BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 12:50 AM

Amos:

Are going to refute any of the facts in this poll from Bobert's favorite leftwing El Pinko rag or would it be easier for you to let it pass and attack me instead?

Here are some highlights from the new WaPo/ABC poll.

    * 57% of Americans disapprove of the way Obama is handling the economy (44% strongly disapprove).
    * 58% of Americans disapprove of the way Obama is handling the federal budget deficit, 39% approve.
    * 72% disapprove of the way the Democrat-run U.S. Congress is doing its job.
    * Only 24% think the economy is getting better
    * 66% oppose "plans for a Muslim community center and place of worship in Lower Manhattan, near the site of the former World Trade Center."
    * 19% of Americans consider themselves to be politically liberal, compared with 40% who consider themselves to be conservative.
    * Asked of likely voters: "If the election for the U.S. House of Representatives in November were being held today, would you vote for (the Democratic candidate) or (the Republican candidate) in your congressional district?" Answer... Republican 53%, Democrat 40%

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 11:42 AM

Loyalties shift in vote-rich suburbs

The Washington Post September 22, 2010

...."I've never been more disenchanted," said Donna Mastrangelo, 48, who moved here from Arizona in 2005. She supported Barack Obama in 2008 but now thinks the president overreached. Sitting on a park bench on a balmy afternoon, she turned to her husband, Louis, and said: "We can be swayed any which way at this point. . . . I don't want anyone to assume my vote anymore. I want them to work for it."

In 2008, 59 percent of the voters in Colorado's 7th District were swayed by Obama's promise of a government that works for the middle class. That year they reelected their Democratic congressman, Ed Perlmutter, for a second term. The swing district had swung - from Republican in its early years, to Democratic.

After four years of Democratic control in Washington, however, many independents here who voted for Obama now voice varying degrees of disapproval for the president and his party. They say they are frustrated by his inability to forge bipartisan compromise. They say Obama and the Democrats pursued an agenda that was too liberal and have not done enough to shore up the economy.

Sentiments like this can be overheard all around Reunion, and in outer-ring suburban neighborhoods across the country. Democrats rose to power in Washington in part with a concerted effort to expand their base of support to include the moderate, college-educated and increasingly diverse voters who now populate the farther-out bedroom communities around Denver, Las Vegas, Washington and other metropolitan areas that rose up over the past decade.

This is not tea party country. The two dozen independent voters here who spoke to The Washington Post this month were more practical than ideological in their political views. They said they support politicians based on the everyday concerns that affect their lives: schools, jobs, traffic, the economy.

These suburbanites often decide elections, and Democrats are trying hard to keep hold of them.

"The battle of every election comes down to how far out into the suburbs can you push the line of Democratic dominance," said Ruy Teixeira, a fellow at the [ George Soros funded front organization] liberal Center for American Progress and co-author of a 2002 book, "The Emerging Democratic Majority." "The Democrats have had a lot of success pushing that line out from the urban core. But I think Republicans will reassert their dominance in the farther-flung exurbs. Where is that line going to be drawn? That's going to determine how well the Republicans do."

In the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, independent voters in the country's suburban areas said they support Republican congressional candidates over Democrats by a 2-to-1 margin (62 to 30 percent). ... More here

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 11:52 AM

The pity of it is that all those people can seem to imagine is a choice between Democrats...and Republicans! That's like choosing between Al Capone and Lucky Luciano. Neither choice will result in a change that satisfies their hopes or their genuine needs. The game is fixed.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 02:35 PM

Yes, the games is "fixed", LH but...

...if you wnat to keep it that way then vote Repub... They never met a regulation not worth killing off... And they love their Supreme Court leeting the corpoartion donate unlimitexd sums od cash without so much as having to disclose they are doing so... Those are a couple ways to get it "fixed" even betrter...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 02:54 PM

"Anger is sweeping America. True, this white-hot rage is a minority phenomenon, not something that characterizes most of our fellow citizens. But the angry minority is angry indeed, consisting of people who feel that things to which they are entitled are being taken away. And they're out for revenge.

No, I'm not talking about the Tea Partiers. I'm talking about the rich.

These are terrible times for many people in this country. Poverty, especially acute poverty, has soared in the economic slump; millions of people have lost their homes. Young people can't find jobs; laid-off 50-somethings fear that they'll never work again.

Yet if you want to find real political rage — the kind of rage that makes people compare President Obama to Hitler, or accuse him of treason — you won't find it among these suffering Americans. You'll find it instead among the very privileged, people who don't have to worry about losing their jobs, their homes, or their health insurance, but who are outraged, outraged, at the thought of paying modestly higher taxes.

The rage of the rich has been building ever since Mr. Obama took office. At first, however, it was largely confined to Wall Street. Thus when New York magazine published an article titled "The Wail Of the 1%," it was talking about financial wheeler-dealers whose firms had been bailed out with taxpayer funds, but were furious at suggestions that the price of these bailouts should include temporary limits on bonuses. When the billionaire Stephen Schwarzman compared an Obama proposal to the Nazi invasion of Poland, the proposal in question would have closed a tax loophole that specifically benefits fund managers like him.

