 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 20 Aug 09 - 09:45 AM Greg F: That was the entire article that I read. I did not leave anything out. http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/306287/Buffett-We're-Going-to-Be-Crushed-Under-Mountain-of-Debt?tickers=tbt,tlt,udn,uup,brk-a,brk-b,spy Amos: I did not alter the title. I am sorry if it scares you. You voice concern about excessive spending but you seek to discredit anyone who agrees. Obama August 8 2009: "We're losing jobs at less than half the rate we were when I took office," the president said in the White House Rose Garden, taking comfort in a report showing that "only" 247,000 jobs were lost in July, the smallest monthly drop since last August. And in an unexpected reversal, the unemployment rate dropped to 9.4 percent from 9.5 percent the previous month. Reality: AP 9/20/09 WASHINGTON – The number of first-time claims for unemployment benefits rose unexpectedly for the second straight week, a sign that jobs remain scarce even as other data show the economy is stabilizing. The Labor Department said Thursday the number of new jobless claims rose to a seasonally adjusted 576,000 last week, from a revised figure of 561,000. Wall Street economists expected a drop to 550,000, according to a survey by Thomson Reuters. Economists closely watch initial claims, which are considered a gauge of layoffs and an indication of companies' willingness to hire new workers. The figures are volatile, and had been trending down, after remaining above 600,000 for most of this year. The new report indicates that the labor market is still weak. In a healthy economy, initial claims are usually around 325,000 or below. The four-week average of initial claims, which smooths out fluctuations, rose for the second straight week to 570,000. [half of 600,000?] The number of people remaining on the benefit rolls dropped by 2,000 to 6.24 million. Analysts had expected a slight decline. The continuing claims figures lag initial claims by a week. When federal emergency programs are included, the total number of jobless benefit recipients was 9.18 million in the week that ended Aug. 1, the most recent data available. That was down from 9.25 million in the previous week. Congress has added up to 53 extra weeks of benefits on top of the 26 typically provided by the states. The large number of people remaining on the rolls is an indication that unemployed workers are having a hard time finding new jobs. Still, layoffs have slowed recently. The department said earlier this month that companies cut 247,000 jobs in July, a large amount but still the smallest number in almost a year. The unemployment rate dipped to 9.4 percent in July from 9.5 percent, its first drop in 15 months. But many private economists and the Federal Reserve think the rates could top 10 percent by next year. The recession, which began in December 2007 and is the longest since World War II, has eliminated a net total of 6.7 million jobs. More job cuts were announced this week. Bethesda, Md.-based defense contractor Lockheed Martin Corp. said it will eliminate about 800 jobs in its space systems division, and San Francisco-based video and audio conferencing company Polycom Inc. said it will cut 3 percent of its 2,600 person work force. Among the states, Tennessee had the largest increase in claims with 2,525 for the week ended Aug. 8, which it attributed to more layoffs in the transportation equipment, industrial machinery, and rubber and plastics industries. The next largest increases were in North Carolina, Wisconsin, Georgia and Washington. California reported the largest drop in claims of 5,635, which it attributed to fewer layoffs in the construction, trade and service industries. Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Delaware had the next largest decreases. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Aug 09 - 11:02 AM Speaking of Mountains of Debt and the people who benefit from it at OUR collective expense...read this story about Goldman Sachs: Rolling Stone article on Goldman Sachs A brief quote from the article: "Any attempt to construct a narrative around all the former Goldmanites in influential positions quickly becomes an absurd and pointless exercise, like trying to make a list of everything. What you need to know is the big picture: If America is circling the drain, Goldman Sachs has found a way to be that drain — an extremely unfortunate loophole in the system of Western democratic capitalism, which never foresaw that in a society governed passively by free markets and free elections, organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy. They achieve this using the same playbook over and over again. The formula is relatively simple: Goldman positions itself in the middle of a speculative bubble, selling investments they know are crap. Then they hoover up vast sums from the middle and lower floors of society with the aid of a crippled and corrupt state that allows it to rewrite the rules in exchange for the relative pennies the bank throws at political patronage. Finally, when it all goes bust, leaving millions of ordinary citizens broke and starving, they begin the entire process over again, riding in to rescue us all by lending us back our own money at interest, selling themselves as men above greed, just a bunch of really smart guys keeping the wheels greased. They've been pulling this same stunt over and over since the 1920s — and now they're preparing to do it again, creating what may be the biggest and most audacious bubble yet." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Aug 09 - 12:55 PM Greg F. I realize you have little to do with the truth, but Cheney removed himslf far more from his previous company than these cronies of Obama- and THAT was not enough to keep away allegations from the Left. It seems to me that many of the complaints here about actions of the Right are similar to the complaints that were made about actions of the Left during Bush's administrations. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, I guess I an entitled to repeat what I was told back then, when I commented it was unfairly applied: SUCK IT UP, AND LIVE WITH IT! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Greg F. Date: 20 Aug 09 - 06:47 PM BB: again, you're certainly entitled to your own opinion, but you aren't entitled to your own facts. Live with THAT. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Greg F. Date: 20 Aug 09 - 06:50 PM Sawz: that's the problem with blogs & other tertiary sources; can never tell if they've got it right. Original Buffett op-ed piece was in the NY Times. Check it out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 21 Aug 09 - 03:07 PM "The biggest problem for President Obama in today's ABC News/Washington Post poll is this: only 49 percent of Americans are confident that he'll "make the right decisions for the country's future" -- down from 60 percent in April. Voters still like Obama. His overall job approval is steady at 57 percent. But they're screaming "listen to us" and "slow down." And they're worried he's getting in over his head. Blaming the GOP for blocking health care will make Democrats feel better. But it may turn off Independents who are already abandoning Obama (17 point drops in handling health care and overall job approval)." http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/08/obama-needs-confidence-boost.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 21 Aug 09 - 03:36 PM "Obama Snares Palin, Media in Wide Blame-Game Net Commentary by Caroline Baum Aug. 19 (Bloomberg) -- When the political winds shift -- when a party is voted out of power or a policy is panned by the public -- Washington turns to its favorite pastime: the blame game. And so it is with President Barack Obama, who tripped on his sprint to the health-care-reform finish line. Voters, it seems, want to understand a little more about what ObamaCare will mean for them, what it will do to the doctor-patient relationship, and what it will cost future generations in higher taxes and, yes, rationed supply. Rather than examine the public's concerns, the plans' inconsistencies or the sheer irresponsibility of trying to ram something this big and complicated through Congress without a small-scale trial, the Obama administration is pointing fingers. Lots of them. Most of the targets are just plain silly. 