies of Obama- but because he is Liberal, not Black.

I have never liked the liberal policies of other Democrats.

Your use of " TeaKK'r" is offensive, racist, and unfair- but to expect a reasonable level of fairness from a Liberal seems to be beyond any chance.


+Some+ people who oppose Obama's stated policies are racist- and +Some+ of those who voted for him did so only because of his race- hence they are racist as well.

But to claim that ++Any one++ who disagrees with Obama is racist is unreasonable, as many of us opposed the ++Same++ policies when put forward by lily-white liberals.

Yet ++You++ play the race card, while supporting the personnal attacks of someone who has stated that he reads "Black, and a Democrat" as the same as "dumb Ni**er".



You are working very hard to lose what respect I had for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 09:16 AM

"Respect"???

Hahahahaha....

(Now Bobert goes back to ignoring bb...)

Bye again...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 09:20 AM

Bobert,

You really are acting like a scumbag- You and greggie boy are made for each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 09:50 AM

You really are acting like a scumbag

BeardedBullshit is talking to himself again.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 10:01 AM

Ignore the troll, Greg...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 10:06 AM

Still working on getting you more duct tape, Greggie boy.

Just hold on.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 11:46 AM

Well I never liked him from the first nominating convention, because he was, to me, just another jive-time liar..and I thought it was pretty obvious...and very surprised that he was even nominated...but then the other viable was alternative was Hillary....and THAT surely wasn't much of a choice...Jive-time liar vs Corrupt corporate liar!....hmmm, which one will I choose?..let me see...which one will convince me that they are for the 'little guy'.......

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 12:10 PM

"Jive-time....."

Well, I think that tells you all you need to know about why Goofy REALLY hates Obama.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 01:51 PM

Don, you're late...this discussion already happened before, and it ended with my post of Jay Carney, using the same expression at a morning press briefing....
Bad try, ya phony!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 01:54 PM

Here, nitwit....and look at ALL the headings!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 01:59 PM

...actually 'Jive' originated in the Jazz musical world, and jitter-buggers, asshole!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from sanity
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 02:03 PM

...and then there is this 'racist' pig......dream on idiot!

GfS

P.S....in other words, shut the fuck up about shit you know nothing about!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 02:16 PM

Obama hits a wall in Berlin

By George F. Will, Published: June 20

The question of whether Barack Obama's second term will be a failure was answered in the affirmative before his Berlin debacle, which has recast the question, which now is: Will this term be silly, even scary in its detachment from reality?

Before Berlin, Obama set his steep downward trajectory by squandering the most precious post-election months on gun-control futilities and by a subsequent storm of scandals that have made his unvarying project — ever bigger, more expansive, more intrusive and more coercive government — more repulsive. Then came Wednesday's pratfall in Berlin.

There he vowed energetic measures against global warming ("the global threat of our time"). The 16-year pause of this warming was not predicted by, and is not explained by, the climate models for which, in his strange understanding of respect for science, he has forsworn skepticism.

Regarding another threat, he spoke an almost meaningless sentence that is an exquisite example of why his rhetoric cannot withstand close reading: "We may strike blows against terrorist networks, but if we ignore the instability and intolerance that fuels extremism, our own freedom will eventually be endangered." So, "instability and intolerance" are to blame for terrorism? Instability where? Intolerance of what by whom "fuels" terrorists? Terrorism is a tactic of destabilization. Intolerance is, for terrorists, a virtue.

It is axiomatic: Arms control is impossible until it is unimportant. This is because arms control is an arena of competition in which nations negotiate only those limits that advance their interests. Nevertheless, Obama trotted out another golden oldie in Berlin when he vowed to resuscitate the cadaver of nuclear arms control with Russia. As though Russia's arsenal is a pressing problem. And as though there is reason to think President Vladimir Putin, who calls the Soviet Union's collapse "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century," is interested in reducing the arsenal that is the basis of his otherwise Third World country's claim to great-power status.

Shifting his strange focus from Russia's nuclear weapons, Obama said "we can . . . reject the nuclear weaponization that North Korea and Iran may be seeking." Were Obama given to saying such stuff off the cuff, this would be a good reason for handcuffing him to a teleprompter. But, amazingly, such stuff is put on his teleprompter and, even more amazing, he reads it aloud.

Neither the people who wrote those words nor he who spoke them can be taken seriously. North Korea and Iran may be seeking nuclear weapons? North Korea may have such weapons. Evidently Obama still entertains doubts that Iran is seeking them.

In Northern Ireland before going to Berlin, Obama sat next to Putin, whose demeanor and body language when he is in Obama's presence radiate disdain. There Obama said: "With respect to Syria, we do have differing perspectives on the problem, but we share an interest in reducing the violence." Differing perspectives?

Obama wants to reduce the violence by coaxing Syria's Bashar al-Assad, who is winning the war, to attend a conference at which he negotiates the surrender of his power. Putin wants to reduce the violence by helping — with lavish materiel assistance and by preventing diplomacy that interferes — Assad complete the destruction of his enemies.

Napoleon said: "If you start to take Vienna — take Vienna." Douglas MacArthur said that all military disasters can be explained by two words: "Too late." Regarding Syria, Obama is tentative and, if he insists on the folly of intervening, tardy. He is giving Putin a golden opportunity to humiliate the nation responsible for the "catastrophe." In a contest between a dilettante and a dictator, bet on the latter.

Obama's vanity is a wonder of the world that never loses its power to astonish, but really: Is everyone in his orbit too lost in raptures of admiration to warn him against delivering a speech soggy with banalities and bromides in a city that remembers John Kennedy's "Ich bin ein Berliner" and Ronald Reagan's "Tear down this wall"? With German Chancellor Angela Merkel sitting nearby, Obama began his Berlin speech: "As I've said, Angela and I don't exactly look like previous German and American leaders." He has indeed said that, too, before, at least about himself. It was mildly amusing in Berlin in 2008, but hardly a Noel Coward-like witticism worth recycling.

His look is just not that interesting. And after being pointless in Berlin, neither is he, other than for the surrealism of his second term.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 02:24 PM

Wow, do you kiss BB's ass with that mouth?
Yeah, you probably do.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 02:36 PM

Hi folks. I just tuned in, and have perused the posts (no way I could read them all). Amidst the 'if I can't dispute the message attack the messenger' posts are some pretty interesting stuff.

Let me introduce myself as a full-fledged 'liberal'.   That's in accordance to the definition of 'liberalism' (from Wikipedia:

"Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property."   (although at times I might take issue with the 'private property' aspect.....as I have tremendous respect for a lot of Marxist ideology).

That being said, I really do want to get a good sense of what Obama is and isn't doing.......is he the fraud that Little Hawk and Guest From Sanity suggest?   Or is he really doing his best but is stymied by a hostile congress (as per Bobert, Don Firth and others).

So here is a challenge that, if met, I would find really helpful. And it's all in the spirit of Liberalism (so my apologies to Bearded Bruce who doesn't like liberalism).

Pro-Obama people:   Give me a link to an article by an Obama critique (particularly one from the 'conservative' faction that you respect (even if you don't agree with it).

Anti-Obama people:   Give me a link to an article by an Obama supporter (preferably a good 'liberal democrat') that you respect---again, even if you don't agree with it.

I promise to read them......and hopefully it will enlighten me.

-Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 02:50 PM

Larry TRG,

It is not so much that I do not "like" liberals, it is that those here who represent the liberal viewpoint seem unable to have a reasonable discussion.

When I am attacked for my views, but the views are never discussed, debated, or any information provided to give me reason to rethink those views, I tend to think those telling me how wrong I am, without ever debating the facts, are bigots and scumbags. ANd since your post is the first reasonable one from an opposing viewpoint, up to now I have judged the liberal viewpoint by those who have represented it here. No one else has said otherwise, and they certainly claim to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 03:56 PM

That was quite a little wall-eyed fit, there, Goofball!

Proves my point.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: number 6
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 03:58 PM

This is interesting ... well, for those that may be interested.

"hypocrite of the century"

Of course Bobert will pigeon hole Clare Daly as an Irish red neck.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 04:19 PM

Cool article, biLL.....not far from my own criticisms.
As to Larry, Now this might sound weird, but during the elections, when asked on Mudcat who I would have supported, I thought a Dennis Kucinich/Ron Paul ticket would have gotten my vote..or a Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich ticket..either way.

Don, Are you referring to your ignorance of the word 'Jive'...You don't have a point to prove...neither one of us even don't even know what you're talking about....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 04:25 PM

Here, Larry, take you pick....
...and then go on to the next page...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 05:28 PM

I tend to think those telling me how wrong I am, without ever debating the facts, are bigots and scumbags.

Yo, BullshitBruce: What's really amusing, considering all your ranting and raving, is that you can't see that you epitomize what you're complaining about.

And speaking of bullshit, the chances that you would ever possibly "rethink your views" based on mere facts - however presented - are something less than zero.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 05:30 PM

Goofball, I was hanging with jazz musicians—some of whom were black— when you were still too little to find your own butt with both hands (you probably can't do it even now without consulting an anatomy chart first).

The term "jive" referred to various styles of music and dancing in the 1920s. There was no general agreement on what it meant, if it ever referred to anything specific. It was used by some by jazz musicians in a very general way early on, and then it was later incorporated into black teenaged slang, and is included in lists or dictionaries of "Ebonics."

Only jive turkeys like you seem to have missed that one. Unhip, man!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 05:51 PM

Guest from Sanity: I looked up a bit of information on your two preferred 'candidates'. Dennis Kucinich looks really fascinating. I'm curious how he gets hired (and why he would go along with such a recruitment) by Fox News. He certainly has an impressive 'liberal' track record.

But Ron Paul looks pretty scary to me! Global warming as a hoax? Anti-choice? A libertarian who doesn't want homosexuals to have the same liberties as others?   Sorry....can't go along with it.


While I do respect people who go along with their conscience (which appears to be the main Obama criticism---that either he doesn't have the guts to do what he believes in, or he is just saying the 'right' things even though he doesn't believe them).....some people's 'conscience' ends up being a consciousness of oppression of some.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 07:24 PM

This thread is so big that it's taking too long to load on my computer, so I'm going to leave. If any of you feel I'm doing a hit and run, no problem----there's an insults thread you can use.

I've enjoyed dropping in, and learned a bit about American politics.

I'm sure there are and will be lots of other related threads that my computer will access a lot more quickly.

-Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 07:26 PM

Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul on the same ticket?

Dennis Kucinich.

Ron Paul.

'Nuff said!

Dennis Kucinich is a Classical Liberal. I would have voted for him in a very short minute (in preference to Barack Obama) if he had been on the ballot as a viable candidate. He's intelligent, with it, knows where his towel is!

But if he were elected President, with the current Congress, he wouldn't be able to do any more than President Obama has. These clowns would fight him tooth and nail on everything, just as they have Obama. Perhaps even moreso!

Ron Paul is a hard-charging Libertarian (he insists that the members of his staff all read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged!). Even if he does run on the Republican ticket. To anyone who knows anything about the political position that Ayn Rand advocated, and is currently being advocated by the Libertarian Party—and by Ron Paul—if HE were elected, it would be time to emigrate to Alpha Centuuri!

Unless you are VERY, VERY RICH!!

And Goofballupagus thinks the two of them would be the ideal ticket!!???

What more does anyone need to know about Goofy's political savvy and general intelligence?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 11:50 PM

I didn't say they would be an 'ideal' ticket....but would have voted for it.
"By the time a man is nominated for the Presidency, he's no longer fit for the job."---Adlai Stevenson

Oh, and your worm wiggling out of calling me a racist, because I used the word 'jive' was not quite even close to a feeble attempt of anything. I guess it was your way of re-affirming to the audience that you 'hung out' with some black musicians..Oh, how very noble and 'liberally tolerant' of you............My first real working band was all blacks....and I've played various types of music through the years WITH black musicians...and nobody gave a shit..it was about the music, and the sound....not the 'too hip for the room' image for our 'so-called liberal' approval...don't give a shit about that, either!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 11:59 PM

The way you use the word "liberal" as a term of contempt and your endorsement of Dennis Kucinich indicate that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Or some other bodily orifice.

I didn't "hang out with black musicians." I knew (and know) a lot of musicians. And some of them are black.

YOU are the one who keeps making race a big issue.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jun 13 - 12:05 AM

And I'm not "wiggling out of calling [you] a racist." That's essentially what I AM calling you.

YOU are doing the "wiggling."

You're not fooling anyone, Goofy.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 22 Jun 13 - 08:39 AM

Kucinich/Paul. What would they have called that, the Liberaltarian ticket? Jeesh.

Thomas Jefferson had reservations about running for president because he believed that gaining the office would make him "a constant butt for every shaft of calumny which malice and falsehood could form." I think our most excellent, if imperfect, President Obama can relate to that.
Now carry on BB and Goofus, you toxic little men.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Jun 13 - 11:05 AM

'So-called liberals' are not liberals, at all, they're bullshitters, you know the type, the ones who call names instead of presenting a salient argument or exchange of real ideas.....you, know, people who want to pretend to care, but really only want to call attention to themselves.....explain it Don!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 22 Jun 13 - 12:46 PM

2990 posts-

Time to retire an old, tired thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jun 13 - 01:03 PM

Since Goofball doesn't have the slightest clue as to what a real Liberal is, his use of terms like "so-called liberal" is meaningless.

I'm with you, Q. This thread has long since passed it's "sell by" date and Goofball is starting to smell pretty rancid.

A Kucinich / Paul ticket? Why not put Gandhi and Mussolini on the same ticket? Makes about as much sense!

Fare thee well.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jun 13 - 01:15 PM

I agree, Don...

Kucinich and Paul have nothing in common... They at opposite ends of the spectrum...

Kucinich believes that government should help people and Paul believes it shouldn't...

Kucinich would have built the interstate highway system... Paul wouldn't...

Kucinich would make changes to keep Social Security and Medicare acsolvent... Paul would abolish them both...

Kucinich would push for a livavble minimum wage... Paul would do away with it...

Kucinich is a supporter of labor unions... Paul would kill them...

I mean, maybe other than agreeing on decriminalizing pot and getting out of Iraq, these to guys couldn't be more different...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jun 13 - 02:21 PM

So much for Goofy's knowledge of politics.

ZILCH!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Jun 13 - 07:38 PM

"Kucinich and Paul have nothing in common... They at opposite ends of the spectrum..."

This present administration and the American people have nothing in common... They at opposite ends of the spectrum..."


Monsanto riders giving them exemption from health and environmental damages cased by their GMO's???..It's been pretty well covered on the other thread..someone explain to me why the 'bait and switch'(formerly known as 'hope and change')

GfS

P.S. ..and don't bother saying I 'hate' someone, because I asked the question...just answer it!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jun 13 - 08:20 PM

You are so wrong, GfinS...

Obama just won a convincing re-election...

Oh, maybe you hadn't heard???

What you do is ***cherry pick*** without doing the research... Maybe you'd like to do a little research on Monsanto rather than post stuff that is part of the Obama-Hate-Brigade talking points... That means not clicking onto right winged hate sights but actually researching what Obama has said about Monsanto in the whole... Not Monsanto as part of a larger piece of policy where there is no line-item veto...

Yes, knock yourself out learning the truth... Try the Washington Post and New York Times... Even though they aren't the liberal rags that you and your Republican buds sday they are you can find in depth stuff in their archives that better resemble the truth...

That is, if the truth means anything to you at all...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Jun 13 - 11:54 PM

Now isn't that what I just asked for on the GMO thread...and NOBODY came up with ANY study, nor could they find Obama's rationale for doing it. The obvious one is that he was doing it FOR Monsanto....when asked 'Why' not even you came close to being able to understand why..and you said as much...matter of fact you voiced disappointment in him.
same thing when Clinton signed off on the repeal of Glass-Steagal ..nobody MADE him do it...or Hillary voting FOR going to war with Iraq, nobody MADE her doing it. Or Eric Holder's repeated lying before the Congressional committees, including the one on 'Fast and Furious', nobody MADE him do it, or Susan Rice lying to the U.N., did some one MAKE her do it..or 'suggest' it? Then the liberals, 'so-called' and real ones tend to favor the U.N., right?....so get up and lie your face off to them???
Now the first thing that blurts out of a liberal's mouth is, "Hey, Bush did it too!"....yeah, I agree...even got Powell up there lyin' right along with them....so, does that make it 'right'?..or 'excusable'?..OR does it mean BOTH parties are doing it????...and every time, I say, "Both parties are doing it"..you just say, "Yeah, that's what the Republicans are saying..blah blah blah..but the TRUTH is, that they BOTH are, in fact, doing the same shit! ...which in my estimation, is they are doing the same shit, for the same people who are telling them to...OR, at least for the same agenda...this is not rocket science...the history is the same...just the names and the 'talking points' have been changed, to protect the 'innocent'(?)!!!
Now as much as you'd hate to admit it, what I just posted, and you just read, is true, plain and simple....and I am in no way a Republican, nor a Tea party member, nor Democrat...nor do I have ANY motive to deceive you. I can't say that I really even have a political agenda, other than, 'Back off!'...and stop fucking with the Constitution, and our rights, to accommodate some corporate interest. In government, the governed people SHOULD be the top priority....I don't see that, and haven't in YEARS! (recent, or other-wise, or either 'party')....but they both prattle on about their policies, as if they are trying to sell the public, that whatever fraud they're shoving at us, is for our good, whether we even know what the fuck it is!!..SHIT..They're signing massive bills without even reading them!!!..what kind of shit is that???????...and then if I object to such a stupid practice, of voting and signing onto bills without even reading them, and being offered exemptions for your state, if you vote for it, some mutant gnome, starts in with, "oh you're just don't like him because he's black'...and NO, I just object to the stupid practice, of voting and signing onto bills without even reading them, and being offered exemptions for your state, if you vote for it. This is NOT doing the will of the people....shit the people didn't know what was in this shit, let alone the over paid fuck-brains that engaged in those practices. (Dennis Kucinich actually read it, and was NOT in favor of it, as it was...even he gave into the pressure, a big disappointment!)...and somehow, some of you think this is just OK!
..not to mention all the scandals conveniently breaking out, now thought it's been going on for years, BOTH parties.
This is not a Republican/Democrat issue...as much as it is their problem, because they both allowed it to happen, and get so far out of control, that it is now being accepted as 'business as usual'..and on the news yesterday, we've got domestic drones keeping big brother's eye on us here at home, too...and NOW you'll make excuses for why it is OK...until the incumbent's party affiliation changes in Washington...then it's the 'dirty other guys'.
....and I still can't find a liberal (forget the 'so-called' varieties), who can justify all this, as being good for our nation, regardless of party occupying the administration. If the Dems are doing it, fine..but if the Republicans are doing it, even if it is a program started by the Dems, then it's the dirty, nasty Republicans. THIS IS FIRST CLASS STUPIDITY!!..is it not?