Now, however, as decision time looms for the fate of the Bush tax cuts — will top tax rates go back to Clinton-era levels? — the rage of the rich has broadened, and also in some ways changed its character.

For one thing, craziness has gone mainstream. It's one thing when a billionaire rants at a dinner event. It's another when Forbes magazine runs a cover story alleging that the president of the United States is deliberately trying to bring America down as part of his Kenyan, "anticolonialist" agenda, that "the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s." When it comes to defending the interests of the rich, it seems, the normal rules of civilized (and rational) discourse no longer apply.

At the same time, self-pity among the privileged has become acceptable, even fashionable.

Tax-cut advocates used to pretend that they were mainly concerned about helping typical American families. Even tax breaks for the rich were justified in terms of trickle-down economics, the claim that lower taxes at the top would make the economy stronger for everyone.

These days, however, tax-cutters are hardly even trying to make the trickle-down case. Yes, Republicans are pushing the line that raising taxes at the top would hurt small businesses, but their hearts don't really seem in it. Instead, it has become common to hear vehement denials that people making $400,000 or $500,000 a year are rich. I mean, look at the expenses of people in that income class — the property taxes they have to pay on their expensive houses, the cost of sending their kids to elite private schools, and so on. Why, they can barely make ends meet.

And among the undeniably rich, a belligerent sense of entitlement has taken hold: it's their money, and they have the right to keep it. "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society," said Oliver Wendell Holmes — but that was a long time ago.

The spectacle of high-income Americans, the world's luckiest people, wallowing in self-pity and self-righteousness would be funny, except for one thing: they may well get their way. Never mind the $700 billion price tag for extending the high-end tax breaks: virtually all Republicans and some Democrats are rushing to the aid of the oppressed affluent.

You see, the rich are different from you and me: they have more influence. It's partly a matter of campaign contributions, but it's also a matter of social pressure, since politicians spend a lot of time hanging out with the wealthy. So when the rich face the prospect of paying an extra 3 or 4 percent of their income in taxes, politicians feel their pain — feel it much more acutely, it's clear, than they feel the pain of families who are losing their jobs, their houses, and their hopes.

And when the tax fight is over, one way or another, you can be sure that the people currently defending the incomes of the elite will go back to demanding cuts in Social Security and aid to the unemployed. America must make hard choices, they'll say; we all have to be willing to make sacrifices.

But when they say "we," they mean "you." Sacrifice is for the little people. "

Paul Krugman

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 03:00 PM

Bobert...you know I like the Democrats somewhat better than I do the Republicans. Nevertheless, the game is still fixed. They both work primarily on behalf of huge corporate business interests and an imperial foreign policy. What you need is a full scale revolution (a peaceful one would be much preferable to a violent one) that throws out your present 2 party system altogether and tries something radically different.

I do not expect it to happen, however. The forces of media control (brainwashing) and social inertia and conformity are simply too strong to allow it to at this time, in my opinion. Thus you are likely to just continue rebounding back and forth between Dems and Repubs, as in the past, and the decline of America is likely to continue.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 03:50 PM

Tell me then, LH, which corporation pushed so hard for health care reform... No, not the corporations which ended up benefiting but which one/s were in the forefront of pushing for reform???

Or cap and trade???

Or immigration reform???

Or doing away with "Don't ask, don't tell"???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 04:10 PM

Geez, Hawkster, you got yourself all rationalized into a pit of hopeless indifference, huh?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 04:19 PM

"September 18, 2010 (San Diego's East County) -- Although elections happened in many states last Tuesday, there has been no focus or even updates about the good news that was delivered Monday (see links to U.S. Treasury reports below.) I admit that I did spend considerable time watching a few of the most trustworthy news correspondents, yet the fact that President Obama has reduced the United States deficit eight percent was not mentioned.

Why can I flip through the 24/7 hour news channels and not hear about the reduction of our deficit on every station? Shouldn't this be front-page headline news? Where is the ticker-tape parade?

This is a huge accomplishment and frankly, we are ahead of where we were when we initially paid back the deficit in the '90s and transformed our national financial account into "large surpluses" that would "continue accumulating as far as the eye could see." Our new President achieved this in his first 18 months in office! Plus, as we have already witnessed happen before, as soon as our workers gain steady living-wage employment, they will immediately begin rebuilding their lives, thus saturating the markets with income and in real effect, our deficit will be reduced at even a higher rate.

It took President Clinton approximately seven years to pay-down the deficit and we saw for ourselves how rapidly the new surplus began compiling. I wonder, since we are already ahead of schedule, now that he has shown what his plan is capable of achieving with our support and encouragement, what other great things can President Obama accomplish? Perhaps create a new surplus for us, in six years or less?

Maybe if we stop projecting our anger toward him for what happened before he was elected into office; he would have increased energy to continue developing and implementing additional plans to propel us further forward toward success.