1. Conservative groups When liberal activists, including trade unions, Acorn and MoveOn.org, protested against anything and everything President George W. Bush said or did, it was called grassroots democracy. When conservative groups encourage supporters to attend town hall meetings and make their sentiments known to their congressmen, it's un-American, disruptive and the work of right- wing extremists. Madame Hypocrite Where was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, when President George W. Bush was being compared to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis? She was a "fan of disrupters" in those days, as she told anti-war protesters at a January 2006 town hall meeting in San Francisco. Pelosi only developed a thin skin (too much plastic surgery?) when the Democrats took control of the executive and legislative branches of government. The effort to blame right-wing groups is transparent. If my feedback on a recent column is indicative of the political persuasion and demographic distribution of the protesters, these are ordinary Americans energized by the debate, frustrated at not having a voice and motivated to exercise their right of free speech. Attempts to smear opponents and shut down debate are, well, un-American. 2. Insurance Companies Garnering support for health-insurance reform by demonizing insurance companies is a cheap shot, albeit one that resonates with the public. After all, these are the faceless bureaucrats who deny or pay claims in a seemingly arbitrary manner and refuse or cancel coverage if you cost them too much money. Stubborn Facts Facts are stubborn things, this White House is quick to remind us. And in this case, the facts don't support the vilification. If insurance companies were gouging the public, the evidence would show up in one of two places, according to Graef Crystal, a compensation expert in Santa Rosa, California, and occasional Bloomberg News columnist: excessive executive pay or excessive returns to shareholders. His analysis of five major health insurers shows just the opposite: below-market pay and below-market shareholder returns. "There's no case here for undue enrichment of shareholders" or over-compensating CEOs, Crystal finds. Health care needs a major overhaul, but that's no reason to make scapegoats out of insurance companies. 3. The Media I couldn't believe my ears when I heard Obama point the finger at the media at his town hall meeting last week in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Fishing Expedition The president, defending the White House's fishing expedition for "fishy" e-mails on health-insurance reform (suspended this week by popular demand), blamed the media for "distorting what's taken place." Is this the same media that was in the pocket for candidate Obama and waltzed us through the honeymoon? If Bush had been as reliant on his teleprompter as Obama, or said "Cinco de Cuatro" when he meant "Cuatro de Mayo," the press would have been all over him for being inept. Sorry, Mr. President, you have no idea what it means for the media to distort what's taken place. The long-gone Bush administration is getting more negative press than you are. 4. Sarah Palin Sarah Palin, the recently retired governor of Alaska, 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate and Democrat's favorite whipping boy (or girl), created a stir with a reference to death panels on Facebook. Palin said she didn't want her parents or Down-Syndrome baby to "have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide" what kind of medical care should be allocated to these less productive members of society. Blame the Democrats This is the same Sarah Palin whose foreign policy experience was summed up during the campaign by her ability "to see Russia from land here in Alaska." This is the same Sarah Palin credited with changing the terms of the debate? C'mon. That's too laughable to address. Besides, there's a kernel of truth in what she said. Like all goods and services, medical care is a scarce resource that must be rationed. The only question is how: by the market (price) or by government mandate. If government is doing the rationing, what exactly will bureaucrats use to determine who gets what care and who doesn't? Opposition to fast-track health-insurance reform is coming from Obama's own party. Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota and one of six Finance Committee members involved in bipartisan negotiations, said on Fox News Sunday that the goal is to "get this right," not meet some "specific timetable." He said the Senate lacks enough votes to pass a bill with a public option. "To continue to chase that rabbit, I think, is just a wasted effort." There's always room for one more -- the Democrats -- on Obama's blame-game list. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 21 Aug 09 - 05:26 PM God, what reeking hypocrisy and disingenuousness. The shit-stirring behind the insurance-led screamdown that made such a flap was incited panic based on extreme falsification. She calls it "inviting people to express their views". THis is just sheer dishonesty. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 21 Aug 09 - 06:50 PM "By doing so much, so fast, Obama never sufficiently educated the public on the logic behind his policies. He spent little time explaining the biggest bailouts in U.S. history, which he inherited but supported and expanded. And then he lost crucial support on the left by not following up quickly with new and stricter rules for Wall Street. On Friday, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman echoed a concern widely shared among leading liberals. "I don't know if administration officials realize just how much damage they've done themselves with their kid-gloves treatment of the financial industry, just how badly the spectacle of government supported institutions paying giant bonuses is playing." By doing so much so fast, Obama jammed the circuits on Capitol Hill. Congress has a hard time doing even one big thing well at a time. Congress is good at passing giveaways and tax cuts, but has not enacted a transformative piece of social legislation since President Bill Clinton's welfare reform of 1996. "There's a reason things up here were built to go slowly," said another Democratic aide. By doing so doing so much, so fast, he has left voters — especially independents — worried that he got an overblown sense of his mandates and is doing, well, too much too fast. A Washington Post-ABC News poll published Friday found that independents' confidence in Obama's ability to make the right decisions had dropped 20 points since the Inauguration, from 61 percent to 41 percent. " http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26341.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 21 Aug 09 - 06:59 PM Amos, It seems like you have forgotten your comments. If you will not hold Obama to the same standards that you held Bush, you are admitting that Bush did nothing wrong except to mangel the English Language- THAT I think you can show supporting FACTS for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 21 Aug 09 - 07:10 PM Dear Bruce: My comment on the disingenous rot being presented by Caroline Baum stands; her remarks are shallow, hypocritical and disingenuous. The idea of equating an industry-incited panic with a grass -roots protest is simply mendacious. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 21 Aug 09 - 07:22 PM The idea that the protests against Bush were not coordinated on a political level by the Left is far more ridiculous, yet you seem to imply that at the time. Just admit that the Right is now using the same tactics that the Left did against Bush, and stop complaining about tactics that you were happy with when they were in support of something you approved of. They were LOUSY tactics when the Left used them ( as I have said) and IMO they are lousy tactics when the Right uses them- but in BOTH cases, the right to freedom of speech overrides (our) protests. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 21 Aug 09 - 07:51 PM Sorry, only the last entry was supposed to be pasted: Another day, another Obama lie on ObamaCare: "On a conference call with progressive religious leaders late Wednesday afternoon, President Barack Obama aggressively challenged his Republican critics' "misinformation" blitz, arguing the claim by many social conservative groups that his health care proposal would subsidize and mandate reproductive care is a blatant fabrication, and insisted they were "bearing false witness." "You've heard this is all going to mean government funding of abortion," the President said. "Not true." But as with many of Obama's statements regarding his health care proposal, his seemingly forthright claim is simply 'not true.' Before a crowd of Planned Parenthood executives and contributors in 2007, then-Senator Obama explicitly pledged to not yield on "the fundamental issue" of abortion, adding that "reproductive care is basic care, it is essential care." The right to an abortion, Obama said, "is at the center and at the heart of the plan that I proposed." "Essentially, what we are doing is to say that we're gonna set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don't have health insurance. It will be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services," Obama said to applause" " Can a clone remove the previous ( of my ) messages? *-{E