Well, enough said..at least it stuck to the topic of the thread!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 08:51 AM

Thank you for that cogent analysis, Goofted One. Allow me to summarize it as many here may not be able to appreciate your subtle reasoning. Here' my take:

Obama corrupt blah, blah,blah...Obama stooge of the bankers blah, blah, blah...all liberals hypocrites blah, blah, blah...Democrats same as Republicans blah, blah, blah...old washed-out leftwing hippie folksingers too obtuse to comprehend your brilliance...blah,blah,fucking blah.

There I think I nailed it and I didn't even read it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 09:21 AM

Yup, all blow and no go, gillymor...

In other words??? Normal for GfinS...

Doesn't want to learn anything new... Reminds me of the people back in the early 1900s who refused to ride in an automobile... Just didn't want to learn or experience anything new...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 09:21 AM

Oh, and...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 09:22 AM

...3000...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 11:07 AM

Maybe that's your problem, sillymore, you don't even read stuff, and claim to understand it...no wonder you support 'legislatures' who do the same thing!

sillymore: "There I think I nailed it and I didn't even read it."

And, Bobert: "Doesn't want to learn anything new... Reminds me of the people back in the early 1900s who refused to ride in an automobile... Just didn't want to learn or experience anything new..."

Sums it up, PERFECTLY!..maybe you two should have a 'talk', as to why you CAN'T discuss a topic intelligently, and resort to calling people who you disagree with, whom you say you don't read, and then call them a 'racist' or 'bigot' a bazillion times, and STILL have no idea what you're talking about.

...and as long as we're at it, and you seem to congratulate yourselves so generously, maybe either one of you can 'interpret' why the Monsanto rider was even allowed to be on the Democratic budget.

Let me take a guess....umm...he was representing you and the will of the people?...umm..the corporations 'made him do it'?.....ummm....He likes the fact that people will be taking a lot of advantage of his newly unread Obamacare?....he had a lot extra pens he wanted to test out??...hmmm....he had an insider tip to buy stock in Monsanto?....all of the above??...hmm..maybe you have an answer!
What was it, O wise sage??

Can't answer???...hmm.... then let's say GfS MUST be a 'racist' ..yeah, that will cover it!
Idiots!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 01:20 PM

The rider was snuck into the appropriations bill HR HR 933 by Roy Blunt, R-Mo, Gfins...

Yes, now that there is some pushback the Republicans are trying to rewrite history and put this on Barbara Mikulski, D- Md, but she is on record of saying she didn't even know that the rider was in the bill...

BTW, Obama signed this appropriations bill because not signing it would have meant a partial government shutdown... There is no evidence that he knew it was in the bill either...

There's the facts... Sorry they don't jive with the Republican/TeaKK mythological version which isn't true...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 03:20 PM

bobert: "The rider was snuck into the appropriations bill HR HR 933 by Roy Blunt, R-Mo, Gfins..

WHAT??????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Did you just make that up??
Yes, Monsanto was one of the writers of the bill, and had it included in the Democrat budget...and now you want us to believe that Obama didn't know what it was WHILE HE WAS SIGNING IT???????

Seems to me, as I posted earlier, that your 'Wonder Boys' don't read what they are signing or voting for???

Wasn't a Democracy, Which the Democrat Party is supposed to be named after, include voting on issues the people put forth, rather than rubber stamping agendas for the party's corporate sponsors??

Nope Ol' Bobert buddy, your ridiculous reasoning just don't wash...at all!!

Maybe you should just go back to name calling....it is just as dumb!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 03:36 PM

....and BY THE WAY............

Bobert: "BTW, Obama signed this appropriations bill because not signing it would have meant a partial government shutdown... There is no evidence that he knew it was in the bill either.."

Maybe he could have 'borrowed back', with interest, of course, some of the Trillion dollar stimulus money, for shovel ready jobs, that he later admitted never existed, from his bankster buddies, who, in fact, ended up with the money.

So much horse-crap!...but he is 'OUR' party's Messiah...and he even walks on water!..and if you don't like his policies, it's only because your a 'racist'!

Give me a fuckin' break!

..actually, give yourselves a fuckin' break!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 04:56 PM

Goofball, Bobert knows more about what's going on in politics than your feeble mind is capable of grasping. Every time you post, you manage to display a new magnitude of your abysmal ignorance.

Bobert: "Obama signed this appropriations bill because not signing it would have meant a partial government shutdown... There is no evidence that he knew it was in the bill either..."

Often these bills run to thousands of pages and Presidents have to rely on several aides to each read a part of the thing and give the President as précis of what's in the thing. And it's a sad truth that even the aides miss things.

If the President had to read the damned bill himself, he'd never have time to do anything else!

GO READ A BOOK, for Crissake!!!

Ignorant sod!!

Don Firth

P. S. It's because of "riders" on bills that presidents have asked repeatedly for the "Line Item Veto" so they can pass a needed bill, but delete the riders that have been tacked on. Read this for openers:

Starting with Ulysses S. Grant, every US president has asked congress to enact legislation granting the president line-item veto power but it was not until the Clinton presidency that Congress passed such legislation. Although it was intended to control "pork barrel spending", the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was held to be unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in a 1998 ruling in Clinton v. City of New York. The court affirmed a lower court decision that the line-item veto was equivalent to the unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes and therefore violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution. Before the ruling, President Clinton applied the line-item veto to the federal budget 82 times.

Since then, the prospect of granting the President a line-item veto has occasionally resurfaced in Congress; either through a constitutional amendment[citation needed] or a differently-worded bill. Most recently, the House of Representatives passed a bill on February 8, 2012, that would have granted the President a limited line-item veto; however, the bill was not heard in the Senate.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 05:41 PM

once again, you're out of sync...see my previous post, in regards to WHEN a line item veto is used.

..and since when does a Republican submit a rider to a Democrat budget proposal?..wouldn't he be submitting it to the Republican budget proposal??

You're trying too hard, Don..get some rest.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 05:49 PM

..and it really doesn't matter...the bill was squashed anyway...like his other one that was unanimously rejected by both parties.
..but it did show a 'tip of the hand'.

Hey, read the article....that is if party extremists read anything anymore! Apparently from several posts, and history, there isn't much reading of bills going on....take Obamacare....oh never mind, "Let's pass this thing so we can see what's in it"--Pelosi.....and then the dumb-fucks passed it...without even reading it! Great representation, huh?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 06:16 PM

Goofball: "....since when does a Republican submit a rider to a Democrat budget proposal?"

They do it all the time, ignoramus! And Democratic senators and congressmen try to add riders to Republican proposals as well.

BOTH PARTIES do it all the time, in an effort to try to get things passed that, if it stood by itself, would be summarily squashed. The trick is to attach the rider to a bill that the President pretty much HAS to pass, or at least wants very much to pass, then unless he vetoes the whole bill, it goes into law.

That's why the President would like to have the Line Item Veto and the Congress doesn't want to let him have it! Even your simple mind should be able to grasp that!

Another graphic example of your ignorance.

Slept through high school civics classes, eh? Or did you cut school entirely?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 07:54 PM

HR 933, GfinS, was originated in the Republican controlled House... The "HR" mean "House Resolution"...

Any more ignorance of basic American government you want to roll out here tonight???

Your hate of Democrats and Obama have blinded you to even the most basic stuff that almost everyone knows or understands...

But keep spinning your complete mythology if that makes you happy...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Jun 13 - 12:06 AM

A corrected post is on the GMO thread.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Jun 13 - 10:51 AM

Acting IRS commissioner Danny Werfel on Monday told reporters that the now-infamous "Be On The Lookout" list was far broader than was originally disclosed in the Treasury Department inspector general's report. Reports from outlets including the Associated Press, which I cited in my original report, and now Bloomberg News, confirmed Werfel's account, indicating that various versions of the list not only included terms like "tea party," but also "progressive," "Occupy," and "Israel."

A November 2010 version of the list obtained by National Review Online, however, suggests that while the list did contain the word "progressive," screeners were in fact instructed to treat "progressive" groups differently from "tea party" groups. Whereas screeners were merely alerted that a designation of 501(c)(3) status "may not be appropriate" for applications containing the word "progressive" – 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from conducting any political activities – they were told to send those of tea-party groups off IRS higher-ups for further scrutiny.

That means the applications of progressive groups could be approved on the spot by line agents, while those of tea-party groups could not. Furthermore, the November 2010 list noted that tea-party cases were "currently being coordinated with EOT," which stands for Exempt Organizations Technical, a group of tax lawyers in Washington, D.C. Those of progressive groups were not.

The AP reported earlier on Monday that "Terms including 'Israel,' 'Progressive' and 'Occupy' were used by agency workers to help pick groups for closer examination." That appears to be misleading, as there is no indication from the list examined by NRO that progressive groups were singled out for heightened scrutiny in a manner similar to tea-party groups. Cases involving healthcare legislation, however, were. "New applications are subject to secondary screening in Group 7821," the list notes.

Also sent along for more further examination were applications involving "disputed territories in the Middle East," in particular, those that advocated a "one sided point of view," which perhaps explains the testimony of Cincinnati screener Gary Muthert, who told commitee investigators that the applications of pro-Israel groups went to an antiterrorism unit within the agency.

Based on the lookout list examined by NRO, however, it is inaccurate to say that progressive and liberal groups were subjected to the same or similar scrutiny as tea-party groups, or even that a surprisingly broad array of criteria was applied to screen applications for tax exemption.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Jun 13 - 12:10 PM

Dang!..I was going to post that, myself...thank you BB... they also said that it has been going on for at least up to a month ago!...which flies in the face of testimony saying otherwise!

When are ANY of these people, from this administration, 'testifying', who have been lying through their teeth, going to be charged with perjury???!!?? then we could get rid of them, and they'll be promoted with full benefits, and get bonuses and a substantial pay raise...isn't that the way it works now?

Maybe we could eliminate the unemployment rate trying to fill all those newly vacated jobs! ....I guess the jobs MAY go to the highest bidder, from a preferred lit of Obama's cronies!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jun 13 - 12:53 PM

Congress wrote the 501 c 4 legislation, right???

Congress told the IRS that more than half the budget should go toward "social welfare" in order to have that tax exempt status, right???

Congress controls the purse strings on how many people the IRS can hire, right???

Thousands of Tea Party organizations applied for tax exempt status during the debates on the ACA, right???

Very few liberal organizations were applying at the same time, right???

We keep hearing that the government is so evil and wastes money, right???

Problem here is that the reality doesn't fir scandalmania so rather than logically look at stuff that isn't a scandal just yell loud enough, get FOX behind it and make a scandal out of it...

To me this was smart on the IRS's part and the entire idea of 501 c 4's written as dumb as any law could be written...

Where's all this social welfare??? Yelling that you hate the government ain't it... Where the hell is it???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 09:36 AM

Where'd you get that latest pile of crap from, Beardy?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 12:10 PM

They doin' anything about keepin' tabs on groups that use the terms "poopflinging" (the dreaded P word!) and "organ grinder"?

- Chongo

p.s. Tone it down, Bobertz. Yer gonna bust a blood vessel. I know what yer problem is. You just ain't had yer organ ground in a long time.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jun 13 - 08:29 PM

Just for your information....with No commentary

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 11:07 AM

"I don't know if Members of Congress will be hearing about it in town hall gatherings and other meetings back home over the Fourth of July recess, but the rolling thunder of the approaching ObamaCare train can be heard in the distance. Smart Democrats are beginning to get frantic about the need to suppress the confusion and hide the cost of ObamaCare between now and the 2014 midterm elections. We are just three months away from the October 1st enrollment start date and so far, nothing about the ObamaCare implementation process should be politically encouraging for Democrats. In fact, the more people learn about ObamaCare, the more frightened they become.

Right now, small businesses across America are making the final determinations on how to reduce the working hours of their employees so fewer employees qualify for the mandated, employer-provided health insurance. Employers are also deciding whether it makes more economic sense to pay a fine to the government or pay for healthcare benefits for their employees. What this means is that hundreds of thousands – and perhaps even millions – of Americans will learn that they are being dismissed from their employer's healthcare coverage.

The healthcare pink slips will start raining down in late summer and early fall. This will push people into the healthcare exchanges, where, in some cases, people will be writing health insurance checks for the first time. And in many cases, people will be facing increased health insurance costs, particularly if they are young and healthy. The negative effects on personal income and the overall economy will be undeniable. Sometime next year, before the elections, the penalties associated with not having or providing health insurance will begin to pour in. Will the fines come in the mail? Will you be able to appeal? What happens if someone doesn't pay? No one knows. Or, no one who knows is talking. The consequences of ObamaCare are being hidden.

Today's Wall Street Journal article, "Health-insurance costs set for a jolt" hints at the debacle that is to come. At some point soon, it's going to be undeniable that ObamaCare is nothing but another federal entitlement, where those who are young and healthy bear the direct cost of subsidizing those who are not.

In midterm elections, those who vote tend to be more engaged voters. In other words, these voters will notice if they have health insurance that is more expensive but offers less coverage than what they had before ObamaCare. Some of the Democrats' reactions will be predictable, i.e. blaming Bush and blaming Republicans, or for a while, denying the obvious. But that won't work forever. One of the worst sins you can commit in politics is to say something that's different from what people can see for themselves. There is no chance that Obamacare will perform as promised and when it doesn't, voters will be looking for relief."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 12:26 PM

Which blog did this latest pile of horsehit come from, Beardie?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 01:09 AM

I've heard much of the same thing..and even more. All they really needed to do was expand Medicaid from the beginning.....
I wonder how many whiners will understand this..or even read it! .

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 10:00 AM

The Obama Administration announced on Tuesday that it is delaying implementing a key component of the Affordable Care Act for a year following complaints from the private sector about reporting requirements.

The so-called employer mandate, which penalizes employers with more than 50 employees if they fail to provide a minimum standard of affordable health insurance, was set to kick in in 2014, but now will take effect in 2015, the Treasury Department announced in a blog post first reported by Bloomberg News. The delay not only allows the Administration time to alleviate concerns among business owners, but also takes a controversial component of the law off the table before the midterm elections.

The vast majority of employers that already provide coverage to their employees raised concerns about burdensome reporting requirements under the law, a complaint the Administration is particularly sensitive to. Companies that don't meet the law's requirements now have an extra year to alter their policies.

(MORE: Why Our Health Care Lets Prices Run Wild)

"We have been in a dialogue with businesses and we think we can simplify the new reporting — we want to give businesses who want to provide health insurance the time to get this right," a senior Administration official said, explaining the delay. "Just like our effort to turn the 21-page application for health insurance into a three-page application, we are working hard to adapt and to be flexible in employer and insurer reporting as we implement the law."

The delay deprives the federal government of a year of penalties that would have been paid by companies that do not meet the law's requirements, with as yet unknown budgetary effects. Republicans had warned of a downturn in hiring as a result of the mandate.

The so-called individual mandate is unaffected by the rule change. That provision requires the vast majority of Americans to purchase insurance or pay a penalty, with tax credits provided to those who can't afford coverage.

Republican former Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin called the move "deviously brilliant," by removing a potential electoral impediment from in front of congressional Democrats before the midterms.

"Democrats no longer face the immediate specter of running against the fallout from a heavy regulatory imposition on employers across the land," Holtz-Eakin wrote. "Explaining away the mandate was going to be a big political lift; having the White House airbrush it from the landscape is way better."

The Administration will publish formal guidance on the rule change within the next week.



Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/07/02/obama-administration-delays-healthcare-law-employer-penalty-until-2015/#ixzz2XzUtAAmY

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 10:49 AM

And yet more cherry-picked blogoshit thinly disguised as fact. Atta boy, Beardy - just what we've come to expect from ya.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 11:08 AM

Shut up, Greg...your posts are a pain in the ass..and really quite infantile and stupid. If you want to contribute something worthwhile do so, but your juvenile rants are really well worth ignoring!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 11:13 AM

Now, now. Greggie boy has been appointed as the spokesman for the Liberal Viewpoint- since no-one objects. He is presenting the best arguments he can think of. Too bad BillD is silent on HIS using attacks as being a logical flaw...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 11:22 AM

And ditto, Both.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 11:32 AM

Oh, and yes, Beardy, the entire devious, unfair "liberal establishment" IS out to get you personally. Probably because your Jewish.

I've conceded this many times - you don't need to keep bring it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 11:43 AM

Actually, just expanding Medicare - not Medicaid - would have gone a long way toward fixing our problem... That's pretty much what our competitors have done and getting better health care outcomes on half as much $$$...

Too bad that we have such a broken Congress (especially the House) or this common sense approach would have, at the very least, entered into the conversation/debate... We need to have that discussion before people will come around to seein' that it's the only way to fix our serious problems with health care... Free market isn't a fix... It's the problem... And it is corrupt and immoral... $10 aspirins just don't cut if, folks...

Ya' see, the way Medicare works is that if the hospital charges $10 for the aspirin then Medicare says, "No thank, Mr. Hospital... We'll pay $1" and that's the end of it...

Medicaid, BTW, is for income eligible people... A large chunk of the Medicaid budget goes to paying for nursing home care for folks who have already sold off their assets and have no other resources left to pay for their care...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 11:47 AM

"Too bad that we have such a broken Congress (especially the House) or this common sense approach would have, at the very least, entered into the conversation/debate.."