This achievement speaks volumes and in fact, it exclaims that we are heading in a healthy direction for our families, our citizens, and our nation. Within this good news is also a reminder for us – that within our ranks is plenty of energy to achieve our mutual and long-held goals. Additionally, our own memories serve to assure us that continuing to develop and implement these plans, we will soon begin rapidly building surpluses and resources beyond our greatest expectations.

Resources:
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/index.html
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0810.pdf
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0810.txt

"Click for article

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 05:23 PM

BTW, Amos,

Nice op-ed by Pual Krugman...

Yeah, the rich are good and pissed off... They have been riding on the backs of the working man for 30 years and grew quite fond of getting money just because they have money???

And they have seen the wealth of the country coming to them for what??? Nothin' except they were rich to begin with... The upper 5% now control 82% of the nation's wealth yet pays only 50% of the taxes??? Hmmmmmm??? That leaves 30% of the nation's wealth untaxed and we are wondering why we have deficits??? Duhhhhhhhh...

So let them be pissed off... A time will come when the Tealiban even figures out that the rich are using them as pawns to keep the mean 'ol government from making the rich pay their fair share...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 07:41 PM

Amos, I am not an American. My personal future and my personal hopes and dreams are not invested in the USA. ;-) I'm sorry if it disturbs you when someone from another nation remarks on the very obvious decline and fall of the system you are living under, but you cannot get the rest of the world to simply ignore you and never say anything about it just to make you feel good...because America profoundly affects the rest of the world. Therefore, we are interested and will comment.

Therefore, I shall comment. My comments do not indicate indifference, my good man, they indicate deep concern. And I say that what your nation needs is a peaceful revolution that forever ends the corrupt political duopoly of Democrats/Republicans that you are presently suffering under.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 07:45 PM

corrupt political duopoly of Democrats/Republicans that you are presently suffering under.

Not to mention the corrupt political triopoly that Canada is suffering under.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 09:59 PM

What next??? Quadopoly???

But seroiusly... Both countries going the wrong way... But between the two I'd say then US is outpacin' Canada for the "Screw Up" gold medal...

We are purdy much boxed in with some very fucked up legislative rules which make deadlock the norm...

The worst thing is that there really isn't any realistic mechanisms for the country to fix itself... That is very messed up... I mean, if it takes a 60% majority to vote in a fix there is absolutely no room for error and thus...

...we are a screwed country...

It has never been so evident as in the last 10 years...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 11:28 PM

LH:

I would never want you not to comment and speak freely, old pal.

But you can probably find a more valuable contribution than just explaining how hopeless things are over and over. Much more valuable. Give it a try.

On a different subject, Does It Taste Like Fruitcake Yet? makes some excellent points about the confusion of popular reaction with widely held (or not) ideas.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 11:39 PM

Monday at a D.C. town-hall session, an "exhausted" Obama supporter, Velma Hart, the CFO of AMVETS, told the president she was "deeply disappointed" in him.

Watch the video

Velma Hart stole the show from the president Tuesday during his economic town hall in Washington, D.C. "I've been told that I voted for a man who said he's going to change things in a meaningful way for the middle class," Hart said during the meeting, broadcast on CNBC. "I'm one of those people, and I'm waiting, sir. I'm waiting. I don't feel it yet." Hart said her family feels their middle-class lifestyle sliding away as they sink back toward the "hot dogs and beans" era of her life. "I'm exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for, and deeply disappointed with where we are right now," Hart said. Hart is the chief financial officer of AMVETS, a veterans' organization, and her husband is a facilities administrator at the Verizon Center in Washington. They have two kids in private school. Obama responded that times are tough for everyone, and that he understood Hart's frustration. He called her the "bedrock of America," saying, "The life you describe, one of responsibility, looking after your family, contributing back to your community--that's what we want to reward." But Hart said Obama didn't answer her most troubling question: whether this economy is "the new reality."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 11:40 PM

For Many, Health Care Relief Begins Today

The New York Times



Sometimes lost in the partisan clamor about the new health care law is the profound relief it is expected to bring to hundreds of thousands of Americans who have been stricken first by disease and then by a Darwinian insurance system.


Insurers Scramble to Comply With Health Rules (September 23, 2010)
On Thursday, the six-month anniversary of the signing of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a number of its most central consumer protections take effect, just in time for the midterm elections.

Starting now, insurance companies will no longer be permitted to exclude children because of pre-existing health conditions, which the White House said could enable 72,000 uninsured to gain coverage. Insurers also will be prohibited from imposing lifetime limits on benefits.

The law will now forbid insurers to drop sick and costly customers after discovering technical mistakes on applications. It requires that they offer coverage to children under 26 on their parentsÕ policies.

It establishes a menu of preventive procedures, like colonoscopies, mammograms and immunizations, that must be covered without co-payments. And it allows consumers who join a new plan to keep their own doctors and to appeal insurance company reimbursement decisions to a third party.