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 21 Aug 09 - 09:19 PM AP , WASHINGTON Thursday, Aug 20, 2009, Page 7 US President Barack Obama, right, meets with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington on Tuesday. PHOTO: EPA US President Barack Obama won lavish praise on Tuesday from his guest, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, and spoke of an "extraordinary opportunity" for making peace in the Middle East. Obama said he was encouraged by US efforts to restart talks between Israel and the Palestinians. Seated next to Mubarak, who was making his first visit to the US capital in five years, Obama thanked the Egyptian for joining him in trying to construct a deal that has eluded world leaders for more than six decades. Returning the compliment, Mubarak asserted that Obama's speech to the world's Muslims, delivered in Cairo in June, had convinced Arabs that the US truly was an honest broker. The 81-year-old Egyptian leader, who was estranged from the former Bush administration, said Obama had "removed all doubts about the United States and the Muslim world." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 21 Aug 09 - 09:22 PM ASHINGTON (JTA) -- Two Jewish religious streams praised President Obama's efforts to achieve universal health care. Statements this week from the Reform movement's Central Conference of American Rabbis and Agudath Israel of America, an Orthodox umbrella group, praised the president for pressing toward universal coverage. The Reform rabbis' statement lambasted the distortions of some opponents of the plan. "We deplore the spreading of calumnies by those who would falsely claim that proposed reforms would set up 'death panels' or would mandate government-funded abortions," the statement said. "The CCAR has long supported both reproductive liberty and early, proactive end-of-life decision making. We are pleased that proposed legislation would provide incentives to physicians engaged in critical conversations with their patients. We would oppose further restrictions to abortion care access in any health care reform package." Aguda's letter to President Obama said efforts to "make health care more accessible to the uninsured and underinsured should be applauded." It made the case for ensuring the continuance of the physician-patient statement under any system that emerges. Bureaucrats, the letter said, may not recognize the priorities of patients as acutely as doctors: "What of the anguish of infertile husbands and wives? Will treatment be withheld if the 'cost-benefit' ratio is too high?" The Aguda letter also urged taking into account patients' different religious outlooks. "Jewish tradition places great emphasis on the preservation of human life, which retains its sanctity even under the most dire of medical circumstances," the letter said. "As such, Jewish law may require medical interventions that others might not regard as 'quality enhancing' or 'cost effective.'" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 21 Aug 09 - 11:32 PM Bruce: As a vociferous participant in the protest against Bush, as you yourself have witnessed, I can offer testimony that I was not coordinated, bought, persuaded or directed by anyone on the left in my protest against his heinous disregard for the Constitution or for the traditions of American dignity and intelligence in public, to name a few. So, I am sorry to say that there is a world of differnce. It is true that some lefterly centers like MoveON picked up on the growing anger and discontent he fomented; but there were huge protests against, for example, the Iraq war and the bullying of the election before MoveOn even came into existence. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Aug 09 - 01:40 AM Actually, the money doesn't have to be printed at all. It just has to be created instantly on an electronic balance sheet by the stroke of a computer key. Presto! It appears out of thin air and is suddenly in the deposits at some bank when that bank makes a loan (to the government or anyone else). Don't be so foolish as to imagine that all this phony money gets printed! It doesn't. The amount of actual printed paper money and coins in circulation at any given time is a very small percentage of the total money that is supposedly out there...probably as little as 5% of it. The rest exists merely on bank statements and electronic records and balance sheets at banks and other institutions. Is it real? Yes and no. It isn't real in itself at all, it's a total fiction and a fraud...but it has real effects on the whole society because it creates DEBT, and that debt generates interest charges. You should read up on how the banks create new money all the time through fractional reserve lending and charging interest to the borrowers. The government doesn't create that money, the banks create it...out of thin air. They create it by making loans, billions in loans, and getting those loans deposited straight back into the banking system, and charging interest on them on top of that! It's an ever-expanding pyramid scheme that generates debt for society and profits for the banks. The government simply mints and prints enough bills and coins that ordinary people are enabled to handle daily transactions and have some money in their pocket to do that, but the hard cash put out by the mint is a mere fraction of the whole false money bubble. What you are quite right about, though, is that the banks have committed the greatest robbery in history...they've robbed the public, and put the government irredeemably in debt, and the government is just their helpless servant in that exercise. It's the banks who are in control of the situation. Go to Google and look up this article: Inside The Great American Bubble Machine Inside the Great American Bubble Machine If you take the time to read it, you'll see just what I'm talking about. Most of that money will NEVER be printed. It doesn't need to be in order to generate the debt. It just needs to sit on a computer somewhere, that's all. It's an idea, not an actual bunch of printed bills. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Aug 09 - 02:43 AM Example of what has happened in the last 44 years to our money: A subway ride in Toronto cost 10 cents in the mid-60s. It now costs $2.75 in 2009. But a subway ride is really worth exactly what it was in 1960 in real terms, so what has happened to the money? The money "supply" has inflated by 27 and a half times in 44 years! Thus a dollar is now worth 1/27 of what it was in 1965. Now, do you really think the government did that? Did the government put 27 1/2 times more bills and coins into circulation in the present than back it did back in 1965. Hell no. They didn't do anything of the sort. It was the banks, the lending institutions who increased the "money supply" by 27 1/2 times over that period through their endless pyramid scheme which works by creating vast amounts of new money through banks loans, and generating interest charges on it. That is a constantly expanding bubble of imaginary money...made real by being writteon on balance sheets and recorded on ledgers...but NOT made real by printing the requisite amount of legal tender. Good God no. Nothing of the sort. This 700 billion $ bailout the banks got? Where do you think it came from? Did the government mint the money? Hell no. The banks created it as a loan to the government. The government borrowed the money from the banks and then gave it back to the banks as a "bailout" and will have to pay the banks INTEREST on it too! The so-called Federal Reserve Bank is a privately owned corporation that acts in its own interests. It is not a government institution any more than Federal Express is. Look that up too and check it out. It is the (biggest) banks who call the tune, and the government dances. As for the smaller banks, they fail...as was intended...and the bigger banks then gobble them up at a bargain price, and the whole system gets consolidated in fewer and fewer hands. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Peace Date: 22 Aug 09 - 02:47 AM Little Hawk, we were saying just that a few years back. I think we were ridiculed with shit like "wearing your aluminium hat today?" Anyone asked you about your hat so far? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 22 Aug 09 - 12:02 PM GOWWBDIS, are you any relation to the similarly-strident and superior guest known as GfS? Maybe her sister or sompn? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Aug 09 - 12:31 PM You are quite correct, my deleted friend, the Obama administration is doing much the same as the Bush administration and all the previous administrations have done. It's cooperating fully with the great banks and the other huge financial interests that run this society for their own gain and it's doing exactly what benefits those interests. That's because the government is already so deep in hock to those financial interests with past debt that there seems to be no way out but to continue playing ball in the usual way. Besides, the politicians are mostly individually bought through incessant financial lobbying in any case. It's been happening that way for a long time. Matter of fact, it started way back in Woodrow Wilson's term of office. The illusory division between Democrats and Republicans...or the Right and the Left...is a smokescreen that hides the real agenda. It's a very handy smokescreen for the controllers, because it keeps the public fighting with each other instead of abandoning those 2 political parties and taking up arms together against their real oppressors who are the great financiers...not the figurehead politicians who do their bidding. How can the public fight a faceless enemy? They don't even recognize it. They're rather fight over individuals like Obama and McCain...because those are public faces they can recognize, and that is where the public just gets lost in a huge media-spun illusion. I fully agree that the many good and hope-filled people who voted for Obama have been had. The people who pinned their hopes on McCain/Palin have also been had...on the other side of the "divide and conquer" coin. I profoundly wish that it wasn't so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 24 Aug 09 - 11:28 AM "This week the journalist Ronald Kessler's new behind-the-scenes account of presidential security, "In the President's Secret Service," rose to No. 3 on The Times nonfiction best-seller list. No wonder there's a lot of interest in the subject. We have no reason to believe that these hugely dedicated agents will fail us this time, even as threats against Obama, according to Kessler, are up 400 percent from those against his White House predecessor. But as we learned in Oklahoma City 14 years ago — or at the well-protected Holocaust museum just over two months ago — this kind of irrational radicalism has a myriad of targets. And it is impervious to reason. Much as Coburn fought an antiterrorism bill after the carnage of Oklahoma City, so three men from Bagdad, Ariz., drove 2,500 miles in 1964 to testify against a bill tightening federal controls on firearms after the Kennedy assassination. As the historian Richard Hofstadter wrote in his own famous Kennedy-era essay, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics," these Arizona gun enthusiasts were convinced that the American government was being taken over by a "subversive power." Sound familiar? Even now the radicals are taking a nonviolent toll on the Obama presidency. Obama complains, not without reason, that the news media, led by cable television, exaggerate the ruckus at health care events. But why does he exaggerate the legitimacy and clout of opposition members of Congress who, whether through silence or outright endorsement, are surrendering to the nuts? Even Charles Grassley, the supposedly adult Iowa Republican who is the Senate point man for his party on health care, has now capitulated to the armed fringe by publicly parroting their "pull the plug on grandma" fear-mongering. For all the talk of Obama's declining poll numbers this summer, he towers over his opponents. In last week's Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll, only 21 percent approve of how Republicans in Congress are handling health care reform (as opposed to the president's 41 percent). Should Obama fail to deliver serious reform because his administration treats the pharmaceutical and insurance industries as deferentially as it has the banks, that would be shameful. Should he fail because he in any way catered to a decimated opposition party that has sunk and shrunk to its craziest common denominator, that would be ludicrous. The G.O.P., whose ranks have now dwindled largely to whites in Dixie and the less-populated West, is not even a paper tiger — it's a paper muskrat. James Carville is correct when he says that if Republicans actually carried out their filibuster threats on health care, it would be a political bonanza for the Democrats. In last year's campaign debates, Obama liked to cite his unlikely Senate friendship with Tom Coburn, of all people, as proof that he could work with his adversaries. If the president insists that enemies like this are his friends — and that the nuts they represent can be placated by reason — he will waste his opportunity to effect real change and have no one to blame but himself...." from The Guns of August By FRANK RICH NYT |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Aug 09 - 11:35 AM The basic program is to drive up fear, hatred, and division between different groups of people in the society through extreme rhetoric. So Fox agitates the most doctrinaire Christians and hardline conservatives with those sort of scare stories. At the same time, the more liberal media outlets agitate their constituency with other types of scare stories from the opposite angle. The 2 sets of stories work in tandem to great effect. Both sides drive up the fear and outrage factor in the population. Christians get scared of gays and atheists. Gays get scared of Christians. Atheists get scared. Conservatives get scared. Liberals get scared. People on this forum get scared. They all think to themselves...."if only it weren't for those bastards (the other section of the population that they're scared of)...this would be a decent country!" That keeps the public disorganized and it consumes their energy in fruitlessly fighting with each other. It provokes a few violent incidents here and there which helps to further drive up the fear factor. This provides apparent justification for increasing police powers and reducing civil rights and surveillance in order to "protect" people. It results in the world's largest per capita prison population. The screws on society tighten. The people actually running the show benefit from all that and increase their control. If the shit REALLY hits the fan someday, they will declare martial law. And at that point the game is up. They will have won totally, they will have established their fascist New Order, and the public will have lost the game by wasting all its energy fighting amongst itself and against itself instead of challenging its real masters and controllers. This is not a fight between the "Right" and the "Left". It's just made to look that way in order to keep ordinary people divided against themselves. It's a fight between a few incredibly rich "haves" (who own both the conservative and the liberal major media outlets) and 150 million "have-nots". Amos and BB...you two are playing out that drama against each other daily right here on this thread. You're both members of the 150 million "have-nots" and you're wasting your energy on fighting with each other over the phony left/right divide. The people at the top would be quite pleased at seeing you do that. It helps their cause. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 24 Aug 09 - 12:20 PM LH: You are dreaming a wide but shallow dream, in which you are using a small fragment of our natures to inspire cartoon characters. But you are not tracking with reality. As it happens both Bruce and myself are employed technical professionals working in steady jobs (last I checked) and earning adequate livings. We are not have-nots by any ordinary sense of the word. Furthermore your continuous erection of aa high-level conspiracy of rich capitalists steering the world to their own ends is jejeune and, I would say, naive. THe real world is far more complex than that. My caterwauling with Bruce does not detract from my affection for him. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Aug 09 - 12:38 PM I am not suggesting that you are have-nots by any ordinary sense of the word, Amos. You have to consider the context in what I say. I'm suggesting that you are not multi-billionaires. If you were, you'd be dealing with a whole different deck of cards. There's a point some people get to in life where no matter how much they have, it's never enough. They get caught up in the game...and the game is only about one thing: winning. You win by getting more. The more you get, the bigger the "win". Therein lies the problem. And, yes, I know that you get along fine with each other. I get along fine with DougR too...despite the fact that we disagree on almost everything when it comes to politics. ;-) I get along with him well because I respect him as a human being, and he knows that. I'm sure you and BB also respect each other as human beings, and that's all that's really needed to get along with other people (most of the time). The real world is complex...yes. But society is run, ultimately, by one thing: money. He who can control the most money calls the shots. This is true in any marketplace, and in any world power structure. The most money buys whatever it wants to, hires as much firepower as it wants to, invades whom it wants to, passes what laws it wants to, controls what media outlets it wants to, runs which banks it wants to, and there's not a thing that you or I can do to stop that. Specially if we don't even know who is giving the orders or where he lives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 24 Aug 09 - 01:47 PM George SOros,who aspires to philosophy as well as to financial trading, makes the point that it is impossible to get a clear analysis of a system within which one is a participant. He extends the discussion much firther but he raises a good point, I think--we are all shooting in the dark, extrapolating against our best efforts to imagine probabilities, through an unknwon series of filters, emotional biases. and so on. Given this through-a-glass-darkly syndrome as an inherent part of the human condition I would argue that it makes little sense for us to get very heated up about our partial analyses; it makes sense to educate oneself as best one can and try to do better and support those who are seriously trying to do the same. Obama is such a person. I have no idea how successful he will turn out to be, given the rivers of human emotional fire through which he has to wade. But I am pretty sure he is not signing in with a conspiratorial power clique at the top of the world. Billionaires are human beings, just like centenaires. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Aug 09 - 04:17 PM Good post, Amos. I agree that "we are all shooting in the dark, extrapolating against our best efforts to imagine probabilities, through an unknown series of filters, emotional biases. and so on." Indeed. That is the human condition, and it always has been. We all attempt to be ojective, we sincerely try to ascertain the truth, but we can't help but do so through our own set of filters and emotional biases. It's when people refuse to admit to their own fallibility in that sense that they get really unreasonable. I'm readily willing to admit to my fallibility in that sense...and I think you are too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 25 Aug 09 - 06:09 PM WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The $787 billion stimulus package passed in February will fuel a recovery in the moribund U.S. economy this year, Congress' non-partisan budget watchdog said on Tuesday. "Economic activity will begin to rebound in the second half of 2009, largely the result of fiscal stimulus," the Congressional Budget Office said in its assessment of the federal budget and U.S. economy. The stimulus has become a political hot potato amid record budget deficits and public concern over federal spending. Congressional Republicans, who voted overwhelmingly against the stimulus package, have portrayed it as a pork-laden boondoogle that has done little to counter the effects of the worst economic downturn since World War Two. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said the stimulus money should be diverted to reduce the budget deficit, which the White House and the CBO estimate will reach a record $1.6 trillion for this fiscal year that ends on September 30. Democrats, with an eye on next year's midterm congressional elections, have been eager to highlight the effects of the stimulus money as it makes its way to the public. "The Recovery Act, even while it added to the short-term deficit, staved off catastrophe and is bringing this recession to an end," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said after the CBO released its report. The government had paid out about $80.9 billion in stimulus funds as of August 14, according to the White House. The stimulus act's impact on the economy will grow through the end of the year and peak in the first half of 2010, the CBO said, though estimates are difficult because there is no way to know for sure how the economy would have performed without it. The stimulus will boost gross domestic product between 1.4 percent and 3.8 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009 and between 1.1 percent and 3.4 percent in the fourth quarter of 2010, the budget experts said. By the end of 2013 its effect will be minimal. ... Reuters |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 26 Aug 09 - 11:55 AM A brief and very clear exposition of Obama's health-care reform requirements is available by clicking on the link <==. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Aug 09 - 12:43 PM Washington Post: Why Obamacare Is Failing By Michael Gerson Wednesday, August 26, 2009 At first it seemed plausible that President Obama had a communications problem on health care -- to which the solution was always more and more Obama. But exposure did not translate into persuasion. Then it seemed useful to diagnose a partisan problem, blaming a small minority of congressional obstructionists and town hall crazies for frustrating the will of the majority -- until polls showed a majority opposing Democratic approaches to health reform. More Americans (according to a recent Post/ABC News poll) now think that health quality, costs and their own insurance coverage will get worse under Obamacare than believe these things will improve. In fact, Obama has a reality problem on health care, and it has begun to threaten his standing as a leader. He staked the success of his early presidency -- perhaps of his entire presidency -- on a health reform plan both vague and divisive, which manages to anger deficit hawks as well as liberals who believe that compromise has already gone too far. Obamacare has been the political version of the neutron bomb, vaporizing supporters while leaving every structural obstacle in place. The political damage is already considerable. Obama has seen one of the largest drops in approval for a new president in modern times. Confidence among political independents that Obama has the ability to make the right decisions has fallen by 20 percentage points since his inauguration. Why is comprehensive health reform so difficult? Some structural challenges have complicated this issue since the days of Harry Truman. Because there are vastly more people inside the current health-care system than outside of it, the majority tends to be risk-averse and suspicious of efforts that might benefit the minority at their expense. And millions of Americans associated with the health industry -- not just a few insurance company fat cats -- have a financial interest in the outcome of the health reform debate. They naturally try to calculate what changes would mean to them, and uncertainty encourages conservatism. Obama thought -- not without reason -- that his political moment might be different. His electoral mandate was broad. An atmosphere of economic crisis, he calculated, might leave Americans open to Rooseveltian social innovation. It was a miscalculation. Americans were neither as desperate nor as malleable as they were during the New Deal. Obama's massive spending, intended to stabilize the economy, also drained the Treasury, making it more difficult to propose major new expenditures. Deficit estimates of $9 trillion over 10 years have raised the prospect, according to Warren Buffett, of an American "banana republic" -- endlessly printing money, weakened by inflation and abandoned by foreign bond investors. At the same time, public trust in government remains "close to all-time lows," William Galston of the Brookings Institution said in an interview. "Even when President Obama's popularity was at an all-time high, in March and April, trust in government barely moved off the lows of the fall. Obama's personal popularity did not translate into a belief in the efficacy and integrity of government." Add to this the fact that one of the main sources of revenue to fund Obamacare is reductions in Medicare. Many seniors are naturally concerned that proposed cost constraints in this program might eventually mean service constraints. And it doesn't help that cuts in Medicare would be used to fund someone else's entitlement, instead of strengthening Medicare itself. Democratic partisans still insist that imposing reform by a "go-it-alone" strategy is possible and necessary. The political cost, the argument goes, has already been paid. Why not reap the political benefit by pleasing the base? Didn't we see, in 1993 and 1994, the cost of coming up empty on health reform? It can't happen again. This might make sense if the main obstacle were Republican resistance to a popular bill. But it isn't. Democrats are fighting against a swift current of fiscal responsibility, widespread skepticism about government and resentment against using Medicare as the smashed piggy bank for reform. A party-line, Democratic transformation of American health care in this environment -- in the midst of decisively losing a public argument -- would smack of