And who was in control of ++both++ houses of Congress when ObamaCare was passed???????????????????????

Too bad Bobert has no idea of real world events.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 12:40 PM

"In control of both houses of congress", Beardy? Better check what was going on in the real world instead of wherever it is you spend your time.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 12:52 PM

Greggie,

Learn to read:


"And who was in control of ++both++ houses of Congress when ObamaCare was passed???????????????????????""

Oh, that's right- Liberals don't bother reading before they make dumb comments.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 12:56 PM

When Obamacare was passed, Dear little Greggie Boy, The Democrats had both the House ans the Senate...just look it up...or it would have NEVER passed..

To everyone else who is more up to date, than Little Greggie Boy:

Now they think they're going to put it off for another year...of uncertainty....with some luck they'll repeal the piece of shit....and then Obama's legacy will be, he wasted his time, the country's, helped fuck up the economy, while causing needless divisions!

..and Bobert, Medicare is not necessarily better than Medicaid. They both have their high points, and both have their deficiencies. Medicaid doesn't have 'co-pay', but covers less. Both are limited to what doctors will take them, while Obamacare is limiting the amount of doctors who are still staying in practice!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 01:36 PM

Assuming that the Democratic Party is monolithic, dogmatic, and in jack-booted obstructionist lock-step like the TeaPublicans, that is.

As I said, get back to the real world & then we'll talk.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 01:40 PM

"As I said, get back to the real world & then we'll talk."


That would be a long-distance call for you, Greggie boy.

The Dems had control- and passed ObamaCare.

So you and Bobert had better change your words, and get back into lockstep with the ObamaLine, or Bobert will have to call himself a racist for opposing an Obama initiative.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 02:12 PM

So apparently, Beardy, you have a problem with how a constitutional republic (a.k.a. demorcracy for the most part) functions.

Please elaborate.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 02:21 PM

"So apparently, Beardy, you have a problem with how a constitutional republic (a.k.a. demorcracy for the most part) functions.
"


I don't have a problem, you shit-for-brains racist scumbag liar. You do.


I have a problem with you and Bobert saying things that are not true and expecting everone to accept your lies.

Bobert stated : "Too bad that we have such a broken Congress (especially the House) or this common sense approach would have, at the very least, entered into the conversation/debate"

If Congress was broken, it was while the ++Democrats++ controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House.


Even if you want your own reality and try to change the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 02:23 PM

Greg: "So apparently, Beardy, you have a problem with how a constitutional republic (a.k.a. demorcracy for the most part) functions.
Please elaborate."

Do you mean, like ,"Pass this bill so we can see what's in it"?--Pelosi

not even the Democrats who voted for it had even read it, or knew what was in it....so you should re-phrase your original question to; ""So apparently, Democrats, you have a problem with how a constitutional republic.."

...and by the way, a republic means that we are represented by representatives....which were representing us, when nobody, including them, even knew what was in it??..Right?

Now before you spout off some banal insult, THINK about what I just posted...and you will see that the opposition to all this, is not based on some racially bigoted, crazy right wing lunacy....the Democrats fucked up mightily, by doing it this way.
My contention is that both parties were in on it...in a way that circumvented disclosure to the public, so it was in essence being negotiated and passed behind closed doors, with a lot of back room wheeling dealing...and THAT is FACT, and history....and a fucking shame!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 02:47 PM

Calm down, Beardy, you're in denial & spraying spittle again.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jul 13 - 12:37 PM

For what it's worth.......transparency!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jul 13 - 01:44 PM

In the interest in knowing the truth about source material for posted articles, the article, linked to in GfS's post immediately above, is from the Washington Examiner, a tabloid newspaper owned by Denver billionaire Philip Anschutz, who purchased their parent company, Journal Newspapers Inc., in October 2004.

It is a megaphone for Anschutz's right-wing views on taxes, national security, and President Barack Obama.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Jul 13 - 02:32 PM

GfinS doesn't care just so long as it's about Obama-hate...

Normal...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest From Sanity
Date: 07 Jul 13 - 02:50 PM

Ah!...the Dynamic Duo!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 03:00 PM

Whadya' think??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 03:24 PM

As opposed to the fact that you do not/cannot think, GeistInsanity?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 05:07 PM

Any article that can't get thru the 1st paragraph without hate words oozing onto the margins is not worth reading...

"Obama regime" is written for Obama-haters by an Obama-hater and therefore offered here by the biggest Obama hater in Mudcat...

In other words???

Normal...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 05:15 PM

Funny, Bobert...it was from the European press...not ours..not Fox...and, maybe THEY see it as a 'regime'.
what I found interesting, is that 'our' press isn't carrying it at all. don't you find that curious?
What I also find curious, is how YOU accuse others of 'hating', but then show 'hate' to anyone who disagrees with you.
Why is that?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 06:39 PM

The European Union Times claims to be a news site. Its articles on Barack Obama have been linked largely from libertarian Tea Party blogs.

Upon close inspection, it is little more than a compiler and regurgitator of various news stories, and a particularly unpleasant far-right-leaning blog. The reporting is, without exception, unprofessional.

The anti-Semitic and racist slant of many articles in the European Union Times (which is NOT European) indicates that it is quite probably neo-Nazi.

The above is derived from a number of articles about the European Union Times.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 06:43 PM

Big surprise, Don - BeardedBullshit is BardedBullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 07:12 PM

Gooballupagus really ought to check on the authenticity and integrity of the sources he believes.

Ladled out of the septic tank doesn't cut it, even if it's what he wants to believe.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 07:39 PM

GfinS doesn't much care about his sources... As long as it drips of Obama hate then that's just fine...

About the only thing that GfinS has ever linked that wasn't Obama-hate is music...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 07:41 PM

Ok..You've had your shot at bitching about the European Union Times...What about the the STORY?? Do you feel that they just 'made it up'?...or do you agree with policy?

Jeez, another typical diversion!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 08:08 PM

GeistInsanity = Neo-Nazi?   Just about right I should say.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 08:09 PM

Pure conspiracy theory stuff, Goofy. Everything I've been able to find on the web links the story back to the so-called European Union Times, which is NOT the European press at all, but an American based far-right blog, tricked up to LOOK like something legitimate.

No other news source in the world is carrying the "story."

You got sucked in, Goofy!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 08:15 PM

If someone can't write a story without the 1st paragraph dripping in hate chances are that it isn't worth reading...

Kinda like a very bad band that isn't in tune... It won't get any better...

Try sane writers, GfinS, that aren't mentally disabled with hate... It might help your cause... Right now, all you are pitchin' at us is pure shit... 100% USDA Choice shit...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 08:39 PM

From HERE

Russian Troops in America Rumor is False, No FEMA Disaster Planned

Russian troops are not training on American soil, despite what one popular claim on Twitter and Facebook states.

A rumor has spread that the United States and Russia entered an agreement that would sent thousands of Russian troops for a planned "disaster."

The original report claimed that the Kremlin's Emergencies Ministry confirmed talks between Russia and the United States, and that 15,000 Russian troops would be sent to America for an unspecified "upcoming" disaster in FEMA Region III, which includes Washington, DC.

The Russian troops were said to be trained in disaster relief and "crowd functions."

The report said that US Department of Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano sent a request to Minister Vladimir Puchkov for Russian troops to work "directly and jointly" with FEMA.

A Facebook post and emails circulating the information about Russian troops in America painted the situation in dire terms.

"Make sure you have plan to keep your family safe," it read. "This sounds like a bad movie. This should scare the crap out of you. Obama and the left are bringing America to it's knees. According to the terms of a deal signed in Washington last week, Russian soldiers will soon be allowed to patrol American soil, "to provide security at mass events.' "

Of course, as urban legend debunker Snopes has pointed out, the reason it sounds like a bad movie is because it is indeed a work of fiction. There was an actual agreement between FEMA and the Russian Emergency Ministry signed in June, but it called for the countries to share the expertise of first responders only.

A FEMA spokesperson confirmed that there would be no exchange of military or security personnel, and no Russian troops training on American soil.

The false rumor was spread by some of the typical sources of conspiracy theories, including Alex Jones' Infowars website, but no reports were able to offer actual proof of Russian troops training in the United States.

The Russian troops in America report followed a popular theme of urban legends linking President Barack Obama to some kind of nefarious use of FEMA. In past email circulations it was said Obama was setting up FEMA prison camps in preparation for a declaration of martial law.

So much for THAT!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 08:58 PM

GfinS doesn't do truth, Don, but great to see you debunk the Obama-hate article...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 09:29 PM

And Goofball accuses ME of slanting the news when I was a radio station news director!

What I actually did with any controversial story was to check the credibility and reliability of the news sources, and then look for other, non-biased sources. If you keep an open mind and keep your judgment clear, you can usually ferret out the truth.

It takes a little more time, but to me, it's worth it to know the truth. I got pretty good at it.

Goofball's trouble is 1) he assumes that I don't have any more personal integrity than he has and would do what he does in the same situation, and 2), if it supports what he wants to believe, he'll simply believe it, without caring if it's true or not.

Too many people like that around.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 09:41 PM

You two idiots re over the top!
I NEVER said that the story was true, or not..nor did I promote it, either way... I just posted it the way it came to me, and asked, "Whadya' think?"

Ok, Now I (WE) know what you think...now get your shorts ironed out, because you apparently got them bunched up in a twist!

...it's not like I didn't say this before....however, you DO seem to be hard of comprehension.
Had I believed the story, one way or another, I would have said so. frankly, I didn't know, and I never portrayed otherwise.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 09:44 PM

GfinS, like her bud, bb, is incapable of rational thought, Don...

I mean, it's like a big hole in GfinS's brain where nothing lives... Just pump out Obama-hate and not too much more...

Like I have said, "If Obama were to find a cure for cancer there would be the same folks who would accuse him of trying to put doctors out of work"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 09:57 PM

And he calls US idiots!!

I wonder if he's ever considered a lobotomy?

(If they could even find a brain to lobotomize. . . .)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 11:24 PM

Don Firth: "And he calls US idiots!!
I wonder if he's ever considered a lobotomy?"

No, actually I thought you two were sent over from the Democrat welcoming committee!

GfS

P.S. BTW, If you two are an indication of what it is to be an 'open minded liberal', answering questions, never mind, I gave at the office!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jul 13 - 12:13 AM

Any brain surgeon working on Goofus would have to be assisted by a proctologist.

Goofy, your last post doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Incoherent. And your P. S. is not even a complete sentence.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jul 13 - 12:40 AM

Foaming: "Goofy, your last post doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Incoherent. And your P. S. is not even a complete sentence."

You are out of your mind!..BTW, have you two had your rabies shots?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Jul 13 - 09:12 AM

LOL, ya'll...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jul 13 - 01:08 PM

Not foaming at the mouth, Goofball. I leave that to you.

My comment was a simple observation, noting that you are being incoherent as usual (which any literate, intelligent person can see).

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jul 13 - 11:12 PM

Hey..I sent the person who sent me that link, your link to the 'Inquisitor'...and asked her to check it out, and double check her sources, (just in case the 'Inquisitor' is off)...I'll let you know. I've also sent note to others who got the e-mail, to hold on..until we get to the bottom of it, either way.

Just to let you know.
Fair is Fair....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Jul 13 - 10:06 AM

The Affordable Care Act now has a formidable opponent in U.S. labor unions. The unions were a key ally in the law's passage: They spent a large sum of money on the congressional campaigns of Democrats in 2006 and 2008, and union leaders lobbied in favor of health care reform in 2009 and 2010. But with growing worries that the legislation will disrupt the health benefits of its members, America's largest unions are asking Congress to step in.

Representatives of three of the nation's largest unions sent a letter to Democratic Sens. Harry Reid of Nevada and Nancy Pelosi of California on Thursday.

"When you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act, you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat," letter said. "Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour workweek that is the backbone of the American middle class."
The letter was written by James P. Hoffa, general president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; Joseph Hansen, international president of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union; and Donald Taylor, the president of Unite-Here, a union representing hotel, airport, food service, gaming, and textile workers.

Their letter noted that their respective unions have long been supporters of the idea that all Americans should have access to quality, affordable health care. "We have also been strong supporters of you," the three union presidents wrote. "In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this vision."

But the problem is that "this vision has come back to haunt us."

The union leadership is seeking "reasonable regulatory interpretations" to the Affordable Care Act that would help prevent the destruction of nonprofit health plans. However, according to the letter, earlier requests for government action have been "disregarded and met with a stone wall by the White House and the pertinent agencies." In their opinion, this disregard compares unfavorably with how the administration responded to requests made by other so-called stakeholders, citing the government's decision to make a "huge accommodation" for the employer community by extending the deadline for the employer mandate and penalties.
"Time is running out: Congress wrote this law; we voted for you. We have a problem; you need to fix it," wrote the union leaders. "The unintended consequences of the ACA are severe. Perverse incentives are already creating nightmare scenarios."

The letter lists three complaints. First, that the law creates an incentive for employers to keep workers' hours below 30 hours per week. Second, that millions of Americans, including a great majority of union members, are covered by nonprofit health insurance plans. But with the implementation of Obamacare, union workers will be "treated differently and not be eligible for subsidies afforded other citizens." Finally, the letter argued that while union, nonprofit plans will not receive the same subsidies, they will be taxed to pay for those subsidies.

Hoffa, Hansen, and Taylor believe that there are "common-sense" fixes that can be made to the legislation that will allow union members to keep their current plans and benefits as Congress and President Barack Obama promised. Unless the changes are made, they said that pledge is hollow.

"We continue to stand behind real health care reform, but the law as it stands will hurt millions of Americans including the members of our respective unions," the letter concluded.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jul 13 - 05:08 PM

Beardy! A whole week without polluting this thread with more BullshitBruce Blogoshit!

Congratulations on your restraint! There may be hope yet --- or not. As usual, no source for the latest mound road apples.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 09:16 AM

A third federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that President Obama violated the Constitution last year when he made recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, adding more weight to the case as it goes before the Supreme Court in the justices' next session.

The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, said that the president can only make recess appointments after Congress has adjourned "sine die," which in modern times has meant when it breaks at the end of each year.

That ruling rejects Mr. Obama's own interpretation that he can make appointments whenever he deems the Senate to be unable to give him "advice and consent" on his nominees.
After digging through constitutional history and reading up on the framers, the judges said it's apparent the founding fathers intended for the president only to be able to use his recess appointment powers when the Senate was gone for a long period of time, not the brief breaks Congress regularly takes for holidays or weekends.
"All this points to the inescapable conclusion that the framers intended something specific by the term 'the Recess,' and that it was something different than a generic break in proceedings," Judge Clyde H. Hamilton wrote in his majority opinion.
He was joined by Judge Allyson K. Duncan, who filed a concurring opinion. Judge Hamilton was nominated to the bench by President George H.W. Bush and Judge Duncan was tapped by President George W. Bush.
In dissent, Judge Albert Diaz, whom Mr. Obama nominated to the court, said he read the same textual passages of the Constitution as the other two judges, but was unable to find a clear meaning, and he said he would have upheld the nominees as constitutional.
Mr. Obama made three recess appointments to the NLRB and one to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in January 2012, acting even though the Senate was meeting in pro forma sessions every three days specifically to deny the president his recess powers.

The founding document says the president may use his powers to fill "all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate."
Traditionally most presidents had abided by an informal rule that the Senate must have been out of session for 10 days in order to make recess appointments — though that doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution.
Mr. Obama argued that even though the Senate was meeting every three days, the pro forma sessions meant just a single senator was on the chamber floor for a brief time, and no real business was conducted, which meant the Senate was really not in session.
But Judge Hamilton said modern times have rendered that interpretation moot.
"At the time of the Constitution's ratification, breaks between sessions of Congress typically were six to nine months. During such periods, it was unrealistic to think the Senate could perform its advice and consent function," he wrote. "By contrast, there is no evidence that the Framers thought it was necessary to empower the president to make unilateral appointments while the Senate was adjourned within its session for short periods."
The ruling matches those of federal appeals courts for the District of Columbia and the 3rd Circuit.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case from the D.C. circuit when it begins its next term in the fall.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 09:23 AM

IRS employees have told congressional investigators that they were ordered by the agency's Washington office to give extra scrutiny to tea party groups' applications for tax-exempt status, according to excerpts from interviews with the employees that were released by House committee chairmen Wednesday.

Carter Hull, a tax law specialist with 48 years of experience at the IRS, told investigators that Lois Lerner, the former head of the Exempt Organizations division, demanded he send some of the reviews of tea party groups to the IRS chief counsel's office in Washington. The chief counsel is one of two political appointees in the IRS.

The Internal Revenue Service has come under fire over the past several months after the agency's auditor, J. Russell George, exposed that the agency was targeting conservative groups for intrusive scrutiny. This week, The Washington Times reported that government employees also improperly accessed IRS information to look at data on a handful of political candidates and donors.

Sen. Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican, said Wednesday that the investigation into the troubled agency must be expanded.
"It is clear that misconduct at the agency was not isolated to 'rogue employees' in the tax-exempt applications division," Mr. Flake said. "This recent development suggests that political targeting was potentially more widespread."
Even as Republicans push to broaden the inquiries, Democrats are preparing to go after Mr. George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration, whose May report first exposed the IRS targeting of conservative groups. Mr. George and Mr. Hull are scheduled to testify Thursday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 09:23 AM

Source, Beardy? Or just more horseshit?

Also note:

Judge Hamilton was nominated to the bench by President George H.W. Bush and Judge Duncan was tapped by President George W. Bush.

Couldn't be a couple of those damn "activist judges" that you TeaPubs are always pissing and moaning about, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 09:25 AM

I don't give a rat's ass if Obama uses recess to appoint people who the minority won't even allow an up-or-down vote... George Bush threatened to do it...

It's wrong no matter who does it and nu-democratic...

It was right for Senator Reid to push the "nuclear option"... It also was right when the Repub threatened to do 7 or 8 years ago...

There should be no filibusters on appointees unless that filibuster is done the "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" way... But that means real work and real time and real debate and real legislating... Not at all what we have now where the filibuster is as easy as taking a breath...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 09:36 AM

Bobert,

"It's wrong no matter who does it and nu-democratic..."