The arrival of the long-awaited changes propelled President Obama, whose Democrats have struggled to exploit their signature achievement, into the backyard of Paul and Frances Brayshaw of Falls Church, Va., to explain his decision to pursue health care.

ÒThe amount of vulnerability that was out there was horrendous,Ó Mr. Obama on Wednesday told a gathering of people chosen to illustrate the lawÕs new provisions. He said he concluded that ÒweÕve just got to give people some basic peace of mind.Ó

Mr. Obama also responded to Republican Congressional leaders who have campaigned on a threat to repeal the act. ÒI want them to look you in the eye,Ó he told his audience, and explain their opposition to a law that is projected to cover 32 million uninsured and reduce the deficit by $143 billion over 10 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 08:51 AM

Good article, Amos...

Bet you a hunnert dollars that Sawz didn't read it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 10:43 AM

You are so right about the corrupt Canadian triopoly, Greg! Actually, it's a quadropoly now. ;-) I couldn't agree more with you. Voting has become a sad joke in this country, because the political parties are ALL merely servants to various big business interests (which are generally based in the USA), and their promises are empty ones.

We Canadians also need a peaceful revolution!

And how are things in the UK?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 12:00 PM

September 23, 2010 represents a new day for American consumers in our health care system. This is the day that a series of new rights, benefits, and protections under the Affordable Care Act
Affordable Care Act begin to bring to an end some of the worst abuses of the insurance industry. Combined, these new will put consumers, not insurance companies, in charge of their health care. Below is a brief summary of the new restrictions for insurance companies and new rights for consumers beginning to take effect:

Insurers Will No Longer Be Able To:

•Deny coverage to kids with pre-existing conditions. Health plans cannot limit or deny benefits or deny coverage for a child younger than age 19 simply because the child has a pre-existing condition like asthma.

•Put lifetime limits on benefits. Health plans can no longer put a lifetime dollar limit on the benefits of people with costly conditions like cancer

•Cancel your policy without proving fraud. Health plans can't retroactively cancel insurance coverage – often at the time you need it most - solely because you or your employer made an honest mistake on your insurance application.

•Deny claims without a chance for appeal. In new health plans, you now have the right to demand that your health plan reconsider a decision to deny payment for a test or treatment. That also includes an external appeal to an independent reviewer.

Consumers in New Health Plans Will Be Able to:

•Receive cost-free preventive services. New health plans must give you access to recommended preventive services such as screenings, vaccinations and counseling without any out-of-pocket costs to you.
•Keep young adults on a parent's plan until age 26. If your health plan covers children, you can now most likely add or keep your children on your health insurance policy until they turn 26 years old if they don't have coverage on the job.
•Choose a primary care doctor, ob/gyn and pediatrician. New health plans must let you choose the primary care doctor or pediatrician you want from your health plan's provider network and let you see an OB-GYN doctor without needing a referral from another doctor.
•Use the nearest emergency room without penalty. New health plans can't require you to get prior approval before seeking emergency room services from a provider or hospital outside your plan's network – and they can't require higher copayments or co-insurance for out-of-network emergency room services.

---

Seems like a step forward to me, folks.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 12:17 PM

Examiner Editorial: Obamacare is even worse than critics thought

Examiner Editorial
September 22, 2010

Much more has been revealed about Obamacare since President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi pushed the bill on Americans six months ago. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP file)

Six months ago, President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rammed Obamacare down the throats of an unwilling American public. Half a year removed from the unprecedented legislative chicanery and backroom dealing that characterized the bill's passage, we know much more about the bill than we did then. A few of the revelations:

» Obamacare won't decrease health care costs for the government. According to Medicare's actuary, it will increase costs. The same is likely to happen for privately funded health care.

» As written, Obamacare covers elective abortions, contrary to Obama's promise that it wouldn't. This means that tax dollars will be used to pay for a procedure millions of Americans across the political spectrum view as immoral. Supposedly, the Department of Health and Human Services will bar abortion coverage with new regulations but these will likely be tied up for years in litigation, and in the end may not survive the court challenge.

» Obamacare won't allow employees or most small businesses to keep the coverage they have and like. By Obama's estimates, as many as 69 percent of employees, 80 percent of small businesses, and 64 percent of large businesses will be forced to change coverage, probably to more expensive plans.

» Obamacare will increase insurance premiums -- in some places, it already has. Insurers, suddenly forced to cover clients' children until age 26, have little choice but to raise premiums, and they attribute to Obamacare's mandates a 1 to 9 percent increase. Obama's only method of preventing massive rate increases so far has been to threaten insurers.

» Obamacare will force seasonal employers -- especially the ski and amusement park industries -- to pay huge fines, cut hours, or lay off employees.

» Obamacare forces states to guarantee not only payment but also treatment for indigent Medicaid patients. With many doctors now refusing to take Medicaid (because they lose money doing so), cash-strapped states could be sued and ordered to increase reimbursement rates beyond their means.