power-hungry radicalism, more the liberalism of Robespierre than Jefferson. Obama's choices on health care during the next few weeks will determine much about the nature and trajectory of his presidency. Eventually it comes down to a question: Will Obama make necessary strategic adjustments before his political humiliation -- or after it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 26 Aug 09 - 03:43 PM HAVANA (Reuters) - President Barack Obama is trying to make positive changes in the United States, but is being fought at every turn by right-wingers who hate him because he is black, former Cuban leader Fidel Castro said on Tuesday. In an unusually conciliatory column in the state-run media, Castro said Obama had inherited many problems from his predecessor, George W. Bush, and was trying to resolve them. But the "powerful extreme right won't be happy with anything that diminishes their prerogatives in the slightest way." Obama does not want to change the U.S. political and economic system, but "in spite of that, the extreme right hates him for being African-American and fights what the president does to improve the deteriorated image of that country," Castro wrote. "I don't have the slightest doubt that the racist right will do everything possible to wear him down, blocking his program to get him out of the game one way or another, at the least political cost," he said. Castro, who writes regular commentaries for Cuba's state-run media, has criticized Obama, complimented him occasionally and said that he is watching him closely to see if he means what he says about changing U.S. policy toward Cuba. His latest column comes during a visit to Cuba by New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson that has stirred speculation that he may try to push U.S.-Cuba relations forward. Richardson has been a diplomatic trouble-shooter in nations with which the United States has poor relations. In 1996 he negotiated with Castro for the release of three Cuban political prisoners. Obama has said he wants to end 50 years of hostilities between the United States and Cuba and has eased the long-standing U.S. trade embargo against the communist-led island. But he has said the embargo will be lifted only if Cuba shows progress on political prisoners and human rights. Cuban President Raul Castro has said he is happy to discuss these issues but will make no unilateral concessions.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 26 Aug 09 - 04:54 PM UPDATE 5-White House, CBO debt forecasts challenge Obama Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:06pm EDT * White House sees 10-year deficit at $9 trillion * Grim news for Obama's healthcare push * Slow recovery to hurt tax revenues as spending soars (Adds detail, reaction) By Alister Bull and Andy Sullivan WASHINGTON, Aug 25 (Reuters) - The U.S. national debt will nearly double over the next 10 years, government forecasts showed on Tuesday, challenging President Barack Obama's economic and healthcare overhaul agenda. The White House midsession budget forecast and the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office both forecast that government revenues will be crimped by a slow recovery from the worst recession since the 1930s Great Depression, while spending on retirement and medical benefits soars. The White House projected a cumulative $9 trillion deficit between 2010 and 2019, while the CBO pegged the total at $7.1 trillion because it assumed higher revenues as tax cuts expire. [ID:nN25198577] The spending blitz could push the national debt, now more than $11 trillion, to close to $20 trillion. The debt is the total sum the government owes, while the deficit is the yearly gap between revenues and spending. "If anyone had any doubts that this burden on future generations is unsustainable, they're gone," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, adding that economic stimulus funds should be diverted to pay down U.S. debt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Aug 09 - 06:02 PM Given the fact that Canada's present universal single payer health care system for ALL of our citizens costs 30% less per capita than present USA governmental health care spending on its citizens costs....AND achieves better results in national health standards than the USA system at LESS cost, I am puzzled as to why the American system does not try to reduce its own medicare costs by adopting a health care system exactly like Canada's! ;-) Could it be because it would threaten the huge profits of large privately-owned health insurance and pharmaceutical companies? Could it be because the American politicians have been influenced (bought) by those companies? Hmmm...ummm...gosh! Whaddya think? Does a bear shit in the woods? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 26 Aug 09 - 10:56 PM LH: Mostly, yes. Depends on the bear. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Riginslinger Date: 26 Aug 09 - 11:05 PM The Obama campaign worked because money can buy anything in America. The administration is not working because it's hard to figure out what to buy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 27 Aug 09 - 12:12 AM A traveler writing in the NEw York Times remarks: "...and it also helps to be far away from America and the mounting drumbeat of Democratic defeatism on health care reform. Nobody is so ready to embrace martyrdom as my fellow liberals, and here they are, seven months after Mr. Obama took the oath, crying out, "Where did it go, the glory and the dream?" Get a grip. Solid majorities in the House and Senate and yet a few puffs of smoke from the other side and Democrats are full of consternation. If they back out on this young president, and if this Congress cannot pass the public option and meet the basic human needs of our people, what does this say about us? Here in London, people are amused at the wild paranoid fantasies of the right. I don't care about that, I hold weak-kneed Democrats responsible, and if they get spooked by a few hecklers, then it's time to find replacements. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Aug 09 - 01:19 AM "if this Congress cannot pass the public option and meet the basic human needs of our people, what does this say about us?" It says that your government is controlled by corporate lobbyists, no matter who gets elected president, and your public is too apathetic or powerless or misinformed to do anything about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 27 Aug 09 - 10:04 PM >b>Associated Press Writers Eileen Sullivan And Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press Writers – Wed Aug 26, 2:45 pm ET WASHINGTON – A sleepy Montana checkpoint along the Canadian border that sees about three travelers a day will get $15 million under President Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan. A government priority list ranked the project as marginal, but two powerful Democratic senators persuaded the administration to make it happen. - - - -Despite Obama's promises that the stimulus plan would be transparent and free of politics, the government is handing out $720 million for border upgrades under a process that is both secretive and susceptible to political influence. This allowed low-priority projects such as the checkpoint in Whitetail, Mont., to skip ahead of more pressing concerns, according to documents revealed to The Associated Press. - - - -A House oversight committee has added the checkpoint projects to its investigation into how the stimulus money is being spent. The top Republican on that committee, California's Rep. Darrell Issa, sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Wednesday, questioning why some projects leapfrogged others. - - - -It wasn't supposed to be that way. In 2004, Congress ordered Homeland Security to create a list, updated annually, of the most important repairs at checkpoints nationwide. But the Obama administration continued a Bush administration practice of considering other, more subjective factors when deciding which projects get money. - - - -• A border station in Napolitano's home state of Arizona is getting $199 million, five times more than any other border station. The busy Nogales checkpoint has required repairs for years but was not rated among the neediest projects on the master list reviewed by the AP. Napolitano credited her lobbying as Arizona governor for getting the project near the front of the line for funding under the Bush administration. All it needed was money, which the stimulus provided. - - - -• A checkpoint in Laredo, Texas, which serves more than 55,000 travelers and 4,200 trucks a day, is rated among the government's highest priorities but was passed over for stimulus money. - - - - The Westhope, N.D., checkpoint, which serves about 73 people a day and is among the lowest-priority projects, is set to get nearly $15 million for renovations. The