I agree. So you accept that Obama is not perfect?

You have stated that anyone who opposes anything that Obama does is therefore racist.
You have stated that that is the ++only++ reason that anyone opposes anything that Obama has done.

You have shown yourself to be as racist as TEA Party members are, according to your own posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 10:10 AM

Find where I have posted that Obama is "perfect"...

Oh, that's right... You can't... Just more invented stuff on your part so you can argue with stuff that other people never said...

See, bruce... That is the "irrational" part of your thinking and why I chose to ignore you... I gave you an opportunity to discuss policy but you chose to exhibit, once again, your personality disorder...

So, I'll ignore you here like I am on the Zimmerman thread...

Maybe one day I'll give you another opportunity to have an adult discussion that isn't wrapped in dishonesty and game playing... Then again, maybe I won't...

Bye on this thread, too,and don't waste your time writing that "Bobert is this or that" thinking I might read them... I have this mouse that allows me to just ignore you...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 10:28 AM

That mouse have any brothers or sisters that would like a good home, Bobert?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 10:54 AM

Greggie,

First the hamsters, and now mice? You need a smaller animal?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 10:59 AM

Bobert,

YOU ( fucking shouting) stated that the ONLY (emphasis) reason anyone would disagree with Obama was because they were racist, and thus ALL ( shouting again) TEA Party members and Republicans were racist.

Now that you admit you disagree with Obama, I guess the rules change, since one of the Master Race like you could not possibly be judged by the standards you impose on the people you disagree with.

What a scumsucking bigot!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 09:03 AM

refresh

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 10:18 AM

Perhaps it was inevitable, that any president branded and sold as "Hope" was destined to disappoint. But in these scorching summer doldrums of 2013, you have to wonder: did it have to be this disappointing?

Is this really the same Barack Obama who had such high expectations for resetting relationships with the Muslim world that he gave his first television interview as president to Al Arabiya television, declaring that "my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world"?

Now we're giving aid to Syrian rebels who eat the heart of their defeated foes, while in Egypt we seem resigned to working with whoever can fill Tahrir Square with the most people at the moment. Immediately after his election in 2008, President-Elect Obama said in response to a question from Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes about the use of executive orders, "I have said repeatedly I intend to close Guantánamo."

But five years later, prisoners in Guantánamo are trying to starve themselves to death because, whatever he said he intended, he hasn't done it. He can blame Republicans all he wants, but as senator Obama said in a 2007 debate, "When we have a situation like Guantánamo where we have suspended habeas corpus, to the extent we are not being true to our values and our ideals, that sends a negative message to the world and it gives us less leverage when we want to deal with countries who are abusing human rights."
Looming over all this is a president who doesn't seem to care what anyone thinks.
As they say, "hope" is not a strategy, but it turns out that was Obama's plan for dealing with the world. The hallmark of great presidents is clarity of vision and purpose or at least the perception of such. In his best moments as a candidate, Barack Obama offered that like few political figures of this or any time. He seemed to believe deeply in his mission, so many Americans believed. Indeed, many across the globe believed.

But today it's precisely a lack of belief and conviction that haunts this president. His support for the Syrian rebels seems forced and reluctant. If he has a diplomatic or strategic vision for Egypt, it's a mystery. In Afghanistan, over three times as many Americans have died under President Obama than President Bush, and it's difficult to maintain that the American policy has been a success. In the last campaign, President Obama repeatedly assured the public that all U.S. troops would be out by 2014. Now we are told U.S. troops will remain for an indefinite time helping to train Afghan forces. We are negotiating with the Taliban but we aren't negotiating with the Taliban. It's a mess and Americans continue to die.

In 2007, Nicholas Kristof wrote a column for The New York Times hailing Obama—Man of the World. "His experience as an antipoverty organizer in Chicago" wrote the pundit, "gives him a deep grasp of a crucial 21st-century challenge—poverty in America—that almost all politicians lack."

But today fewer Americans are working full time than when Obama took office, and a record number of Americans have fallen into poverty. Almost half of New York City lives below the poverty line. Over 16 million more Americans are now on food stamps. But the president has spent more time playing golf with Tiger Woods and raising money with Wall Street millionaires—his presidential campaigns have raised more money from Wall Street than any in history—than focusing concern for the poor.

The president's greatest passion is clearly for more gun control. While his hometown of Chicago has draconian gun control laws, it is a slaughterhouse of gun violence, and still the president is unable to muster support for new legislation. Every time he talks about how 90 percent of the public supports his position, it only makes him look more impotent. This is a president who can't even pass legislation with 90 percent public support?

Obamacare remains his signature achievement and it is likely to be the program for which he will be most judged by history. At the moment, like Obama's foreign policy, it's a chaotic mess, a policy that appears to have timid support from those charged with its execution.

Looming over all this is a president who doesn't seem to care what anyone thinks. No doubt he feels vindicated by reelection and that's understandable, perhaps inevitable. But if reelection is validity enough, then President Bush's victory proved that the Iraq war was a success. Perhaps Obama will wake up and surprise us with a new agenda and renewed engagement. Perhaps it's just the summer heat and the inevitable realization that promising more than you can deliver works only in short-term transactions and eight years is a long time.

One thing is certain: the Obama years will be judged by results, not the quality of his excuses. You can't ask to be granted the chance to become a transformational figure in world history, be given that opportunity, and then hope that you can blame anyone else when Hope didn't work out.

These are the Obama years. How's it working out?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 10:37 AM

And yet more anonymous, meaningless BlogoShit courtesy of BullshitBruce

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 10:49 AM

Another GREAT contribution from the "Liberal Voice" of Mudcat...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 02:25 AM

beardedbruce: "Perhaps it was inevitable, that any president branded and sold as "Hope" was destined to disappoint. But in these scorching summer doldrums of 2013, you have to wonder: did it have to be this disappointing?"

'Hope and Change' was the ad....but we all found out it was 'bait and switch'...which, BTW, is illegal when store does it, but OK, when a politician does it...go figure!

GfS

P.S. or was that 'Ho and Change'?
(I came upon that as a typo...and thought it worked!)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 11:42 AM

Almost half the jobs created during the Obama recovery have been created in Texas. Which perhaps means it should be called the Obama-Perry recovery. Or the Perry-Obama recovery – it's not clear who should get top billing, though outgoing Texas Gov. Rick Perry certainly has pushed a better pro-growth agenda than the president.

In fact, while the "blue states" are running up debt and flirting with bankruptcy, the "red states" continue to take the lead in cutting taxes, streamlining government and job creation, according to a report issued Monday by the State Government Leadership Foundation and being distributed by the Republican Legislative Campaign Committee.

The full report, which can be found here, shows the contrast in performance by states where the Republicans are in charge measured against states where Democrats hold the reins of power. "Reviewing the accomplishments of state legislatures across the country reveals a clear pattern – that Republican legislatures are not only right on the issues voters care about most, they have also focused on issues that benefit their entire state's population," the RLCC said in a release accompanying the report.

"During legislative sessions this year, red states focused on education reform that benefits all children, cutting taxes to save money for all residents, and focusing on pro-growth regulatory reforms that benefit all businesses and their employees. In stark contrast lie the accomplishments of blue states, which focused only on narrow special interests critical to their political base," the group said.

While Washington is hide-bound and gridlocked, the GOP-led states, under the leadership of governors such as Wisconsin's Scott Walker, Ohio's John Kasich, Michigan's Rick Snyder, the aforementioned Perry, Rick Scott of Florida and others are showing that many of the problems facing the country are, in fact, neither intractable nor unsolvable. With 166 million people living in states where the GOP holds the governorship and united legislative control, the policy changes the Republicans are pushing show success to a majority of America – and that will impact how they vote in 2014, no matter what kind of scare campaign the Democrats mount..


Pasted into link maker:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/07/23/states-with-republican-governors-lead-in-job-creation-and-growth?int=4f18d8


Output of link maker:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/07/23/states-with-republican-governors-lead-in-job-creation-and-growth?int=4

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 12:12 PM

Pasted into link maker:

Output of link maker:

So learn to do it yourself, BlogoShit Bruce, like the rest of us. The instructions are posted- and anyone with a sixth grade education can follow them.

Wait, on second thought, don't. You already post monstrous piles of irrelevant, anonymous horseshit as it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: number 6
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 08:15 AM

Well .........


biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 04:09 PM

Barack Obama is a beleaguered rationalist surrounded by foaming nitwits and reactionary sociopaths. As such it is extremely difficult for him to do much of anything; despite which he has forged ahead finding positive steps to take that move the state of the Union forward despite ducking flaming arrows and turd-balls from the less thoughtful mugwumps who dance around just outside the firelight screaming madcap tomfoolery at the top of thier lungs.

I think, myself, he is the best man for the job at the moment, a better President than Bush, Reagan or any of their ilk.

But that's just my opinion. I am sure some people, dear friends whose names will not be named, will be tempted to let go a gasket at the very thought. Pity, that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 04:56 PM

If the TeaPubs don't think that the Democrats aren't taking notes here then these people are actually dumber than a box of creek rocks...

They say that get-backs are hell... These creepy crackers will one day find themselves on the wrong end of the ballgame...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 13 - 11:46 AM

It's easy to pretend that things aren't getting better, Bruce; but the numbers indicate they are indeed getting better in spite of the obstreperous nihilism of the reactionary Congress. Pity, that.

Numbers of Americans killed in military operations--way down.

Employment--rising slowly but steadily.

Market value of US companies -- rising steadily.

Hmmmmmmmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Dec 13 - 11:19 AM

Well Well Well. It had to happen.

Seems like some Americans are evolving. Only 42% of 'em aprove or somewhat aprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president, at least accordin' to the Washington Post. That's the news paper that has everything you want to read in it ya know.

Time for a reality check. Snub out the reefers and put the corncob back in tha jug and click here

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Dec 13 - 01:24 PM

No, ShitSaw- for reality, do a check on the popularity of Republicans currently.

And after that, fuck off.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Dec 13 - 06:52 PM

Let's see???

42% v. 8%???

I'll take Obama's numbers, thank you...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Dec 13 - 03:41 AM

Interesting....................................I think................

I know!....Let's pray for him!....Just him....don't even root for him one way or the other!


...........maybe a bolt of light from come zapping down.....sizzle on his head.........and a miracle will unfold to the nation and the world......maybe he will start telling the truth!~!

Wouldn't that be lovely?????....."Hope and Change"

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 14 Dec 13 - 12:36 AM

Well well well. Gee golly and ding dong dang dag nab it! Seems like popular views are gettin' harder and harder to find.

Folks at Havard, training ground for 8 presidents an the previous stompin' grounds for Mr Obama has done a poll:

Harvard poll: 57% of Millennials disapprove of Obamacare

Harvard's Institute of Politics (IOP) December 4, 2013

Cambridge, MA - A new national poll of America's 18- to 29- year-olds by Harvard's Institute of Politics (IOP), located at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, finds a solid majority of Millennials disapprove of the comprehensive health reform package that the president signed into law in 2010, regardless of whether the law is referred to as the "Affordable Care Act" (56%: disapprove) or as "Obamacare" (57%: disapprove). Less than three-in-ten uninsured Millennials say they will definitely or probably enroll in insurance through an exchange if and when they are eligible.

Among those indicating in our poll that they would recall the president if they could include:

    A majority (52%) of voters under the age 25, compared to 40 percent between 25 and 29;
    19 percent of those who voted for him in 2012;
    19 percent of Democrats, 82 percent of Republicans and 51 percent of Independent voters; and
    58 percent of young Whites, 35 percent of Hispanics and 21 percent of Blacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Dec 13 - 01:46 AM

Sawzaw, You racist pig!...what does what the majority of what people think have to do with the 'liberal' view of Democracy???

How can they have an unbiased opinion..when most nobody knows what's in it....even those Democratic 'Representatives'(?), who didn't know what was in it when they voted for it??!!

Jeez!..You'd think that those Democrats were really Republicans voting for crony capitalism....or something like that!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Dec 13 - 04:29 PM

I think the 'so-called liberals' are caught between a mock and a farce space.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Dec 13 - 06:40 PM

"So-called 'liberal'?"

"If by a 'Liberal' you mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people—their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties—someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies, if that is what you mean by a 'Liberal', then I'm proud to say I'm a 'Liberal.'"
          —John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Dec 13 - 07:21 PM

Typical of you..half truths...you left out the 'so-called'

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Dec 13 - 08:30 PM

That's YOUR problem, Goofup, not mine.

Tell you what, Goofball. When you get to Oz, tell the Wizard that, like the Scarecrow, you, too, need a brain.

I'm not a "so-called" liberal. I am a Liberal. A John Stuart Mill, John Locke, Thomas Paine, John F. Kennedy Liberal.

Nothing "so-called" about it.

I arrived at this position through education (staying awake and paying attention in high school and college classes), study and thinking.

The ideas of Liberalism started in ancient Athens, the first place in which Democracy existed. It was flawed, but it had good points that we could wisely incorporate today. For one thing, they had a foolproof method of preventing their law-makers from being bribed. Well worth re-examining today.

Plato was not a Democrat. Nor a Liberal. He believed in government by an elite (Philosopher Kings, of which he planned to be one himself).

In relatively more recent times, one of the first major steps in Liberalism and the establishment of Democracy was when King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta in 1215 A.D., limiting the power of the king and delineating a list of basic rights.

It's a long and on-going struggle, which included the French Revolution, wherein the bone of contention was protection of people in general from the abuses of the aristocracy. And the American Revolution and the United States freeing itself from the abuses of being a mere collection of exploitable colonies of an Empire.

There are those who would re-establish the abuses of "privilege," and it's Liberals and Progressives who are striving to prevent it. By keeping up on events, interpreting them in the light of a cohesive ethical philosophy, then participating in political action.

Those who are too damned lazy don't realize what others are doing in their behalf. And some of them have the unmitigated gall to insult and criticize those who, in the long run, are keeping them from the possibility of being hauled off to a concentration camp at somebody else's whim.

Don't thank us, Goofball. I wouldn't expect it from the likes of people like you.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Dec 13 - 09:04 PM

I posted the following on another thread in answer to some snide comments and insults from Goofballupagus, and I think it would be appropriate to post it here as well.

========

Tell you what, Goofball. When you get to Oz, tell the Wizard that, like the Scarecrow, you, too, need a brain.

I'm not a "so-called" liberal. I am a Liberal. A John Stuart Mill, John Locke, Thomas Paine, John F. Kennedy Liberal.

Nothing "so-called" about it.

I arrived at this position through education (staying awake and paying attention in high school and college classes), study and thinking.

The ideas of Liberalism started in ancient Athens, the first place in which Democracy existed. It was flawed, but it had good points that we could wisely incorporate today. For one thing, they had a foolproof method of preventing their law-makers from being bribed. Well worth re-examining today.

Plato was not a Democrat. Nor a Liberal. He believed in government by an elite (Philosopher Kings, of which he planned to be one himself).

In relatively more recent times, one of the first major steps in Liberalism and the establishment of Democracy was when King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta in 1215 A.D., limiting the power of the king and delineating a list of basic rights.

It's a long and on-going struggle, which included the French Revolution, wherein the bone of contention was protection of people in general from the abuses of the aristocracy. And the American Revolution and the United States freeing itself from the abuses of being a mere collection of exploitable colonies of an Empire.

There are those who would re-establish the abuses of "privilege," and it's Liberals and Progressives who are striving to prevent it. By keeping up on events, interpreting them in the light of a cohesive ethical philosophy, then participating in political action.

Those who are too damned lazy don't realize what others are doing in their behalf. And some of them have the unmitigated gall to insult and criticize those who, in the long run, are keeping them from the possibility of being hauled off to a concentration camp at somebody else's whim.

Don't thank us, Goofball. I wouldn't expect it from the likes of people like you.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Dec 13 - 09:21 PM

Goofball keeps referring to me as a "so-called liberal."

There is nothing "so-called" about it. I am a Liberal.

"If by a 'Liberal' you mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people—their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties—someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies, if that is what you mean by a 'Liberal', then I'm proud to say I'm a 'Liberal.'"
          —John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Dec 13 - 10:18 PM

I posted them twice, but I still have serious doubts that Goofballupagus will get it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Dec 13 - 10:33 PM

When are you ever going to stop turning every post that your misrepresented rap is up against the wall and start talking about yourself, and stick to something even near the topic? We know what a liberal is. We know what tyrants are. We know what dictators are. We know what corruption is. We also know what concerns parents have in raising their children.
Maybe if you would have raised yours, you could have gotten this shit out of your system, and stop act so condescending to those who DID take care of 'first things first'....after all, why should anyone pay any attention to a self absorbed fanatic, who wasn't concerned with dealing with the nuclear fabric of any society???
Don't confuse the love of and from a family, with the notoriety of 'being somebody'!
......especially when you've been asked to provide your vision of what how you see your perfect political world.....and can't seem to cough it up.
You either got it...or you don't....and all we get is lofty rhetoric that points back to your overly inflated opinion of yourself.
Comprende??

Sincerely,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Dec 13 - 10:37 PM

typo correction. delete the other one

When are you ever going to stop turning every post that your misrepresented rap is up against the wall and start talking about yourself, and stick to something even near the topic? We know what a liberal is. We know what tyrants are. We know what dictators are. We know what corruption is. We also know what concerns parents have in raising their children.
Maybe if you would have raised yours, you could have gotten this shit out of your system, and stop acting so condescending to those who DID take care of 'first things first'....after all, why should anyone pay any attention to a self absorbed fanatic, who wasn't concerned with dealing with the nuclear fabric of any society???
Don't confuse the love of and from a family, with the notoriety of 'being somebody'!
......especially when you've been asked to provide your vision of what how you see your perfect political world.....and can't seem to cough it up.
You either got it...or you don't....and all we get is lofty rhetoric that points back to your overly inflated opinion of yourself.
Comprende??

Sincerely,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Dec 13 - 11:15 PM

YOU are the one who is off-topic, Goofball. YOU insist or referring to "so-called liberals." I am pointing out that there is nothing "so-called" about following the Liberal philosophy.