» Obamacare imposes a huge nonmedical tax compliance burden on small business. It will require them to mail IRS 1099 tax forms to every vendor from whom they make purchases of more than $600 in a year, with duplicate forms going to the Internal Revenue Service. Like so much else in the 2,500-page bill, our senators and representatives were apparently unaware of this when they passed the measure.

» Obamacare allows the IRS to confiscate part or all of your tax refund if you do not purchase a qualified insurance plan. The bill funds 16,000 new IRS agents to make sure Americans stay in line.

If you wonder why so many American voters are angry, and no longer give Obama the benefit of the doubt on a variety of issues, you need look no further than Obamacare, whose birthday gift to America might just be a GOP congressional majority.



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Obamacare-is-even-worse-than-critics-thought-960772-103571664.html#ixzz10N0O3BvM

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 10:19 AM

"Seems like a step forward to me, folks."

Amos:
You left out the reality part. People are reporting a 19 to 20% increase in their premiums.

Now, exactly where in that "the Affordable Care Act" is there anything to make it more affordable?

Fact is that it was written by health insurance and drug company lobbyists. You know, those people that were not going to run Washington anymore? Now there are five lobbyists for each member of Congress.

And it was "sold" to idealists that think about how things "sound" rather than the facts and realities.

True, some Americans have more coverage than before but it will cost everybody more, not less. People have been deluded into thinking it will cost less.


Democrats' ambitious legislative agenda pushes K Street salaries skyward

Lobbyists for healthcare, energy and financial interests had a banner year in 2009, with the average payout for each reaching as high as $177,000.

Despite his push to rein in special interests, President Barack Obama sparked a boom on K Street with major new proposals on healthcare, climate change and financial policies.

"The magnitude of the work done in the three fields is just huge," said Michael Levy, of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck's Washington office.

New lobbying restrictions led to a decline in the number of registered lobbyists working for clients in each of the three industries, according to data from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

The combination of more work for fewer lobbyists meant record payouts per lobbyist.

Lobbyists working in each of the three industries took home the most on average that they have in a decade, even when adjusted for inflation, according to analysis of the data by The Hill.

Many lobbyists work for clients in several policy areas, so the average payout by industry doesn't necessarily equal the average overall compensation those lobbyists received. Spending was up in all three broad areas of healthcare, energy and financial-services reforms.

Healthcare clients spent the most overall on lobbying at $544 million, which was roughly $60 million more than in 2008. But there were more lobbyists (3,405) on healthcare issues than on either energy (2,311) or financial legislation (2,654).

Lobbyists earned an average of $160,000 for healthcare-related work.

Energy clients paid $409 million for an average of $177,000 per lobbyist. Lobbyists for energy clients beat out financial lobbyists for top billing.

Energy has long been a significant source of lobbying spending. But as a generator of revenue for K Street, the sector really took off after 2007 when the Democrats, now in control of Congress, began pushing sweeping climate change legislation.

A number of new clean-energy companies have hired lobbyists for the first time in the past two years.

Financial firms also have increased their spending on lobbying. The sector spent $465 million lobbying in Washington in 2009, which was about $8 million more than in 2008. But there were 167 fewer lobbyists registered for financial, insurance and real estate clients.

Obama drove huge interest on K Street with a major push for new financial regulations following the worst crisis since the Great Depression. The House Financial Services Committee spent the bulk of 2009 debating major new policies to rein in Wall Street and prevent future taxpayer-funded bailouts.

The House passed legislation in December, a little more than a year after Congress approved a $700 billion bailout for the financial industry.

"Wall Street was bailed out and benefited from taxpayer largesse, and now K Street is benefiting from it," said Carmen Balber, head of the Washington office at Consumer Watchdog.

"We all know the health insurance lobby has been such a massive undertaking and people have spent so much money in supporting or opposing it, but still, on the financial side with fewer firms and fewer lobbyists, the numbers are so much higher. That's a picture of the stakes on Wall Street," Balber said.

Levy of Brownstein said the growth in financial services lobbying was an indication more of the crisis the industry faced last year than of specific proposals on Capitol Hill.

"Financial services is really less what the president's agenda was and just the massive collapse of the sector," Levy said. "A lot of it is reactive to events rather than reactive to the president's agenda."

Lobbying revenue across the three industries has not always been on the rise. Revenue adjusted for inflation dipped in all three sectors in 2002 from 2001. And lobbying revenue for financial clients dipped each year between 2003 and 2006.

Since 2007, however, lobbying revenue has been on an upswing across the three industries.

The biggest swing has been in the energy field, with energy clients spending $387 million in 2008 compared with $273 million in 2007.

More Here

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 11:32 AM

The Daily Beast

Six weeks before the election, President Obama couldn't fill the ballroom at the Roosevelt Hotel, despite cheap tickets on offer. And then he was met by hecklers.

Who would have thought that six weeks before a cliffhanger election, President Obama would have to reach down to the D list to fill a room to listen to him? Most of us low rollers arrived early to see President Obama up close and personal. Our tickets for the general reception at the Roosevelt Hotel in New York were only $100. Some thought the email invitation was a joke. Some bought tickets for $50 from their desperate Democratic committeeman. Some bought the same day.

