 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
|
|
|
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:
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 |