But I don't expect YOU to be able to comprehend that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Dec 13 - 01:18 AM

Firth: "I am pointing out that there is nothing "so-called" about following the Liberal philosophy."

My use of 'so-called' refers to the phonies that hide behind a liberal philosophy...as in saying one thing that sounds cool, but not really being 'liberal'...so, with that in mind, feel free to explain how the Obama administration, and it's devotees, are following the 'liberal philosophy'...as long as we're going to keep it 'on topic'.
Furthermore, explain how Obama and crew are being consistent with your version of 'The Liberal Philosophy'....care to give it a shot?

...and while you're doing it, leave out the 'spin', nor justifying deceit or disinformation...after all, honorable things and ideas usually don't need those things.

Give 'er a whirl....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Dec 13 - 01:09 PM

Waiting.......
(maybe you don't have anything to say..because you don't really know)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Dec 13 - 01:33 PM

Oh, I have plenty to say, and obviously I know one helluva lot more than you do.

I have things to do in the 3D world, Goofball, and I'm not going to waste my time in a futile attempt to educate you in matters of facts and principles that you would have learned in high school if you hadn't spent all your time doping off.

So educated yourself!! I'll start you out with a guide:

Read the works of John Locke, considered the father of modern Liberalism, and John Stuart Mill, particularly Mill's On Liberty. Then, read Barack Obama's The Audacity of Hope to see how his ideas and political concepts square with the principles of Liberalism.

You should be able to get these books at your nearest public library.

It would take me far too long to list the various Liberal measures that President Obama has tried to implement, but he has had to fight an obstructionist Congress, hell-bent on seeing to it that his administration fails.

And in addition, he's had to deal with the horrendous mess that the previous administration left him, including the totally unnecessary war of attrition that George W. Bush got us into in Afghanistan.

And, of course, the hate-filled Songwrongers of this country who want him to fail for reasons of their own, which have nothing to do with his political principles, but more to do with the amount of melanin in his skin!

I was an eager kid in high school and I enjoyed history and American Civics classes, taught by Carl Lawrence at Seattle's Roosevelt High School. I even stayed over after school once a week to participate in a group discussion with other students on current events and politics, with Mr. Lawrence acting as our advisor.

At the University of Washington, in addition to my major, first in English Literature and Creative Writing, and later, Music, I took elective courses in Philosophy, Ethics, and Logic.

I recall reading the results of a national survey in which 4% of the respondents couldn't name the current President of the United States and over 50% could not name either of their Senators. Asked basic questions about the Constitution, they showed an abysmal ignorance of the entire document, especially the Bill of Rights!

Horrifyingly enough, this survey was conducted among college students!!

And things have gotten one helluva lot worse since then!!

I took responsibility for my own education. So YOU—take charge of YOURS!

GO READ A FEW BOOKS!!

Gotta go now. Company coming in a little while.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Dec 13 - 02:41 PM

Don, you are evading the question. What is YOUR vision of liberalism completing it's goal???

..and you can stop talking down your nose at me...if I was so fucking stupid, a simple answer from you should be able to 'blow me out of the water'.

So far, you say that Kennedy was a liberal...and you identify this that(?).

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Dec 13 - 04:48 PM

Besides the evidence showing that you are still evading a response,let me re-phrase a part of my last post...and also give you an opportunity to clarify your position...OK?

Re-phrase: "So far, you say that Kennedy was a liberal...and you identify with that(?)."

Do you agree with the whole of John Locke?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Dec 13 - 05:33 PM

Kennedy identified himself as a Liberal. Learn to read!

Not everything, but then one must judge for oneself.

And NO, I'm not going to give you an analysis of John Locke. He was early on, and there were a number of things that needed thinking out yet.

And no, I'm not evading a response. I want YOU to do some of the work yourself--for your OWN enlightenment and edification.

Besides, I could give you the answer to all the Secrets of the Universe and you'd STILL claim that I'm evading a response. You're not really interested. You want to just keep ragging me, and I won't play that game.

Get back to playing in the traffic.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Dec 13 - 10:34 PM

Don't worry, you are not the guy I'd ask to "Besides, I could give you the answer to all the Secrets of the Universe and you'd STILL claim that I'm evading a response."
First of all, who could trust your answers or explanations?!?!

..and John Locke had a few good ideas..but considering slaves as property wasn't one of them....even Karl Marx clocked him for being a hypocrite for that! (Maybe that's why you like him so much).

Funny, that Bobert probably didn't know that about your idol, being as Locke was also a huge investor in the 'Royal African Company' The MAJOR slave traders. He also was a participant in drafting the 'Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina' (Bobert country)which established a feudal aristocracy and gave a master absolute power over his slaves...AND was quoted in the Constitution(well almost)..his phrase 'life liberty and the pursuit of property', was changed to 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness'....because in Locke's version 'property meant slaves!!

Enough about Locke, your hero....In you post you gave yourself wiggle room to spin either way, whether you thought JFK was a liberal, or not...call it...was he?..or wasn't he??

OK..Your turn.....and stop evading....Tell us what the end 'goal' of liberalism is..and/or how Obama's policies, that you defend as liberal, are steps in that direction.

(Maybe he read Locke, and thought of turning the whole country into slaves was a great idea!)

Waiting...stop evading!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Dec 13 - 11:02 PM

I did NOT say that Locke was my hero. I made it specific that Locke was on the right track, but he was early and the ideas had a long way to go

You would LIE when the truth would fit better.

Or is it that you have a reading disability? If so, sorry about that, but it would explain your difficulties in understanding plain English.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Dec 13 - 01:09 AM

Well, if I were a Buddhist, and someone wanted my opinion on something perceived as 'spiritual'....umm..I'd probably say, "Have you heard of Buddha?"

OK..Diversion over....

In you post you gave yourself wiggle room to spin either way, whether you thought JFK was a liberal, or not...call it...was he?..or wasn't he??

OK..Your turn.....and stop evading....Tell us what the end 'goal' of liberalism is..and/or how Obama's policies, that you defend as liberal, are steps in that direction.

Simple...you even brought it up. Tell us what you meant.


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Dec 13 - 01:46 AM

John F. Kennedy was a Liberal.

HE said he was a Liberal.

Can you comprehend this? Or is this too complicated for you?

I posted this on 14 Dec 13 - 06:40 PM, above. READ it!! Here. I'll post it AGAIN.

"If by a 'Liberal' you mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people—their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties—someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies, if that is what you mean by a 'Liberal', then I'm proud to say I'm a 'Liberal.'"
          —John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage

And I agree wholeheartedly with Kennedy.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Dec 13 - 11:05 AM

OK....just wanted to make sure you nailed it down.
So now that we've arrived at that, can you show any similarities in their policies that would reflect that Obama and Kennedy had in common?

That should be easy....you'd think....if they both reflected the same outlook on that position.

What were they?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Dec 13 - 01:08 PM

Plenty of similarities in their policies.

But I am not responsible for YOUR education. Look it up yourself.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Dec 13 - 01:25 PM

There are??? You look it up...I'm not responsible for your spins. Name one.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Dec 13 - 03:21 PM

There are dozens of web sites outlining the parallels between Kennedy and Obama. Anyone who has been at least half-conscious of American political history knows these similarities and parallels.

Why should I be responsible for YOUR education?

You want to fill in the blanks in your (lack of) education, YOU look them up and read them. They're out there for anyone to check.

Or bloody-well remain ignorant. It's up to you.

Don Firth

P. S. If I say, "The earth is round and water is wet," things that everyone with a brain knows, why should I waste my time arguing with you about it? Sooner go have a barking fest with my neighbor's nasty little Yorkshire terrier.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Dec 13 - 03:56 PM

Oh, stop acting so snobby(it's unbecoming)...you aren't as educated as you try to make off.

Here, I'll give you one...(almost)...Social Security and Medicare (though Obamacare has in it the shrinking of funding for both Medicare and Medicaid over time...)

Taxes? nope..JFK thought that cutting taxes was good for the economy..in fact Reagan was criticized (or praised) for his 'Reaganomics' as not being original, but a repeat of JFK's policies.

Size of government?..Check out some of the quotes from JFK and you tell me...

"I don't believe in big government"—Kennedy-Nixon Presidential Debate, 1960

"I believe in the balanced budget"—Kennedy-Nixon Presidential Debate, 1960

Would you ever hear those words come out of the mouth of Obama? Pelosi? Biden? Wasserman-Schultz?

NASA?...Obama cut NASA JFK made it a priority.

Foreign policy?...Any 'preemptive strikes' or other such, such as Libya? Afghanistan?..BTW Obama promised to be out of Afghanistan BY 2014...don't know if you noticed, but we're still there...(must be that opium trade, huh?)
Cuba??..No invasion support for the Mafia and oil corps/intelligence community for that one..but a blockade to keep the missiles from being delivered...which ended with us having to remove our missiles from Turkey as part of the negotiated settlement. The 'Bay of Pigs' invasion was correctly NOT supported by JFK..and as a result, he wanted such operations UNDER the military and Commander in Chief, instead of 'private groups'...causing him to commission the SEALS for such covert ops..putting them UNDER the military...(more on that, if you'd like)...
Syria??..Well JFK gained the respect from the world for standing up to the Soviets..Obama was a puss with his 'Red line' rhetoric, and Putin had to come in and he gained respect.
Allies??..The trusted us then...they don't now....in fact they are leery of us.
Monetary policies?..He wanted to abolish the Fed. Obama is married to them.
.....and more, but those are pretty major ones that if he were doing those today, you'd label him a 'Conservative'.

Unions?..He was NOT anti-union, BUT, he was anti corruption in the unions....(some people can't tell the difference).

Did I think JFK was a GREAT president?..Not all the way, he was considered weak in the first two years, but he did step up to the plate....and, though I didn't/don't agree with his morals, at least he had better taste in his women!

On that one, you and I should agree!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Dec 13 - 04:28 PM

Oh, I forgot...in October of '63 he(JFK) signed a directive, reducing any military in Vietnam and called for our un-involvement in what was termed(at the time) as their 'civil war'...(those pesky oil companies knew that there were huge oil deposits in the Gulf of Ton-kin...you mean those same oil companies who had the supply ship for the Bay of Pigs....Zapata oil, and the freighter 'Barbara'...Zapata is owned by the Bushes, and the 'Barbara' was named after George Herbert's wife, as he also named his planes during WWII.....

Did you know that?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Dec 13 - 04:43 PM

The times and the foreign and domestic situations were quite different between their administrations. Each dealt with quite different circumstances and acted in a manner appropriate to the situation. A basic knowledge of recent (twentieth and twenty-first century history) history should tell you that.

And although Jackie was a very beautiful woman, Michelle is gorgeous!

Even Vogue Magazine thinks so. CLICKY.

(Unless, of course, you have a prejudice against girls with nice tans.)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Dec 13 - 05:02 PM

.....but Marylin and Jackie????..come on now!
As a side note, Bill Clinton has absolutely NO taste....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Dec 13 - 05:04 PM

...and if you want to see Babara Bush....look at the picture of George Washington on a one dollar bill!!!..Hold them up, next to each other..

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Dec 13 - 06:09 PM

When Barbara Bush first heard that her son George was running for President, her response was to stand there for several seconds with her mouth open in amazement and horror.

Then she rolled her eyes.

I think she new something the rest of the country was to find out the hard way!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Dec 13 - 07:14 PM

". . . knew. . . ."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Dec 13 - 07:28 PM

Well...she should...she raised him...

Now... back to this: "Tell us what the end 'goal' of liberalism is..and/or how Obama's policies, that you defend as liberal, are steps in that direction.
Simple...you even brought it up. Tell us what you meant."

the other one wasn't so bad, now was it?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Dec 13 - 10:02 PM

It strikes me as odd--if not obscene--that the most virulent critics of Obama's presidency seem incapable of identifying specific sins with any detail, and resort instead to sweeping descriptions that are asbout as clear as the middle of a frenetic squall in a dark night.

My impression, backed up by a lot of charts and statistics I have seen, is that the overall condition of the country is improving in spite of heavy obstructionism and almost psychotic reactionary stopping.

Here are a number of telling statistical charts that paint the picture.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Dec 13 - 10:14 PM

The "end goal," as you so quaintly put it, is inherent in the overall goals of the Liberal philosophy, which you will find laid out clearly in John Stuart Mill's On Liberty.

As I keep saying, why should I spend my valuable time trying to educated you when the answers to your questions are laid out clearly by one of the major founders of the school of thought, easily available from any library for you to read for yourself.

I'm sure President Obama has read it quite thoroughly.

It's a tad more difficult than

My name is Dick.
My sister's name is Jane.
We have a dog named Spot.

but it's not a great, thick tome. My copy is a paperback and it runs maybe 100 pages. YOU might be able to finish it in a year or two.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Dec 13 - 11:50 PM

So, when they get to the 'end goal', what next?....write new rules??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Dec 13 - 04:24 AM

....like John Locke's influence of the 'progressives' of the day....broke away from the church/state tyranny?....made people sovereign, instead of the church/ state(Second Reich) and was rather revolutionary in concept....and while people tried to escape from the church/state's bondage, they found a place, across the sea, where they could get away from the elitist control freaks, to do and live the way they wanted...without the fucknut state/church/government fucking with them, and keeping them poor with heavy taxation, the feudal system, and control of the money.....YEAH!!..let's get the hell away from those jerk-offs.....and they came here.....and they wrote those rules to insure that shit wouldn't happen again...fought a couple of wars, too...and the got together and wrote the new rules...an extremely progressive and ballsy concept.....it was to be the rule of the land.
But first, they had to serve notice to everything that controlled them from their old countries....and called it a Declaration of Independence.....and then drew up the Constitution...COMPLETELY RADICAL.....but even then, there were those who saw ways to make profits, and hustle unsuspecting people and companies..and to do that, they looked for ways to control the money....just like what they fled from...but to pull it off, the hustlers had to get around the new rules....and buy politicians to look the other way, and to even get the public convinced that it would be in their best interest, to give up their money and freedom...and entrust it into the hands of the hustlers...."Now if only we could get around those damn rules!!"
There were even hustlers who promoted their con game, by convincing people to believe that THEIR group are the ones who believed in those radically progressive rules.....but alas, they also sold the people a bad bill of goods, just to fleece them, and conned them into getting the people, to allow them to do their thinking for them....while of course, fleecing them too....

As I posted previously....today's Liberals are tomorrow's Conservatives........just ask anyone who wants to hold on to those earlier radically progressive rules!

;~P

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Dec 13 - 03:55 PM

There is no "end goal" to a policy of Liberalism. "Liberal" should be thought of, not as a noun, but as a verb. It is a process of establishing and maintaining the freest possible society consistent with good order. In a Liberal society, everyone is free to seek to realize his or her own potential.

But not at the expense of others, such as the employer who reaps huge profits while paying his employees, who make all this wealth possible, less than a living wage. And then, who ships all his profits to a numbered Swiss bank account or to an account in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying his fair share of taxes.

Liberalism also seeks to provide a safety net for those who are simply unable to make it on their own, such as the disabled, or the elderly who are no longer able to earn a living.

It also seeks to make certain that people are not subject to a burden of debt for medical expenses should they need health care. In many other countries, health care is free to the patient, paid for by the government, which also makes certain than charges for various aspects of health care are not exorbitant (such as a durable health care equipment company charging $675.00 for a pair of power wheelchair batteries when a pair of the exact, same batteries should cost no more than $150.00!).

It's a simple enough aim. But there are those who want to profit from the efforts of others, and who will exploit them, given the chance.

That's a much oversimplified view, but that is the basic idea. The rest is refinement and commentary.

Naturally, those who would exploit others do everything they can to bad-mouth those who hold an ethical philosophy of Liberalism and who work to frustrate their efforts to prey on others.

They call them "so-called liberals" or "loony liberals" and generally try to denigrate them.

But just remember—you are only one virus--or one auto accident, or one false step on a stairway from finding yourself needing that safety net that the "loony liberals" are fighting to make sure is always there for you, should you—when you—need it.

So, think twice before participating in—The Big Lie.

And a part of that "Big Lie" is that "today's Liberals are tomorrow's Conservatives."

What about Ted Turner, who built a sports stadium in Atlanta, Georgia on his own dime! He didn't try to get the taxpayers to pay for it, he paid for it himself. Then, when he gave away $1 billion to charity, and received savage criticism from several of his fellow billionaires (they felt he was "setting a bad example" [inadvertently shaming them by doing so]), he responded by saying, "Who in the hell NEEDS that much money, anyway!??"

And billionaire Warren Buffet, who has given away billions. On CBS's "60 Minutes" a couple of weeks ago, he made the statement, along with Bill and Melinda Gates, that if the billionaires in this country would give at least half of their wealth to charities or other good causes, they would essentially end poverty in this country, and many other countries as well, but it would leave them enough to maintain their manor houses, fleets of limousines, and yachts. "You can only spend so much money," he said, "and the rest of it lays idle, doing nothing!"

Bill and Melinda Gates have given away a vast percentage of their wealth, much more than half, and said that they are determined to eradicate polio and several other diseases from the earth.

There, Goofy, are your "loony liberals."

What have YOU done lately?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Dec 13 - 05:52 PM

Firth: "There is no "end goal" to a policy of Liberalism. "Liberal" should be thought of, not as a noun, but as a verb. It is a process of establishing and maintaining the freest possible society consistent with good order. In a Liberal society, everyone is free to seek to realize his or her own potential."