"It's Filene's," enthused Sharon Douglas, reliving her heady days as a volunteer in Obama's 2008 campaign. The doorman beckoned conspiratorially and ushered us out one door and in through another to stand at the back of the $500 line. Their crowd came from Wall Street in car services and killer heels. Our crowd came on subways in flats and scuffed teacher's shoes.

Only after I received four email invitations and two personal calls imploring me to come did I call Speaker Pelosi's office to check the admission price. "You mean, to be in the room with the President of the United States is now on fire sale for $100?"

"Yup."

"How long do we get?"

"Half hour."

"How many $100 givers have rsvp'd?"

"Mmmm 250."

"Do we need to line up early to get in?"

"That's not necessary. Everybody will get in."

And everybody did,450 people in a room that holds 650. Even Obama's fire sale didn't sell out.   

But the foot soldiers were a cheerful bunch. We expected no stroking. We stood for two and a half hours munching on deli food and enjoying the open bar. I sat on the floor next to the 6-year-old black daughter of a Swedish law professor who drove down from Albany. We read The Wizard of Oz together, hoping for magic. Astrid Grahn-Farley wrote in her school notebook, "me and mommy wait long line for presdint obama."

more here

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 11:58 AM

If all the partisan arm-waving here could be harnessed, we could probably solve the energy crisis.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 12:04 PM

I doubt Bruce gets many histrionics to the gallon...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 12:21 PM

"Keep young adults on a parent's plan until age 26."

In some sates it is 30. Are the kids in those states fucked over now?

Iowa Dependent Health Insurance Covers Full-Time Students, Regardless of Age.

http://www.healthquote360.com/featured-health-insurance-articles/how-old-can-you

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 12:28 PM

"Good article, Amos...

Bet you a hunnert dollars that Sawz didn't read it...

B~ "

You owe Amos $100 but you can easily pay it with the reduction in your health insurance premiums.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 05:34 PM

As Public Sees GOP Moving Right, More Say It Shares Their Values, View of Government, According to Gallup Data

At the same time the public perceives the Republican Party becoming more conservative, more Americans are saying the party reflects their values and their attitude about the role of government, according to newly released Gallup polling data.

Thursday, September 23, 2010
By Terence P. Jeffrey


(CNSNews.com) - At the same time the public perceives the Republican Party becoming more conservative, more Americans are saying the party reflects their values and their attitude about the role of government, according to newly released Gallup polling data.

Democrats, meanwhile, have lost ground on these measures.

In a USA Today/Gallup poll of 1,021 American adults conducted Aug. 27-30, respondents were asked whether they believed the Republican Party had "become more conservative, or not" since Barack Obama took office as president. In the same poll, respondents were also asked how well each of the two major parties "represent your values" and "represent your attitude about the role of government."

Fifty-four percent of Americans told Gallup they believed the GOP had indeed become more conservative since Obama took office, while only 40 percent said they did not believe the Republicans had become more conservative.

At the same time, the Republicans did better than the Democrats on the percentage of Americans who said the party represents their attitude about the role of government and their values.

Fifty-two percent told Gallup the Republican Party represented their attitude about the role of government either "very well" or "moderately well," while only 44 percent said the Democratic Party represented their attitude about the role of government either "very well" or "moderately well."

Fifty-six percent, meanwhile, told Gallup the Republican Party represented their values either "very well" or "moderately well," while only 49 percent said the Democratic Party represented their values either "very well" or "moderately well."

These results indicate a shift in public perception of the major political parties from four years ago, when the Republicans lost the congressional majority to the Democrats in the 2006 midterm elections. These results also resemble the results Gallup got when it asked the same questions in 1994, the year the Republicans won the congressional majority away from the Democrats.

In a poll conducted Oct. 20-22, 2006, just before the Democrats won a majority in Congress, 56 percent of Americans said the Democrats represented their values either "very well" or "moderately well" and 57 percent said the Democrats represented their attitude about the role of government either "very well" or "moderately well."

In that same 2006 poll, only 48 percent said the GOP represented their attitude about the role of government either "very well" or "moderately well," while 51 percent said the GOP represented their values either "very well" or "moderately well."

Since 2006, the Republicans have gained 4 points in the percentage of Americans who believe the party represents their attitude about the role of government, and 5 points in the percentage who believe the party represents their values.

However, the Democrats have lost more in public perception than the Republicans have gained over the past four years, losing 13 points from the percentage who believe the party represents their attitude about the role of government, and 7 from the percentage who believe the party represents their values.

"Americans' views on how well the two major parties reflect their views on the role of government and their values more broadly make clear that the Democrats' image has suffered since they won back control of Congress in 2006," said Gallup's analysis of these poll results. "Republicans have not made comparable perceptual gains in these areas, but largely as a result of the Democrats' losses, Republicans are now leading on both dimensions, similar to their standing in 1994."

