BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration

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?