Then, if that's the case, you would be calling attention to the CORRUPTION that has been a cancer in the body politic...regardless of party...being as both have been corrupted...wouldn't you say??
It is through that corruption of both our politicians and basic Constitution(remember, that new set of rules put in place by those VERY progressive founding fathers) that make it possible to choke off benefits for those who may be in need, just to stuff the pockets of the manipulators of crooked agendas, and corruptors, blurring the lines of the boundaries...which were originally set in place, to insure fair play for everyone.
How can one say they are against the policies of one party or another..and then do so by employing lies, deceit and misinformation...custom made, to suit one party or the other???
For some reason, the 'so-calleds' (either party or 'mindset') seem to promote corruption...if it comes from their respected party..and blast those from the 'other', when the 'other' is merely pointing it out??
How can ANYONE look at the present Obamacare program and not see it as a scam and/or a hotbed for scammers..whether it be the Government? the insurance companies, healthcare providers, big Pharma, or just your favorite identity thief??
I would have been in favor of the government spending their time an resources cleaning up the old system from it's corruption.....except what stood in that way, was the corrupt pieces of shit who obstructed that process...from BOTH parties.
Aetna insurance(on the 'Exchange') with 50 million+ insured rejected Obama's 'fix', by letting those cancelled programs be reinstated....My my my, how 'patriotic' of them...Why????....They aren't going to consider people or their well-being over their ill gained profits!!..Are you kidding me??!!...Their bullshit corruption help form the ACA in the first place, to benefit themselves..why would they want anything fixed???...but if you or I point that out, some 'political parrot mental midgets' start jumping up and down frantically frothing, shouting 'Racist..bigot' and other such nonsense....and the root of the problem gets overshadowed, forgotten and rolls away on the wheels of, 'Because he's in the 'other' party'.
....and YOU can't deny that you've been innocent of that yourself! Perhaps it's one's own transgressions into corrupt behavior, that causes those people to think they have to cut some slack.
The whole argument about Conservative vs Liberal is so much bullshit, anyway....It creates the atmosphere for the corrupt manipulators to get away with virtually anything they want, never satisfying either 'group', while they open and shut doors to their own purposes, at will....and get away Scott free, while the 'so-calleds' are pointing fingers and screaming at each other!!
Do you think that the people who caused the problems in the first place are just going to jump up and 'fix' them???..Fuck no!..That means they'd have to admit they were wrong, and have to cut their ill gained profits, that they're making to correct the error....why do that, when you can just blame another group.
Example: Bobert still blames the Republicans for Bill Clinton signing the bill repealing Glass-Steagal!...meanwhile the villains got away Scott free with massive profits damaging lives of MILLIONS, and fucking up economies across the world!!...and as long as we're blaming everybody BUT those culpable, AND NOT HOLDING THEM RESPONSIBLE, they are just laughing all the way to the new bank their building!
This Obamacare bullshit is another one.....forced to sign up to pay more money, to the people who don't even know you signed up, less benefits, and penalized for not signing up..onto an unsecured, inefficient, nonworking website!...with a deadline or face fines! What a fucking Win-Win scam for everyone but the people needing healthcare!!! Do you think that the lobbyists nor the people they're giving blowjobs to, give a rat's ass about anyone who is going to die, because of it???? Fuck no!....just blame it on someone else...let the parrots pick up the cause!....."Call room service, I need a softer pillow.."

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Dec 13 - 06:17 PM

Goofball, what the hell are you blithering on about?

I never said that I am a member of the Democratic--or any other party. I am a Liberal, which is not the same thing as a Democrat.

Although the Democratic Party is a lot closer to Liberal ideals than the Republican Party is. Nor did I ever say that I was all that enthralled with Barack Obama. But come election time, he was the best candidate who actually had a chance of winning--against a really bad alternative.

I think Obama's heart is in the right place, but he simply doesn't have the charisma it takes to ram his ideas through an obstructionist Congress.

The last truly effective Liberal president this country has had was Franklin D. Roosevelt. He was very effective--for reasons I haven't time to go into right now.

Later.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Dec 13 - 07:07 PM

Yup, Amos...

When asked about specific beefs about policy the haters can only come up with very generalized criticism such as "Obamacare is a failure"???

Well, that say nothing at all...

This is 100% about Obama being black... Here he went and pushed a very Republican health care reform bill and is now being criticized by the Republicans for doing so???

No, this is all about race and racism... Not policies... Just pure disgusting racists acting out like their daddies and grand daddies did in the Klan...

I have seen it all before...

This ain't imagined... This is the real deal...

The Tea Party is the new KKK... Period!!!

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Dec 13 - 07:42 PM

I'm sure Bobert is right!

I'm an old geek and I've been around since FDR's administration. There are damned few presidents who have had to fly through as much flak as he did—Conservatives really hated him because he used the power of government to benefit, not their interests, but the interests of the entire nation, which was undergoing a major depression at the time--25% unemployment!

Yet, as nasty as the attacks against Roosevelt were ("He's a Jew who's trying a Jewish take-over of the United States. After all, his name is really 'Rosenfelt!'"—not true, incidentally. "He's a Socialist, he's a Communist," (we didn't know for sure in the thirties what a Nazi was, but they called him that too, despite the fact that many who hated him were Nazi sympathizers—interestingly enough!!).

But as bad as it was, it wasn't as bad as some of the hateful attacks being made on President Barack Obama.

Now, just why might that be, eh? What's "different" about President Obama?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Dec 13 - 10:10 PM

Oh good grief!..here we go again..the one trick ponies frothing about racism just exactly like I just pointed out in my previous post!

HEY Bobert! You can thank John Locke, the 'Father of Liberalism' for that!! Here is an excerpt of my response to Firth, who referred me to John Locke, as the 'Father of Liberalism'....

"..and John Locke had a few good ideas..but considering slaves as property wasn't one of them....even Karl Marx clocked him for being a hypocrite for that! (Maybe that's why you like him so much).

Funny, that Bobert probably didn't know that about your idol, being as Locke was also a huge investor in the 'Royal African Company' The MAJOR slave traders. He also was a participant in drafting the 'Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina' (Bobert country)which established a feudal aristocracy and gave a master absolute power over his slaves...AND was quoted in the Constitution(well almost)..his phrase 'life liberty and the pursuit of property', was changed to 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness'....because in Locke's version 'property meant slaves!!"

Gosh, did you know that?? No wonder the South is so absorbed with liberalism and prejudice!

Food for thought.....don't get indigestion...after all it was Firth that has been carrying on about Locke and liberalism...
Personally I think Conservatism/Liberalism and/or party politics is just a mental disorder......sorta like schizophrenia....you can't distinguish reality from fantasy, and illusion!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Dec 13 - 10:44 PM

Goofball, you're an idiot!

I mentioned John Locke as one of the early advocates of Liberalism, BUT, that there were many things to be worked out yet. And I emphasized John Stuart Mill, even recommending his book, On Liberty, which you obviously ignored, choosing to fasten on Locke's mistakes.

In the same sense as Athens being the first home of Democracy, it made many mistakes to begin with. But it was the FIRST, and there were wrinkles to be ironed out.

Are you deliberately misconstruing what I said or are you really that much of a fool?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Dec 13 - 11:28 PM

What's wrong with you??
There is nothing in my last post that is inaccurate, or that takes a poke at you....Oh, and thank you for pointing the direction to John Locke.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Dec 13 - 11:43 PM

Well, there it is, folks.

Goofball isn't interested in discussing matters of political philosophy. He just wants to attack me personally.

Well, I'm not going to play that game.

(And I know what he's going to say in his next post.)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Dec 13 - 11:57 AM

WHAT????????!!!!????

I thought we were having a useful exchange, for once.......(though I don't totally agree with everything you put forth Firth).

Actually the last 3-5 posts are VERY telling. You seem to be pretty fragile, in the emotional department. You just flew off the handle for no reason.

GfS

P.S. See
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Dec 13 - 10:10 PM .........Last two sentences!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 18 Dec 13 - 12:17 PM

Goofy,
Your little dog and pony show designed to ridicule Don Firth is pathetic. Believe me, people on this forum see right through it.
Mr. Firth hardly needs me to defend him as he is an intelligent, well informed and thoughtful poster who articulates his positions very clearly. You could learn a lot from him if you didn't have your head up your ass.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Dec 13 - 12:54 PM

Thank you, Gillymor.

I keep making the mistake of assuming that Goofy is actually interested in the country's politics when all he really wants to do is bitch and complain, express hate for President Obama, and trash me and a couple of others.

Let's face it, he's nothing but a common troll!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Dec 13 - 01:23 PM

Let's face it, he's nothing but a common troll!

I beg to differ - he's a rather exceptional troll.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Dec 13 - 01:53 PM

Well, yeah, Greg, he's got the art of trolling down pretty well.

But when it comes to exceptional trolls, we have an exception troll right here in Seattle, in the Fremont District (said to be the Center of the Universe). He resides under the north end of the Aurora Avenue (Highway 99) bridge.

Fremont Troll.

Whereas, I believe Goofballupagus is more THIS species of troll.

Or perhaps THIS?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Dec 13 - 02:06 PM

You think?? YOU're the one who alluded to 'liberals' goal is never reached....like it's their job to keep bitching forever...but have no set goal..just go back and read your posts.

What I asked from you, was, "Tell us what the end 'goal' of liberalism is..and/or how Obama's policies, that you defend as liberal, are steps in that direction."
You keep dancing around..until(sorta) you posted, "There is no "end goal" to a policy of Liberalism. "Liberal" should be thought of, not as a noun, but as a verb."

Now, that being said, Has it occurred to you that there are those(corporations, political groups, government etc, etc.) that has gone on to exploit 'liberalism' just to stuff their own pockets, or use it for paybacks...while under the guise of 'helping people who need it' are really exploiting them, for a fast LARGE buck???
Wouldn't you call the 'SO-CALLED liberals'??..and whom have done more to hurt TRUE liberal causes than even those 'Right Wing Conservatives'???
.......and what's really the pisser, is when the parrots defend the rip-off artists, all in the 'good name' of 'caring'!!!
NOBODY NEEDS to believe their lies!!....So why repeat them??
(maybe it's just a bad habit)....and as far as the need to bitch more, to get something done...shit, just listen to a post-menopausal spouse!(or in your case, be one)!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Dec 13 - 02:27 PM

And a very slow learner, if at all.

I EXPLAINED QUITE CLEARLY, you dunce, that Liberalism is a PROCESS, not a goal, per se. The end goal, if it can be said that there IS an end goal, is a Liberal Society, in which everyone has a chance to realize their best potential, and the sick, disabled, and elderly need not worry about how they're going to manage--on top of all their other difficulties.

Wait a minute! I think I said all this before.

But Goofball doesn't really care. He just wants to be snotty.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Dec 13 - 03:26 PM

Speaking of 'PROCESS'...then why aren't you objecting to those who subvert 'liberalism' because of their CORRUPT practices??...especially in the name of 'Liberalism?' It's not any less corrupt than the 'so-called Conservatives' manipulating 'patriotism', for their mindset(which, BTW, they had defined FOR them)..just like liberals are having their mindset defined for them by corrupt party 'leaders'...just so they can get away with their criminal cons!!!

Example: Kissinger trading Saudi Arabia a moratorium on domestic drilling, as long as Saudi Arabia buys our bonds.....and then selling the idea to the 'environmentalists',(through Carter) that it was all about the environment????? That was no Environmental victory....it was a con!...and as soon as Saudi Arabia gets under attack, from any number of(our?) supported groups, we drill here, leaving the 'old regime' holding a bunch of worthless bonds...meanwhile, SOMEBODY makes off with the profits(being as they won't have to be paid back)...and do you think THAT is going to find its way into the hands of the needy????? .....and Carter was USED to pull it off, under the guise of 'liberal' causes. I'm telling you that BOTH sides are working in tandem...and to be very careful on also being used!
(Actually, it's a rather slick maneuver by some very powerful people..with FORESIGHT!)....but it's not 'Liberalism' OR Conservatism'.

And one more pertinent note: When 'Racist' and 'Bigot', and other stupid name calling gets thrown around, I guess the folks who ran out of answers, and whose backs are against the wall, then turn to the use of the word 'Troll'. So, is troll another word for, "I give up, you are just agitating for no reason!..Don't tell anyone that I ran out of answers!"
Get serious! You're not fooling any one with your mutual 'pats on the backs'.

If you have a salient point..put it forth, and talk it over like your point has a point! YOU might find out that you've been manipulated, and if the point is made CORRECTLY, the person you are 'debating' with might learn something as well.......that is, if there is something REAL to be taught!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Dec 13 - 06:17 PM

Those who corrupt Liberalism in the name of Liberalism are not really Liberals.

You can call yourself a Liberal 'til hell freezes over, but if you act like Attila the Hun, you ain't no Liberal.

That does not invalidate the principles of Liberalism.

I have given you "salient points" all through this discussion, but you are either too thick-headed or mean-spirited to get it.

Don Firth

P. S. And, no, "troll" is what you are. You've been a troll ever since you came on Mudcat. I'm waiting for you to go the way of "Martin Gibson," who made himself so obnoxious his IP number got blocked.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 13 - 10:09 PM

Firth: "P. S. And, no, "troll" is what you are. You've been a troll ever since you came on Mudcat. I'm waiting for you to go the way of "Martin Gibson," who made himself so obnoxious his IP number got blocked."


I guess the folks who ran out of answers, and whose backs are against the wall, then turn to the use of the word 'Troll'. So, is troll another word for, "I give up, you are just agitating for no reason!..Don't tell anyone that I ran out of answers!"
Get serious!

You sound like your back is REALLY against the wall!!!

Hey, guess what? Your 'Liberal Fathers' are weak 'Johnny come lately' versions of the real thing....
This happened as a result of........
of something that made THIS alive!
..and for those who 'got it' it lives within them....not something to co-coerce OTHERS TO DO! ...so profiteers can rip you off, and keep you poor and needy!


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Dec 13 - 11:01 PM

No, my back is not against the wall.

It is patently obvious that you are not asking for information, you just want to argue to puff yourself up. I GIVE you the information, and then you move, not only the goal posts, but the whole damned field.

Obvious tactics of a troll.

CLICKY.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Dec 13 - 11:52 PM

Well you sure 'nuff convinced me!!
.....too intellectual for my taste.....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Dec 13 - 10:18 PM

Hey!..Obama is going to let you get your 'bare-bone' policies back..for the unaffordable 'bronze plan price'...if you lost your policy due to being dropped........Merry Christmas!.......(if the insurers will go along......which they said they wouldn't because it would just lead to more confusion......)

Sorry....that's what the 'news' reported tonight....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Dec 13 - 01:47 AM

I posted that this would happen..exactly! and said that for Democrats, they'd feel like Reubplicans, right before Watergate!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Dec 13 - 01:51 AM

ooops I misspelled via typo 'Republicans'...make that 'Reptilians'...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Dec 13 - 11:18 PM

Here's an interesting Gallup Poll...Libs may not like it....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Dec 13 - 08:03 PM

Well well well.

Auntie Zeituni and uncle Omar can stay but Uwe and Hannelore Romeike must go.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 11:23 AM

I've been noticing that the 'libs' are deafeningly silent, as the headlines unfold day to day.....
...so, is silence contentment...or are they too embarrassed to speak?????

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 11:32 AM

Bored, GfS? Your last fight-thread was closed a few days ago. You have no one to argue with so you're raising a red flag in an old thread?

Your intent is clear. Go for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 12:07 PM

Well, I thought you closed it and deleted my last post, for Don's sake. As for 'bored'..well I could say,'Less than exhilarated' by what I'm hearing on the news, day to day....but, 'I told you so'..I also said, repeatedly that Jordan, then Saudi Arabia would have severe problems, and the Keystone would be approved...and you know what??...it looks as if that is EXACTLY what is about to happen(among other 'events') that our 'ever so wise' ideologues are blind to....Bitch all you want, but you can't argue with accuracy!.....and I'm NOT partisan...being one only blinds you to half of the 'other side'....
How 'bout you?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 06:19 PM

This just reported(True story!)

The IRS is claiming that they've lost the last two years of Lois Lerner's E-mails.....sounds a bit like 'the dog ate my homework'...I wonder if any of those 'brainiacs' thought of checking with the NSA!! They have every one's!!!

Don't you just love dishonest politicians??!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jun 14 - 03:53 AM

Heard Hillary the Hawk on BBC today, defending the invasion of Iraq and all that flowed from it.
The interviewer asked, "So you invaded because Saddam was a bad man"? "Oh no" said HtH "I think he was a lot worse than bad"

When are these people going to realise that "democracy" and "equality" are not Universal rights. When are we going to realise that we cannot transplant even our dreadfully flawed system to every part of the world and expect the populace to behave in the same way as we have been conditioned to do.
If we had any balls left we would be setting fire to the White House and the palace of Westminster and stringing up all the politicians who support this madness, placing us all in grave danger of terrorist attack by fundamentalists.

Our socio-economic system is about to collapse, the bubbles are running out and so is time, the future of Capitalism lies in the East an we will soon be a stagnant backwater....unfortunately the ex-Communist countries have learned how to make Capitalism work much better than we ever could, and that is by suppression of personal freedom.
We used theft and exploitation to enrich afew through Capitalism, add suppression of thought and free speech and you have a system that is impregnable.

Liberalism and Capitalism are not compatible.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Jun 14 - 12:55 PM

Sometimes you gotta' wonder.....are these people S-O-O incompetent, and dishonest, that it is a ploy, to get people to rise up, so that they can take off their masks and crackdown without ANY oversight or discretion....I am NOT for ANY violent civil unrest....concocted, or otherwise...but it sure has got to make you wonder!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Jul 14 - 01:50 PM

Flashback: "WHo, how and where should the Obama administration place its priorities to turn around the divisions and bitternesses that have poisoned our nation for the last many years, and start healing its Union, and its economy, and its repute, and its political framework."

He has only made things worse which has earned him the title: The Worst President

"President Obama has topped [bottomed] predecessor George W. Bush in another poll"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 05 Jul 14 - 03:37 PM

Of course the other 11 have completed their time in office and our president is now well into his second term where most presidents traditionally don't do well in polls. Get back to me in about 15 years when the ACA is well established and we can fairly judge all of President Obama's accomplishments.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Jul 14 - 03:38 PM

Who? The Republicans, particularly the Teabagger idiots.

How? By not acting like spoiled 3-year-olds.