In a poll conducted Oct. 22-25, 1994, just before the Democrats lost control of Congress to the Republicans, only 48 percent said the Democrats represented their values either "very well" or 'moderately well" and only 46 percent said the Democrats represented their attitude about the role of government either "very well" or "moderately well."

By contrast, 54 percent of Americans in October 1994 said the Republicans represented their values either "very well" or "moderately well" while 52 percent said the Republicans represented their attitude about the role of government either "very well" or "moderately well."

In periodic Gallup polls conducted on these questions from 1994 onward, the highest the Republicans ever scored on the question of how well they represent the attitude of Americans on the role of government was in a survey conducted Nov. 28-29, 1994, just after the GOP won a majority of Congress—but before it actually took power.

In that poll, 64 percent said the Republicans represented their attitude about the role of government.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Sep 10 - 12:19 AM

Fair and Balanced as per Amos:

RCP Poll Average
President Obama Job Approval ~ 44.9% Approve ~ 50.6% Disapprove

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Sep 10 - 06:25 AM

I am counting down eagerly to the next glorious edition of this thread concept....hopefully, we have only a little over 2 years to wait now!

"BS: Popular Views: the Chongo Administration"

You ain't seen real fun yet! ;-D Nor controversy.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Sep 10 - 08:38 AM

Well, in a way I think we'd be alot better off with Chongz... I mean, them Tea Party folks bust into a town meetin' with the intent of disruptin' it then Chongz would empty a clip from his AK on them... That would sho nuff end this Tealiban (mis)behavior... Like, ahhhhh, right now...

Then Chongz faces the ramining audiance and asks "Any one else wanta act like jerks???"

End of story...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Sep 10 - 09:56 AM

Ha! Ha! Ha! You got it, Bobert. There would never be a dull moment in a Chongo administration. The media would love it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Sep 10 - 08:07 PM

Also, the show "Crossfire" would take on a whole new meaning when Chongo was their guest....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Sep 10 - 08:10 PM

I like it, LH... I like it alot!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Sep 10 - 08:27 PM

I'm telling you, Bobert, the American people would LOVE Chongo once they really got to know him. No one can pin the "wimp" label on this ape. No one. He makes the Republicans look like weak-kneed pansies. He trades flinty-eyed glares with Clint Eastwood over shooters at the bar and never blinks. And the really great thing is......all that and he's NOT a Republican!

Do you realize he intends to dismantle ALL foreign American military bases located outside the continental USA and Hawaii, and bring the troops home? Including Guantanamo and the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan and Japan. Chongo doesn't believe it's right to base your troops and weapons on other people's land, and he won't stand for it. The Republicans will think the world has come to an end when Chongo gets elected. He would also arrest all the top bankers of the largest banks for having caused the national currency to be degraded in value about a hundred times over since 1904 through their financial pyramid schemes, and would bring in Chongo Dollars which would be tied directly to the gold and silver standard, thereby being real money instead of monopoly money. All your Chongo greenbacks could be redeemed in bullion or coin upon demand. It would put an end to the constant decline in the value of American currency.

Amos already has a copy of a Chongo Dollar which I sent him...preliminary artwork. Ask him about it. He'll tell you.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 09:18 AM

Well, LH... I donno... I recall his brief tenure as security chimp back during my campaign for president and his, ahhhhh, bathroom and eatin' habits leave a lot to be desired...

B`

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 09:47 AM

I really don't think that was Chongo, Bobert. You must've got some other chimp in his place. Maybe it was his cousin, Rombo.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 10:08 AM

Wiretapped phones, now Internet?

To better track criminals, U.S. wants to be able to wiretap online communications.

By CHARLIE SAVAGE, New York Times

WASHINGTON - Federal law enforcement and national security officials are preparing to seek sweeping new regulations of the Internet, arguing that their ability to wiretap criminal and terrorism suspects is "going dark" as people increasingly communicate online instead of by telephone.

Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services that enable communications -- including encrypted e-mail transmitters such as BlackBerry, social networking websites such as Facebook and software that allows direct "peer-to-peer" messaging such as Skype -- to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order. The mandate would include being able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages.

The legislation, which the Obama administration plans to submit to Congress next year, raises fresh questions about how to balance security needs with protecting privacy and fostering technological innovation. And because security services around the world face the same problem, it could set an example that is copied globally.

James Dempsey, vice president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, an Internet policy group, said the proposal had "huge implications" and challenged "fundamental elements of the Internet revolution" -- including its decentralized design.

"They are really asking for the authority to redesign services that take advantage of the unique, and now pervasive, architecture of the Internet," he said. "They basically want to turn back the clock and make Internet services function the way that the telephone system used to function."

But law enforcement officials contend that imposing such a mandate is reasonable and necessary to prevent the erosion of their investigative powers.

"We're talking about lawfully authorized intercepts," said Valerie Caproni, general counsel for the FBI. "We're not talking expanding authority. We're talking about preserving our ability to execute our existing authority in order to protect the public safety and national security."