Whitetail project, which involves building a border station the size and cost of a Hollywood mansion, benefited from two key allies, Montana Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester. Both pressed Napolitano to finance projects in their state. Tester's office boasted of that effort in an April news release, crediting Baucus and his seat at the head of the "powerful Senate Finance Committee." - - - -Customs officials would not discuss that claim. Asked to explain Whitetail's windfall, they provided a one-page fact sheet that contains no information about Whitetail's needs and is almost identical to the fact sheet for every other Montana project. - - - -It's hardly a recent phenomenon for politicians to use their influence to steer money to their home states. Yet Obama said the stimulus would be different. He banned "earmarks," which lawmakers routinely slip into bills to pay for pet projects, and he told agencies to "develop transparent, merit-based selection criteria" for spending. - - - -Customs and Border Protection, the Homeland Security agency overseeing border projects, allowed the AP to review the list but will not make it public or explain its justifications for deviating from it. - - - -Releasing that information would allow the public to see whether less important projects are getting money. The Transportation Department, for instance, recently was criticized by its internal watchdog for not following its standards when handing out money for 50 airport construction projects. Now the full $1.1 billion airport construction program is under scrutiny. - - - -Without the lists, the public and members of Congress don't know when the administration bumps a project ahead of others ranked more important. - - - -Customs officials said they wouldn't release the master list because it was just a starting point and subject to misunderstanding. They acknowledged there's no way for the public to know whether they are cherry-picking projects. - - - -"There's a certain level of trust here," said Robert Jacksta, a deputy customs commissioner. Some discrepancies between the stimulus plan and the priority list can be attributed to Congress, which set aside separate pools of money for large and small border stations. That guaranteed that a few small, probably lower-rated projects would be chosen ahead of bigger, higher-priority projects. But it doesn't explain all the discrepancies, because even within the two pools, Homeland Security sometimes reached way down on the list when selecting projects. - - - -Many of the nation's 163 border checkpoints, known as land ports, are more than 40 years old and in need of upgrade and repairs. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, those needs became more pressing and complex as officials beefed up border security. There is far more work to be done than money to complete it. - - - -To prioritize, officials score each project on traffic volume, security vulnerability, construction needs and other factors. The resulting list represents "an objective and fair method for prioritizing projects," officials wrote in a 2005 summary. - - - -That's the process the Obama administration described in a news release announcing $720 million in stimulus money for borders. But it didn't say that officials can choose projects out of order for many reasons. - - - -Trent Frazier, who oversees the border projects, said the list Congress required is more like a meal plan. The administration can decide when to eat each dish, as long as everything eventually gets eaten. - - - -Explaining why one project might get pushed ahead, Frazier said, "You just really liked pizza and you wanted to accelerate it." In the case of the stimulus, officials said the Nogales, Ariz., project was construction-ready, a requirement of the recovery law. Officials also consider the economy, which means if the government expects local businesses to close and border traffic to decrease, it can delay paying for that project. - - - -In one instance, officials said they reached deep into the list to provide $39 million for repairs in Van Buren, Maine, because flooding made the facility a safety hazard. In another, they are spending $30 million in Blaine, Wash., a lower-rated project that is unusual because it includes covering the costs of a state road project. With the 2010 Olympics coming to nearby Vancouver, Canada, officials worried the border would be strained without the project. - - - -Officials said they could similarly justify every decision they've made. They would not provide those justifications to the AP. Frazier said the department would answer questions on a case-by-case basis, working through Congress to explain decisions to the public. - - - -But even some in Congress say they aren't getting answers. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, said he has yet to hear a good explanation about why highly ranked projects such as Laredo were snubbed. More than $116 billion in freight passed through Laredo last year, according to the Transportation Department. It is one of the busiest border stations in the country. Unemployment in the metropolitan area is 9.4 percent. - - - -"For the sake of fairness, if you have a list, there's some sort of expectation that you're going to follow that list," Cuellar said. Tester, who said he pressed the Obama administration to get money for Montana projects, said border crossings in his state had been unfairly ignored. "The northern border tends to be forgotten, and it shouldn't be," Tester told the Great Falls Tribune after announcing $77 million for Montana posts in the stimulus. Whitetail, Mont., an unincorporated town with a population of 71, saw only about $63,000 in freight cross its border last year. County unemployment is an enviable 4 percent. "I think, absolutely, it's going to create jobs and build the infrastructure," Tester said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 01 Sep 09 - 05:56 AM Daily Presidential Tracking Poll Monday, August 31, 2009 The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 30% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -11 (see trends). Twenty-nine percent (29%) are confident that Congress knows what it's doing when it comes to the economy. If Americans could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, 57% would throw out all the legislators and start over again. Just 25% would vote to keep the Congress. The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates also available on Twitter and Facebook. Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That's the lowest level of total approval yet measured for Obama. Fifty-three percent (53%) now disapprove. Eighty-one percent (81%) of Democrats approve while 83% of Republicans disapprove. As for those not affiliated with either major party, 66% disapprove. See other recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 02 Sep 09 - 02:05 AM Uh-huh. So? A poll is a momentary snapshot of the changing (and very fickle) mood of the public. And it keeps changing all the time. Let's say you are a president, and you're unpopular at the moment. So? All presidents have faced such moments of unpopularity at some time during their term of office...if not several times. What should a president do, faced by the absolutely horrifying fact that he is (at the moment) losing popularity?!!! (I'm being humorous.) Shoud he get stinking drunk? Or reverse all his decisions in a frantic attempt to be loved again? ;-) Or start a war? (this usually boosts a president's popularity tremendously in the short run...maybe not in the long run, though, so it's risky.) Get deeply depressed and jump in front of a bus? Binge on chocolate and junk food until comatose? Fight with his cabinet and wife about it? Or....? How about this: Just accept the fact that the world is not going to end because your popularity just took a dip this month, and get on with what is, let's face it, not exactly the world's most stress-free job...and remember that the people in the other party are going to hate you no matter what you do anyway. They base their own sense of identity on doing that, so don't expect them to give it up just for you! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 03 Sep 09 - 10:04 PM It has been nearly a week since Amos sung praises to his dear leader. Could it be the awakening has begun? Here is an example of his genius: WASHINGTON: Tens of thousands of unsafe or decaying bridges carrying 100 million drivers a day must wait for repairs because states are spending stimulus money on spans that already are in good shape or on easier projects like repaving roads, an Associated Press analysis shows. President Barack Obama urged Congress last winter to pass his $787 billion stimulus package so some of the economic recovery money could be used to rebuild what he called America's ''crumbling bridges.'' Lawmakers said it was a historic chance to chip away at the $65 billion backlog of deficient structures, often neglected until a catastrophe like the Minneapolis bridge that collapsed two years ago this Saturday. States, however, have other plans. Of the 2,476 bridges scheduled to receive stimulus money so far, nearly half have passed inspections with high marks, according to federal data. Those 1,123 sound bridges received such high inspection ratings that they normally would not qualify for federal bridge money, yet they will share in more than $1.2 billion in stimulus money. http://www.ohio.com/news/nation/52149757.