Where? In the House, mostly, but also in the Senate.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Jul 14 - 04:31 PM

"all of President Obama's accomplishments"

He let us keep our doctor PERIOD.
He let us keep our health insurance no matter what.
He kept his promise to address immigration in his first year when he had control of the House and Senate.
He Kept his promise to eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year.
He Kept his promise to end no-bid federal contracts above $25,000
He Kept his promise to forbid companies in bankruptcy from giving executives bonuses.
He Kept his promise to reduce the Veterans Benefits Administration claims backlog.
He Kept his promise to not pit Red America against Blue America and be the president
 of the United States of America.

Didn't he?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Jul 14 - 04:51 PM

G'bye, fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 12:48 PM

Hey Greg....Sawzaw's list is VERY short, and I could add a lot more...so your 'rebuttal'(?) of calling him a fool is in itself VERY foolish....
.....or maybe you just can't dispute his list!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 02:24 PM

Or maybe it's so obviously bogus it doesn't merit bothering with.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 03:19 PM

GfS is so full of shite.
Lois Lerner lost the emails in 2011, reported the computer crash, and tried to recover everything... All of this two years before the "scandal" was manufactured by Issa and thugs. Two years before!

But if Obama is capable of planting his own birth announcement in the Honolulu papers 50 years before his election, Lerner could easily pull of this plant two years ahead, right GfS?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 06:13 PM

Check with the ISP or the NSA...I'm sure one of them have a copy...

Hey, you left out how he said he was going to run the most transparent administration.....blah blah blah......and I see you left out EVERYTHING Sawzaw posted.....what's the matter?..cat got your tongue...or you lost it with the E-mails??

GfS

P.S. Oh, about those 'shovel ready jobs'....
they're shoveling, alright!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 07:06 PM

You got caught red-handed spouting lies, so you are shouting about other things to distract. Little kids do this.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 07:51 PM

Don, you either are making this up, or are posting to someone else...and for truth's sake, stop hiding!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 08:59 PM

Not hiding, Goofus. The GUEST just above is not me.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 10:46 AM

Well at least the thread is back up...and as long as it is...go get yourself an education....there's LOTS of documented posts in here, as you requested!!

...and BTW, 'Guest' sure sounds like you...maybe he didn't want to admit that....but then again, maybe it was you...It wouldn't be the first time you hid behind 'Guest'.....

...anyway go check out some of the posts...beardedbruce has some accurate ones, as does Sawzaw...and note all the crap they took for it, now that a lot of them proved out to be true!......regardless of the source!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 10:56 AM

Goofus:
"...and BTW, 'Guest' sure sounds like you...maybe he didn't want to admit that....but then again, maybe it was you...It wouldn't be the first time you hid behind 'Guest'....."

Glass houses, Goofy, glass houses.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 01:56 PM

Lying as usual, Goofy. I use my own real name (unlike you!), and I have never posted as "Guest," with the rare exception of when my cookie has vanished, and when I notice that, I reset my cookie, then return to the thread and identify my post.

I'm not afraid to stand by what I say.

You, on the other hand.......

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 06:45 PM

Quick!!..Get the lynch mob!!...Damn, where is a rope when you really need one??!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Not Don Firth
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 07:48 PM

This is not Don Firth.

And you, GfS, have posted as numerous people (Cecil and lansing to name just two, but there are more). And I have the proof, so STF_.

I choose to remain anonymous because you seem truly and deeply troubled, and I do not want to be the target of your obsessive pathology. But your horseshit should not go unchallenged in any case.

Lois Lerner lost her emails two years before Issa manufactured the IRS scandal. She reported it immediately, and worked with the techies to try to recover them. Issa, Ryan, and the Repub thugs are feigning almighty outrage, and you are eating it up despite your hollow claims to being non-partisan.

Consider your shit challenged. Now scream about anything else to distract. You are busted.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 08:23 PM

I am??? According to your unsubstantiated talking point????
Gosh. I'm convinced!

(rolls eyes)...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 09:45 PM

...and yes, I know about Cecil and lansing....music friends putting in their two cents worth, on our computer...now where's that lynch mob???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 09:53 PM

Sounds like a substantial talking point to me. If you can prove that Guest Who Is Not Me is wrong, then do so. WITH substantiation. Don't just sit there and roll your eyes. You look like an idiot.

BUT with clear and concise documentation, nothing from any of those supermarket tabloid internet newsletters you usually cite.

Don Firth
(Official and ordained. I was not born in Kenya OR Hawaii, I was born in Los Angeles and, like President Obama's, my birth certificate is real, but mine was issued by the state of California rather than Hawaii. I have never been a family counselor, nor have I ever claimed to be one. And I don't write music or screen plays, nor have I ever claimed to. I sing traditional songs to the accompaniment of a classic guitar. And when not performing folk songs and ballads, I have worked as a news director and editor at an ABC affiliated radio station, and as a technical writer and editor of the Bonneville Power Administration, so I CAN tell the difference between doggy droppings and shoe polish, unlike....    No, I'll just leave it there.).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 11:11 PM

What part of L.A.?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 11:31 PM

Don't know. I was born in a hospital in Los Angeles, but we lived in Pasadena for the first nine years of my life. Than we returned to the Pacific Northwest, where my parents were from.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 11:36 PM

Remember going to The Rose Parade, on Colorado?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 12:49 PM

Yep. Twice when I was a little sprat. 1939, when the Grand Marshal was Shirley Temple, then again in 1940, when the Grand Marshal was (were) Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy.

Didn't go to the Rose Bowl games though.

Part of the time we were living in Pasadena, we lived one block north of Colorado Boulevard. Not the part where the parade went, though. Does not far from McKinley High School ring a bell?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 01:21 PM

Yeah, I went a couple of times, myself...even went to a Bowl game, with my Dad..it was Michigan and Ohio, I think...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 04:36 PM

But let's not stray from the topic too far.....but alas...the posts that asked deeper questions have been deleted, as well.

Oh well, that's liberalism!!...Freedom of speech is NOT one of their platforms, for dissenting opinions, other than their own!...though they claim it as their 'right' when it comes to running their mouths...
Such astounding hypocrisy!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 05:37 PM

"Freedom of speech is NOT one of their [Liberals| platforms....."

Totally wrong!

Who do you think wrote that into the Constitution in the first place? Not King George III, who wanted things to stay the same, i.e., which, within the context of the configuration, made him a Conservative.

Where the hell do you get this stuff, Goofus? Certainly not from the Real World!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 07:06 PM

Are you trying to tell me that you believe in our Constitution??
I was commenting on the fact that the 'so-calleds' seemingly go overboard in censoring things that are not along their interpretation of their 'ideology'.
Besides that, today's 'liberals' are tomorrows Conservatives..once they get their stuff implemented. They don't seem to be very tolerant of accountability, when found to either be in error(though they can't seem to admit error, when it is pointed out!), or hypocritical.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 07:14 PM

"Nixon was far more liberal than I"---Barrack Obama

GfS

P.S. Either he is wrong..(won't be the first time) or is lying (won't be the first time...or doesn't know what he is talking about.
You pick!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 09:17 PM

Out of context!

On Fox News, in an interview with Bill O'Reilly, and after a lot of badgering from O'Reilly, Obama said that Nixon was more liberal than he was on certain issues.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 12:44 AM

Guest, Not Don Firth: "Lois Lerner lost her emails two years before Issa manufactured the IRS scandal. She reported it immediately, and worked with the techies to try to recover them. Issa, Ryan, and the Repub thugs are feigning almighty outrage, and you are eating it up despite your hollow claims to being non-partisan."

Oh yeah??? Note the TIME!

"The email did not mention the investigation then being conducted by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. It was sent a month before Lerner broke the news of the tea party targeting at a law conference, not mentioning what congressional inquiries she was concerned about."

From this article...and there are a bunch of them....

Issa witch hunt????


..and another....Read them!

Sometimes being an ideologue DOES get in the way!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Definitely not Don Firth - he needs no help
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 08:41 AM

From Dickhead from Sanity's link…

"Former IRS official Lois Lerner said she warned her colleagues to be careful about what they write in emails amid congressional inquiries, according to new emails released by House Oversight Republicans."

Who would not be careful what they say during a witch hunt? This is proof only that she is aware that Issa will seize and distort anything - just like you.

The second link repeats that she was worried about congress reading her emails *during* the investigation (notice the word "amid" up there… you know what this means don't you?).

As you say "Note the TIME". You have jumped ahead two years and are hoping nobody notices that you have now changed your argument.

Again you are busted, busted, busted. Time to shut up now, yes?

---

Don Firth uses his own name to post. Guest who posted this who is sometimes "Actual Scientist" and sometimes "TIA" please use your own unique moniker, don't turn another member's name into your identity. --mudelf

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 12:11 PM

Can't you read, before you open your pie hole?

"It was sent April 9, 2013, less than two weeks after the IRS inspector general that unearthed the tea party targeting practice shared a draft report with the agency."

This is 2014....in case you haven't awoken out of your coma!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 12:52 PM

The lost emails that Issa and company are screaming about were lost in 2011.

2011
2011
2011

You really do not comprehend the issues.

2011
2011
2011

Pop quiz...

When were the "lost emails" lost?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 01:01 PM

To shed light on your comas and unlock the brain-lock!

Here TIA...here's an excerpt from the link I'll include....I would suggest that any other hard left leaning 'so-called liberal' read the article, and maybe you might get a clue as to why your 'opinions' are so skewed and limited in anything other than 'the party line'...

"Some argue that controlling media access is needed to ensure information going out is correct. But when journalists cannot interview agency staff, or can only do so under surveillance, it undermines public understanding of, and trust in, government. This is not a "press vs. government" issue. This is about fostering a strong democracy where people have the information they need to self-govern and trust in its governmental institutions."

Journalism Groups: 'Politically Driven Suppression of News' in Obama WH

...and if you want to dance the normal 'so-called liberal' bitch at the source jig,....here's a search page...take your pick....then move onto the next dance!

Yahoo seach page....you don't like it?.....then try 'Google'!!

Then scratch your heads as to 'why' your 'news' sources are leaving you in the dark....and 'why' you 'think'(?), that everybody who doesn't 'agree with your folly must be a Tea Partier, or some 'right wing' Kook.

I just call the crap you believe in 'Propaganda'!!

GfS

P.S. Maybe you can get a 'party boss' to tuck you in for your coma!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 02:00 PM

snip--------------------------------
"Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 06:19 PM

This just reported(True story!)

The IRS is claiming that they've lost the last two years of Lois Lerner's E-mails....."
snip--------------------------------

The "last two years" from 2014 would be 2013 and 2012.

Emails were lost pre-2011. Well before the "scandal".

It has been clearly shown that the above statement of yours is not correct. You were either seeking to mislead, or are repeating right wing talking points without understanding the facts.

Now provide more distractions.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 07:03 PM

Here are the allegations, with the times.....

"New evidence about Lois Lerner's missing emails suggests IRS acted in "bad faith," and that there may have been White House involvement.

Cause of Action, a watchdog group that is investigating embattled former IRS official Lois Lerner, believes that there's strong evidence proving the tax agency has obstructed Congress by losing Lerner's emails and has suggested steps to get to the bottom of the situation.

According to a statement released to The Daily Caller by Cause of Action, the government watchdog group believes that there is evidence suggesting the IRS acted in "bad faith" in the case of the missing emails and that there might've been involvement with the White House in this action.

Cause of Action filed a FOIA request — along with Tea Party Patriots — seeking answers as to whether the IRS broke the law when it lost Lerner's emails on June 24.

Dan Epstein, executive director for Cause of Action, outlined how this is the case in an interview with TheDC where he stated that the day (June 3, 2011) when Rep. Dave Camp, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, sent a letter to the IRS asking questions about the targeting of conservative groups is the date where the investigation began and when the IRS should've been well prepared for preserving Lerner's hard drive.

"It's very clear that this is obstruction of Congress," Epstein told TheDC. "The IRS on June 3, 2011 became on notice that there was a congressional investigation, which automatically means that there is a duty to preserve documents."

"There should've been copies of Lois Lerner's hard drive and there should've been other practices to make sure all of her emails and documents were preserved," Epstein continued. "It's very clear from the record that there was no such hold of Lois Lerner's documents at the time that Congressman Camp sent that June 3, 2011 letter."

"There should be an inference of bad faith — they [Congress] can say that this was a bad faith loss of records, it was actually destruction, it was actually intentional."

Epstein believes that the next three steps of the investigation should be to: "investigate the possibility of spoliation of evidence;" "conduct oversight over the Archivist of the National Archives and Records Administration to determine whether he consulted the Attorney General concerning the missing IRS emails, determine whether he signed off on records dispositions by the White House, and determine whether he believes the Directive conflicts with the Federal Records Act and, if not, whether it authorizes the IRS's activities;" and "conduct oversight over the White House to determine whether it disposed of any responsive records."

He believes these steps are essential in making sure the truth comes to light in this case.

Epstein explained what his group's interest in this case stems from, and why it has zeroed in on Lerner's missing emails.

"What our main focus with the IRS has been the lawsuits that we've filed to try to understand whether the IRS has been leaking and making unauthorized disclosures of tax-return information and donor information to the White House, and really to try to understand the White House's involvement," Epstein said.

"We've jumped on to that issue — not from the perspective of looking at politicization per se — but really trying to understand practically what it means both legally and politically that these emails were lost and what are the implications for congressional oversight," Epstein continued.

The lawyer also hit back at the claim from Lois Lerner's attorney that the investigation into his client is merely "election year politics."

"It is part of their [the committees investigating Lerner] statutory duty, and their duty on behalf of the American population, to look into these issues," Epstein replied."





GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Frustrated...
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 07:51 PM

And the pig still cannot sing :-(



I stopped reading right here;

"... the tax agency has obstructed Congress by losing Lerner's emails..."

One more time (sighhhhh) - the emails were lost (and the loss reported, and recovery attempted) several years *before* Congress showed any interest. How can this possibly be "obstruction"?????

Buh-bye.
The pig probably isn't refusing to sing. Maybe it just cannot.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 10:09 PM

A Federal judge just ordered the IRS to hand them over or provide explanations, under oath, and gave them 30 days to comply.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 10:27 PM

Monty Python time!!

First read this.....then the clip from the article, below!

"Reaction to even a veiled suggestion of changes to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was quick and strong: "Changing RFRA because some disagree with one particular application of the law would set a dark precedent by undermining the fundamental principle of religious freedom for all, even for those whose religious beliefs may be unpopular at the moment," said the signers of a joint letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Majority Leader Rep. Harry Reid (D-Nevada); House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-California) and Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky). "Congress has never passed legislation with the specific purpose of reducing Americans' religious freedom. It should not consider doing so now."

Pelosi is both a hypocrite and a liar!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 11 Jul 14 - 08:24 AM

Takes one to know one, Cecil. Or is it Lansing today?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Jul 14 - 12:37 PM

Grow up!..That has been explained long ago!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jul 14 - 01:50 PM

But nobody in believes it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jul 14 - 01:55 PM

Should read "Nobody in his right mind believes it."

Don Firth (Actually, I'm Don Firth's upstairs neighbor and while he's in the bathroom shaving, I snuck in to post this....)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jul 14 - 12:05 PM

gillymor: "Takes one to know one, Cecil. Or is it Lansing today?"

"Takes one to know one, 'TIA',Or is it 'Actual Scientist', or 'Guest, Not Don Firth' today?"

'Cecil' and 'lansing', though that is not their real names are musician friends of mine, who vouched, or endorsed what I posted (which I don't even remember what it was about)for me, to some brain-dead arguers on Mudcat, using my computer.
Get over it!

Now back to the topic....

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 10:27 PM

I posted this......and called Pelosi a hypocrite and a liar....

Scroll down, one.

Now check this............(Love those so-called liberals, and who they believe)

Just like the two aforementioned above!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jul 14 - 12:06 PM

gillymor: "Takes one to know one, Cecil. Or is it Lansing today?"

"Takes one to know one, 'TIA',Or is it 'Actual Scientist', or 'Guest, Not Don Firth' today?"

'Cecil' and 'lansing', though that is not their real names are musician friends of mine, who vouched, or endorsed what I posted (which I don't even remember what it was about)for me, to some brain-dead arguers on Mudcat, using my computer.
Get over it!

Now back to the topic....

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 10:27 PM

I posted this......and called Pelosi a hypocrite and a liar....

Scroll down, one.

Now check this............(Love those so-called liberals, and who they believe)

Just like the two aforementioned above!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 12 Jul 14 - 12:11 PM

Agreed, let's get back on topic. When are you going to grow a pair and fess up to be a liar?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 12 Jul 14 - 12:15 PM

..."being a liar", that is.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jul 14 - 12:49 PM

Goofus is in good company with that other lying piece of crap, Daniel Z. Epstein. Of course, Epstein does it for a living & with Goofus, its just recreational.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jul 14 - 06:06 PM

Liar?? You must be referring to Pelosi...You know, those fun loving liberals.....The other thread got closed...but.....(oh such short memories)
Ask Eric Holder


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jul 14 - 06:26 PM

Don't you just LOVE hypocrisy??...especially when they're on YOUR side!!!

GfS

P.S. That's one good thing about NOT being on a political side!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jul 14 - 07:33 PM

You're that easily brain-washed, Goofy?

Dante said that the lowest level in Hell is reserved for those who, when confronted with a moral issue, don't choose one way or the other, refuse to get involved, and simply remain "colorlessly neutral."

"Look at them once," Dante said, "then pass on and think of them no more."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jul 14 - 11:01 PM

Is that supposed to be an opposing opinion??...or just a lack of one??

(Wait a minute, or an hour, you'll think of a spin!)...but the story IS the story and history is the history..complete with pictures!

I know...try insulting your way out of this one....it's never worked before, so why not give it another try.

God Forbid you should even attempt to comment on the topic!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 13 Jul 14 - 04:58 AM

You win, Cecil. All "so called liberals" are hypocrites and liars. Another victory for the dittoheads.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Jul 14 - 11:56 AM

Not all...just those who let the party boss's 'bogus crusaders' do their thinking for them according to an ideology that even the 'bogus crusaders' believe in!! ...So the yakking parrots can feel important, and delude themselves that they are accomplishing something....when hardly any of it is based on truth..truth...you know truth??
....lost in the interpretation.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Jul 14 - 11:59 AM

(Typo in the other one...delete it)

Not all...just those who let the party boss's 'bogus crusaders' do their thinking for them according to an ideology that even the 'bogus crusaders' DON'T believe in!! ...So the yakking parrots can feel important, and delude themselves that they are accomplishing something....when hardly any of it is based on truth..truth...you know truth??
....lost in the interpretation.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Jul 14 - 08:23 PM

Goofy,

"Truth! You can't HANDLE the truth!!"