Keeping up with technology

Investigators have been concerned for years that changing communications technology could damage their ability to conduct surveillance. In recent months, officials from the FBI, the Justice Department, the National Security Agency, the White House and other agencies have been meeting to develop a proposed solution.

There is not yet agreement on important elements, such as how to word statutory language defining who counts as a communications service provider, according to several officials familiar with the deliberations.

But they want it to apply broadly, including to companies that operate from servers abroad, such as Research In Motion, the Canadian maker of BlackBerry devices. In recent months, that company has come into conflict with the governments of Dubai and India over their inability to conduct surveillance of messages sent via its encrypted service.

In the United States, phone and broadband networks are already required to have interception capabilities, under a 1994 law called the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act. It aimed to ensure that government surveillance abilities would remain intact during the evolution from a copper-wire phone system to digital networks and cell phones.

Often, investigators can intercept communications at a switch operated by the network company. But sometimes -- like when the target uses a service that encrypts messages between his computer and its servers -- they must instead serve the order on a service provider to get unscrambled versions.

Like phone companies, communication service providers are subject to wiretap orders. But the 1994 law does not apply to them. While some maintain interception capacities, others wait until they are served with orders to try to develop them. That can cause big delays, which the new regulations would seek to forestall.

rest of article...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 10:22 AM

New York Times, BB? When did you start believing what you read in that liberal commie rag?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 10:25 AM

If the ONLY way that those here can determine the "truth" is by who said it, I'll find those sources used in the past to condemn Bush to bring Obama' flwas to light.

It seems no good to use facts, when so many here deny them BECAUSE of who tells them- with no effort to find out what is true and what is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 10:30 AM

Hell, the FBI and CIA have been tapping communication lines since the '20s. It is entirely predictable they would want to keep that advantage when digital, P2P, VOIP and such techniques make old-fashioned wiretapping much less useful.

I think it should be done on a warrant-only basis; the Bush administration got very liberal about intercepting phone conversations without them.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 10:44 AM

I often disagree with you about politics, BB, (and then sometimes too, we agree)...but you are dead right that the primary problem with communication here on political threads is that most of the people here determine "the truth" NOT on the basis of WHAT is said...but on the basis of WHO says it!

Thus, they are not really thinking at all. They're just engaging in standard reactions according to prior prejudice and conditioning...exactly like Pavlov's dog, they salivate when the bell rings, and they growl when the buzzer sounds. There's no real thinking at all, just knee-jerk reaction and a whole lot of hatred and ill will burning up the airwaves.

That's what makes it, frankly, an almost complete waste of anyone's time to engage in these political threads on Mudcat. It's just an endless rehashing of people's knee-jerk hatreds and prejudices and a public airing of their emotional dysfunctionality.

It's kind of entertaining, though, if one can see the funny side of it. ;-) And I often do. With that pleasant thought in mind, I shall leave you all to throw bricks at each other for another hundred or so posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 11:20 AM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 02:06 PM

HEy, General PEtraeus say the Taliban are making overtures for some kind of resolution which could result (fingers crossed) in a settling of the Afghanistan kibble.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 05:25 PM

Isn't Charlie Savage the rightie that NBC brought in to replace Donohue when Donohue questioned invading Iraq??? Just curious...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 05:55 PM

but on the basis of WHO says it! Thus, they are not really thinking at all.

Bullshit.

If a known serial liar makes a statement, its only common sense to assume its bullshit until proven otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 08:33 PM

Covert operations: The Koch billionaires andf their campaign to discredit Obama (New Yorker)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 09:02 PM

Hey, Dick Armet is feelin' like he's chopped liver here with the Kock Brothers money being thrown against Obama and the Dems... Armey has raised hundreds of millions and funneled it thru FreedomWorks and want's his due, thank you...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 12:49 PM

Greg F.

When YOU assume that anything you disagree with is false WITHOUT bothering to look at the facts, YOU become someone who is not thinking, and it is YOUR comments that we assume are bullshit until proven otherwise.

If I say that it is raining here, to declare that statement false WITHOUT looking or going outside and seeing if one gets wet is the mark of a bigotted, ignorant person.

It does not matter what else I may have said, or done. To NOT check verifiable facts BEFORE declaring them false is NOT an indication of intelligence.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 02:30 PM

Bobert:"I mean, them Tea Party folks bust into a town meetin' with the intent of disruptin' it"

It's card carrying terrorist? union members That disrupt town hall meetings and want to take away people's civil rights.

After Cardin's town hall in Townson, MD began - the union members who stood guard of the lines near the concert hall began to provoke and taunt until more Tea Partiers went up to confront them - a bit of a back & forth took place.

The Tealiban is a figment of your imagination. Another monster in your closet. It must be hell living in fear of things that don't exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 10:14 PM

Greg F. : When YOU assume that anything you disagree with is false WITHOUT bothering to look at the facts...

Well, BB, check this out:

"Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person unconsciously denies their own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world or to other people. Thus, it involves imagining or projecting that others have those feelings or attributes."