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Sep 09 - 10:26 PM Hmmm. Not surprising, Sawzaw. How does a chief executive compel hundreds of thousands of different officials in thousands of different places to spend available funds on exactly the right stuff and not the wrong stuff? ;-) How would he do it? Go to each location and take charge personally? Hire a hand-picked staff of 100,000 totally trustworthy people to go all over the country and oversee how each packet of money is spent? Naww...impossible. Graft, corruption, favors to old friends, and sheer convenience is what happens to stimulus money in the real world, and a president is in fact pretty much helpless to do anything about that, because he can't personally control every link in the chain. Emiliano Zapata, after becoming the new president of Mexico, discovered that his sincere efforts to reform the society were impossible to achieve, because the corruption of the entire governmental structure around him utterly confounded every order he gave and every law he passed. He soon resigned in disgust and went back home to Morelos. He's the only man in the history of Mexico who freely and willingly resigned the presidency at the height of his power because he found that he couldn't achieve anything useful through it, due to almost universal corruption all around him. If I were Obama, I would also resign in disgust and go home, knowing that there's nothing I can really do in that $ySStem. But he won't. He's much more a part of the established system than Zapata ever was. They killed Zapata for having the nerve to walk away from ultimate power over issues of principle. Men that honest simply cannot be allowed to live in such a system once they attain a position of real influence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 03 Sep 09 - 10:29 PM A lot of folks are vociferously supporting Obama's health reform movement. As for the States having different plans, I am not clear what your point is, Sawz. Obama -- unlike some recent Presidents -- has no interest in being a dictator. I'd say he's holding his ground rather well, once you discount all the hate-noise being voiced by small numbers of hate-filled loudmouths like Beck, Limbaugh, and a few similar idiots. It would be nice if you had some clear statements to make of your own. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 03 Sep 09 - 10:56 PM LH: He said he cold do it. I am still waiting. January 8th 2009 Washington - US president-elect Barack Obama warned Thursday that the recession in the United States could grow "dramatically worse" and last for years unless "bold" policies are enacted to reverse the trend. Unemployment could rise into double digits and the US economy could lose 1 trillion dollars of its capacity as the country copes with the poorest economic conditions since the Great Depression of the 1930s, Obama said. "I don't believe it's too late to change course, but it will be if we don't take dramatic action as soon as possible," Obama said in a major speech on the economy at George Mason University, just outside Washington in Fairfax, Virginia. Obama and his economic advisors are working on a stimulus plan that could reportedly reach up to 1 trillion dollars to pump money into the economy by investing in infrastructure projects, healthcare, education and alternative energy sources. Obama wants the plan ready for congressional action after he takes office January 20. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 03 Sep 09 - 11:08 PM Amos is the one that spouts the hatred and accuses others of what he does. If he sees a fact he does not like he calls it hate speech. Here's some facts for you to whine about: In 1913, thinking it was being overcharged by the steel companies for armor plate for warships, the federal government decided to build its own plant. It estimated that a plant with a 10,000-ton annual capacity could produce armor plate for only 70% of what the steel companies charged. When the plant was finally finished, however -- three years after World War I had ended -- it was millions over budget and able to produce armor plate only at twice what the steel companies charged. It produced one batch and then shut down, never to reopen. Or take Medicare. Other than the source of its premiums, Medicare is no different, economically, than a regular health-insurance company. But unlike, say, UnitedHealthcare, it is a bureaucracy-beclotted nightmare, riven with waste and fraud. Last year the Government Accountability Office estimated that no less than one-third of all Medicare disbursements for durable medical equipment, such as wheelchairs and hospital beds, were improper or fraudulent. Medicare was so lax in its oversight that it was approving orthopedic shoes for amputees. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277530070436823.html So Amos, If Mr Obama can save money on medical insurance, why does he allow medicare to piss away 30%? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Sep 09 - 10:51 AM Sawzaw, they ALL say they can do it while they're campaigning, and some of them may even believe it. Maybe Obama believed it. Hard to say. But then they get to Washington and find themselves neck deep in the political cesspool of corporate graft, influence-peddling, and organized media disinformation, and they soon find out that they can't do it...so they just go through the motions and try to survive as best they can. You are mistaken in assuming that Obama is the man in control right now or the man to blame for it all. He's the sacrificial lamb that gets to take the blame at the moment, that's all. He's merely representative of the real corporate powers that stand behind him and run the show. He's temporary. The real powers are not temporary, and no one gets to vote either for or against them. They are untouchable, given the present $ySStem and how it works. It's like you're blaming Hulk Hogan or Jake "The Snake" Roberts or The Undertaker for the corrupt and silly world of professional wrestling. They are not in charge of it! They're just performers, out there so that the public has something to watch and get excited about.,,someone to love and someone to hate. Obama is not in charge of the $ySStem. He's just the guy who gets to stand on the stage at the moment, get either worshipped or hated by the excited audience, get stuff thrown at him, maybe win the match, maybe lose it....but after the match is over and Obama walks off the stage (or is carried off...), the big WWF will STILL be in charge of the show, and somebody else will come out to replace Obama, and the show will go on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Donuel Date: 04 Sep 09 - 01:24 PM Crosby Stills Nash "Teach your children well..." Now its ;Keep your children Home Don't let them hear what Obamaaa will say... about half the kids who are home schooled are schooled with an evangelical POV. HEY YOU PATRIOTIC PEOPLE who don't want your kids to listen to the President...Let them talk to a Priest behind closed doors or a coach or Mark Foley or Ted Haggard. Wing nuts have now put Barak Obama in the same catagory as David Letterman. Don't leave your child alone with them! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Donuel Date: 04 Sep 09 - 01:25 PM PS Amos never spouts he fact checks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Sep 09 - 01:26 PM Letterman is in that category??? I didn't know. ;-) Some people have said scurrilous stuff like that about Chongo too. Don't believe any of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 04 Sep 09 - 03:43 PM Sawz: I have occasionaly gotten vitriolic about what I think have been outrageous violations of human decency, mostly on thepart of the BUsh administration. Failing to cut back a notional 30% waste factor in Medicare is scarcely in that category, given that Mr. Obama was handed the worst financial crisis in our recent history as his starting portion, again thanks to the malfeasance of his Reaganite predecessors. But I do not generally hate facts. When I find them credible, I respect them. I do insist, though, that you and others like you do not blow up opinions and disguise them as assertions of fact. Most of what you post, even from the WSJ, is not fact but heated points of view. A |