(You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the ass. As it has many times and you didn't even notice!)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 12:42 AM

Firth: ""Truth! You can't HANDLE the truth!!"

But the truth about that, is coming from you, it's "My opinion, my opinion, you can't handle my opinion."...because the FACT is,you rarely can produce any proof to base your opinions on...So let me rephrase your quote to be even more accurate, "My delusion, my delusion..you can't handle my baseless delusions!"

There, glad we cleared that up!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 01:04 AM

Amusing.

Especially coming from you.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 04:18 AM

Hey!..I've got a GREAT idea!!....Let's discuss, "Popular Views: the Obama Administration"...We could talk about why things are going the way they are, and who is really calling the shots, and to what end...and maybe shed some light, for those folk song writers to 'gleep' material from!..Jeez, I've given you all a ton of stuff....which reminds me Don, as you may or may not know, I've been working on a rather large piece, symphonic, if you will, and I've got these six piano movements in it, to which I'm adding strings, brass, percussion, etc etc, to...and I'm going to send you a CD, in which will have six piano pieces....Now, remember I've posted quite a few posts, regarding capturing the angst, and translating into emotion, and putting it into the music......OK,(I thought of this earlier today)....one piano piece, #6(or the sixth cut on the CD,(nameless on the CD) I've affectionately called, 'Post on a Thread'....check it out, check the angst in it, as in exchanging posts. Be great to have your musically objective, musical feedback!!
OK, I wanted to post that here, so when you get it, you can refer to this post, about that piece.....

OK, now back to bitching(or explaining observations...about the topic!).......

With a Smile on Me Mug,

GfS

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 06:06 PM

Ohhh D-o-o-o-nn....?? ...in reference to my prior post...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 02:48 PM

Don must be busy trying to impress somebody...


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 03:24 PM

He probably decided it isn't worthwhile trying to discuss this with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 04:12 PM

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes time and annoys the pig.

-Heinlen

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Jul 14 - 01:49 AM

SRS, Try being neutral for just a moment...I was referring to some music that Don might find...umm...interesting.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Jul 14 - 03:09 AM

Justin Bieber gets deported while 700,000 Central Americans get entry into the US.....hmmmm

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Jul 14 - 07:07 AM

Is Justin Bieber facing abject poverty and brutal violence in Canada?
You are truly a moron.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Jul 14 - 11:36 AM

"Is Justin Bieber facing abject poverty and brutal violence in Canada?"

Well, you never know, do you?

He broke some laws and got deported....Hey, being as you sound like a 'so-called liberal'..let's go for equality....how about we all get to pick a law we get to ignore!!

You are truly a moron.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jul 14 - 01:59 PM

No, you're the moron, Goofus.

Your "so-called liberal" is a straw man you've constructed, bearing no resemblance to anyone, living or dead. In real life, there is no such animal. There are degrees of liberalism, but one is either a liberal or one is not. Read John Locke and John Stuart Mill.

And didn't your mama ever teach you not to use words you don't understand?

Tidy, man, tidy. You should flush after posting that sort of nonsense.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Jul 14 - 05:09 PM

DF: "Tidy, man, tidy. You should flush after posting that sort of nonsense."

...and wipe up with you?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jul 14 - 08:54 PM

Enough of this love talk, Goofus. You're not my type.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Jul 14 - 12:51 AM

Promise?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Jul 14 - 12:40 PM

Musket and Steve Pshaw, have degenerated into comparing the size of their weenies, while Don has resorted to expounding on toilets....sounds like they've got a lot of 'winning' things to talk about, and try to convince everybody that they're to 'high brow' to consider sticking to the topic....meanwhile, the brain police are deleting posts, that ridicule them for it!!!

Such fixations!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 19 Jul 14 - 12:49 PM

There there, Cecil. At least you have your Justin Bieber doll to keep you company.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 14 - 01:17 PM

You started it, Goofus, with your emissions of copious amounts of fecal matter, i.e., what you are posting. Also your fascination with Justin Whatisname. We're just trying to keep the premises tidy.

But one can expect that from people such as you, who chronically suffer from constipation of the brain and diarrhea of the keyboard....

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 12:49 PM

There you go again...and then blame someone else!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 07:36 AM

Senate Democrats vs. the Middle Class [Obama's "recovery" has hurt blacks, women, and the poor]
Wall St. Journal ^ | August 17, 2014 | Phil Gramm And Michael Solon

Senators elected in 2008 made Obama's agenda possible, and its results have harmed most Americans.

By
PHIL GRAMM And
MICHAEL SOLON
Aug. 17, 2014 7:10 p.m. ET

On Nov. 3, 2008, seven new Democratic senators were elected, giving Democrats 58 votes. Eight months later, with the Minnesota Senate race settled and Arlen Specterhaving switched parties, Democrats secured the 60th vote to overcome filibusters and impose absolute control over the Senate for the first time in 31 years. In 78 days, American voters will render judgment on the record of the Senate Democratic Class of 2008, and on all 35 Democratic candidates seeking to perpetuate their Senate majority.

The Senate's Democratic majority was united after the 2008 election in its commitment to President Obama's progressive vision to remake America. And with a financial crisis afoot, it was determined to not waste the opportunity.

ObamaCare, which gave government control of the health-care system, was vigorously supported, promoted and defended by every Senate Democrat. It became law in March 2010 without a single Republican vote in either house of Congress. Every Democratic senator cast the deciding vote for ObamaCare.

Since the Progressive Era a century ago, Democrats have dreamed of seizing the commanding heights of the financial system to expand government's ability to influence the allocation of credit. The passage of Dodd-Frank in July 2010, also supported by every Democrat in the Senate, made that dream a reality.

In 1993, President Clinton had been unable to pass a comparatively modest $16 billion stimulus program. Democrats in 2009 passed a massive $787 billion stimulus program with every Democratic senator voting for it. And with the tacit support of Democratic senators who have blocked every bill, resolution or amendment that impeded any aspect of his regulatory agenda, President Obama has implemented the most massive expansion of federal regulatory authority since the Great Depression.

It is impossible for any Democratic senator running for re-election this year to credibly argue that he or she did not support the president's program or provide a critical vote to enact it. No Democratic candidate can argue that by electing him or her and sustaining the Democratic majority in the Senate, voters can hope to alter the president's program.

With his party's Senate supermajority, President Obama achieved a series of historic political victories. But the question most voters will have to answer on Nov. 4 is whether this program has been good for working Americans. We think the answer is clear. As is well known, the Obama recovery is the weakest in postwar history. If the Obama recovery had been as strong as the average of the previous 10 postwar recoveries, 13.9 million more Americans would be working today and the average real per capita income of every man, woman and child in America would be $6,308 higher.

But the real scorecard on the Senate Democrats elected in 2008 is in the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey data. While all Democrats claimed to be champions of the middle class and defenders of minorities and women, census data show how their program did not live up to their campaign promises.

Since the Senate Democratic Class of 2008 took control, the average real income of the poorest one-fifth of American families has declined every year, falling to $15,534 in 2012 from $16,962 in 2008 (the 2013 data will be released Sept. 16). The average real income of the lowest quintile of Americans is now below the level it was in 1968, the year when the War on Poverty began its spending surge.

The next-highest income quintile, often referred to as the working class, has also experienced a continuous decline in real income since January 2009. The average income of these Americans has fallen 6.5% and is now $1,182 lower than it was when President Reagan left office.

The third quintile—America's middle class—has seen its average income decline to $62,464 from $65,672. More than half of this decline has occurred since the recovery officially began in the second quarter of 2009.

Losses for the typical household, as measured by real median income, have been especially heavy in the very states where 2008 Senate Democrats are up for re-election. In Alaska, household income in 2012 was 7.2% lower than it was at the end of 2008, falling back to its 1988 level. In Arkansas, household income has dropped 8.2%. Colorado households have 13.5% less income than they did before the Democratic Congress and President Obama transformed America. The same is true in Louisiana, where household income has fallen 7.9%. And in North Carolina, household income has declined 10.2%—falling to the lowest level in the 28 years the Census Bureau has provided state-by-state income data.

Census data also show the progressive program has failed women and minorities. Married women, unmarried women and women living alone all saw their incomes fall. Under the Obama administration, the median income of women has fallen more during the recovery than it did during the recession, an unprecedented economic failure in postwar America.

The real median income of African-American households has fallen by 9.5%, more than any other major census classification. Hispanic income has fallen, especially for middle-income Hispanic families, whose income has declined every year since 2008. According to the latest census data, the income of middle-class Hispanics is lower than whenJimmy Carter was president.

The Democratic Party's great political victory in 2008 led to the realization of a progressive agenda in the making for a century. But that agenda resulted in economic failure for working Americans. It failed as it has always failed: Progressive policies buy votes but destroy prosperity. The Senate Democratic Class of 2008 and the entire Obama program are now endangered because their program has hurt the very people it was supposed to benefit.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 09:38 AM

By Phil Gramm, neo-conservative right-wing lunatic, Bullshot?

Got any other fantasy literatuire to recommend?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 10:22 AM

Greggie boy,

Care to bring up any FACTS?

You are making an ad hominem attack- this indicates you have no basis for your argument save your bigotry.


An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.[2] Fallacious Ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy,[3][4][5] more precisely as a genetic fallacy,



The FACTS presented are verifiable- IF you don't like the conclusion, too bad.

Or argue the FACTS ( if you can) . Otherwise, YOU LOSE.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 10:33 AM

FACTS, Greggie boy:

But the real scorecard on the Senate Democrats elected in 2008 is in the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey data. While all Democrats claimed to be champions of the middle class and defenders of minorities and women, census data show how their program did not live up to their campaign promises.

Since the Senate Democratic Class of 2008 took control, the average real income of the poorest one-fifth of American families has declined every year, falling to $15,534 in 2012 from $16,962 in 2008 (the 2013 data will be released Sept. 16). The average real income of the lowest quintile of Americans is now below the level it was in 1968, the year when the War on Poverty began its spending surge.

The next-highest income quintile, often referred to as the working class, has also experienced a continuous decline in real income since January 2009. The average income of these Americans has fallen 6.5% and is now $1,182 lower than it was when President Reagan left office.

The third quintile—America's middle class—has seen its average income decline to $62,464 from $65,672. More than half of this decline has occurred since the recovery officially began in the second quarter of 2009.

Losses for the typical household, as measured by real median income, have been especially heavy in the very states where 2008 Senate Democrats are up for re-election. In Alaska, household income in 2012 was 7.2% lower than it was at the end of 2008, falling back to its 1988 level. In Arkansas, household income has dropped 8.2%. Colorado households have 13.5% less income than they did before the Democratic Congress and President Obama transformed America. The same is true in Louisiana, where household income has fallen 7.9%. And in North Carolina, household income has declined 10.2%—falling to the lowest level in the 28 years the Census Bureau has provided state-by-state income data.

Census data also show the progressive program has failed women and minorities. Married women, unmarried women and women living alone all saw their incomes fall. Under the Obama administration, the median income of women has fallen more during the recovery than it did during the recession, an unprecedented economic failure in postwar America.

The real median income of African-American households has fallen by 9.5%, more than any other major census classification. Hispanic income has fallen, especially for middle-income Hispanic families, whose income has declined every year since 2008. According to the latest census data, the income of middle-class Hispanics is lower than whenJimmy Carter was president.

The Democratic Party's great political victory in 2008 led to the realization of a progressive agenda in the making for a century. But that agenda resulted in economic failure for working Americans. It failed as it has always failed: Progressive policies buy votes but destroy prosperity. The Senate Democratic Class of 2008 and the entire Obama program are now endangered because their program has hurt the very people it was supposed to benefit.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 11:20 AM

This is rich. The great deregulator Phil Gramm is the true enemy of the middle class and is probably the individual most responsible for the great recession we are slowly recovering from.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 11:33 AM

Not according to the numbers.

Is the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey data true or not?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 11:37 AM

Or should I have said "With friends like Obama, who needs enemies?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Sep 14 - 10:13 AM

Maureen Dowd, chile roja, a good Irish girl, everyone's favorite red-head, Pulitzer Prize winner, the spicy red-headed NY Times columnist:

He Has a Dream

As he has grown weary of Washington, Barack Obama has shed parts of his presidency, like drying petals falling off a rose.

He left the explaining and selling of his signature health care legislation to Bill Clinton. He outsourced Congress to Rahm Emanuel in the first term, and now doesn't bother to source it at all. He left schmoozing, as well as a spiraling Iraq, to Joe Biden. Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, comes across as more than a messagemeister. As the president floats in the empyrean, Rhodes seems to make foreign policy even as he's spinning it.

But the one thing it was impossible to imagine, back in the giddy days of the 2009 inauguration, as Americans basked in their open-mindedness and pluralism, was that the first African-American president would outsource race.

He saved his candidacy in 2008 after the "pastor disaster" with Jeremiah Wright by giving a daring speech asserting that racial reconciliation could never be achieved until racial anger, on both sides, was acknowledged. Half black, half white, a son of Kansas and Africa, he searchingly and sensitively explored America's ebony-ivory divide.

He dealt boldly and candidly with race in his memoirs, "Dreams From My Father." "In many parts of the South," he wrote, "my father could have been strung up from a tree for merely looking at my mother the wrong way; in the most sophisticated of Northern cities, the hostile stares, the whispers, might have driven a woman in my mother's predicament into a back-alley abortion — or at the very least to a distant convent that could arrange for adoption. Their very image together would have been considered lurid and perverse."

Now the professor in the Oval Office has spurned a crucial teachable moment.

He dispatched Eric Holder to Ferguson, and deputized Al Sharpton, detaching himself at the very moment when he could have helped move the country forward on an issue close to his heart. It's another perverse reflection of his ambivalent relationship to power.

He was willing to lasso the moon when his candidacy was on the line, so why not do the same at a pivotal moment for his presidency and race relations? Instead, he anoints a self-promoting TV pundit with an incendiary record as "the White House's civil rights leader of choice," as The Times put it, vaulting Sharpton into "the country's most prominent voice on race relations." It seems oddly retrogressive to make Sharpton the official go-between with Ferguson's black community, given that his history has been one of fomenting racial divides, while Obama's has been one of soothing them.

The MSNBC host has gone from "The Bonfire of the Vanities" to White House Super Bowl parties. As a White House official told Politico's Glenn Thrush, who wrote on the 59-year-old provocateur's consultation with Valerie Jarrett on Ferguson: "There's a trust factor with The Rev from the Oval Office on down. He gets it, and he's got credibility in the community that nobody else has got."

Sharpton has also been such a force with New York's mayor, Bill de Blasio, in the furor over the chokehold death of a black Staten Island man that The New York Post declared The Rev the de facto police commissioner. The White House and City Hall do not seem concerned about his $4.7 million in outstanding debt and liens in federal and state tax records, reported by The Post. Once civil rights leaders drew their power from their unimpeachable moral authority. Now, being a civil rights leader can be just another career move, a good brand.
Thrush noted that Sharpton — "once such a pariah that Clinton administration officials rushed through their ribbon-cuttings in Harlem for fear he'd show up and force them to, gasp, shake his hand" — has evolved from agitator to insider since his demagoguing days when he falsely accused a white New York prosecutor and others of gang-raping a black teenager, Tawana Brawley, and sponsored protests against a clothing store owned by a white man in Harlem, after a black subtenant who sold records was threatened with eviction. A deranged gunman burned down the store, leaving eight people dead.

Sharpton also whipped up anti-Semitic feelings during the Crown Heights riots in 1991, denouncing Jewish "diamond dealers" importing gems from South Africa after a Hasidic Jew ran a red light and killed a 7-year-old black child. Amid rioting, with some young black men shouting "Heil Hitler," a 29-year-old Hasidic Jew from Australia was stabbed to death by a black teenager.

Now, Sharpton tells Thrush: "I've grown to appreciate different roles and different people, and I weigh words a little more now. I've learned how to measure what I say."

Obama has muzzled himself on race and made Sharpton his chosen instrument — two men joined in pragmatism at a moment when idealism is needed.

We can't expect the president to do everything. But we can expect him to do something.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 07:27 PM

whitehouse.gov June 24, 2010:
According the Pew Research Center, the number of Russians with a favorable attitude towards the United States has increased from 44 percent in 2009 to 57 percent in June 2010. In another poll by the Moscow-based Levada Center, Russian favorable attitudes towards the United States increased from 38 percent in January 2009 to 60 percent in May 2010. According to Levada, the percentage of Russians with negative attitudes has decreased from 49 percent in January 2009 to 26 percent in May 2010.

Pew Research Jul 15 2014:
In addition, less than a quarter of Russians (23%) have a positive view of America, whose image is down 28 points in just the last year.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Mar 15 - 02:25 AM

Well Hello!..Time to resurrect this thread.
While scrolling through it, I found some really interesting things, that, of course, our resident 'so-called liberals and intellectuals' would probably wish they never posted.

i wonder if some of the, 'Popular Views: the Obama Administration' have changed at all, yet....

As I've posted a few times on here, raising the topic, on likening the diehard Democrats to the diehard Republicans, when the diehard Republicans just 'didn't get it', when Nixon got found out, and left office.
Now the shoe is on the other foot....and you can throw in that bag, Hilary, as well.

So, let's update those views!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Mar 15 - 09:48 AM

Time to resurrect this thread.

Not hardly. Goofus, one of the un-dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Mar 15 - 12:28 PM

Greg, you ought to scroll through this thread, and see how many times people have(as they do now), admonish you for NOT posting anything related to the topic...and this thread goes back YEARS!!

Here's a wonderful video, that speaks right to you

Enjoy!!...Great performance!!

GfS