BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 01:16 PM

Amos: You know nothing but you disparage me, claiming I know nothing.

Even your ignorance is superior to the supposed ignorance of others.

I am merely agreeing with you and explaining why you are not alarmed.

Typical of your logic or lack thereof.

National Debt as per the US Treasury:

09/29/2000......$5,674,178,209,886.86
09/29/2008......$9,945,578,231,981.59
03/26/2009.....$11,046,247,657,049.48

Up $1.1 trillion in 6 months

Now we have an idiot (or tax cheat) that can't figure out how to file income taxes correctly, is in charge of the IRS.

The same person that was in on the decision to bail out AIG and preserve their bonus payments is trying to figure out how to damage control for that disaster.


In Crucible of Crisis, Paulson, Bernanke & Geithner Forge a Committee of Three

By David Cho and Neil Irwin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 19, 2008; Page A01

Global stocks have experienced wild fluctuations this week in the wake of the U.S. government's seizure of insurance giant American International Group, the failure of Lehman Brothers, the disappearance of Merrill Lynch as an independent company and reports the U.S. government will set up a government entity to take on bad debts from financial institutions.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 01:19 PM

Bullshit! Amos!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 01:44 PM

You guys are just full of conclusions and opinions aimed at disparaging the new President, based on a lot of scarey opinions from others, and I am not buying it. SOmehow the wonderful extravagances of our unwarranted and murderous expedition to Iraq are blessed and forgotten. The fact that trillions of the current deficit is to salvage organizations that went criminal and dragged the national economy into the sewer during the Bush years is ignored. But the plan to invest in productive areas of infrastructure, energy restructuring, transport modernization, and other areas which produce long-term growth and employment for widely beneficial results somehow seems wasteful to you. I think you may be built upside down.

I am not asserting that this is the wisest plan possible--it would be foolish of me or anyone to say so without providing a wiser one. If you have particular ideas that would be a better path to reversing the national decline, by all means let's hear about it!!

IF you do not have specifics and suggestions, then QYB.



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 02:03 PM

You are so full of it!...I asked you repeatedly, to address the FACTS that I posted...instead you picked out one phrase, from Lenin, to give your interpretation of what you thought he might have meant...AND AVOIDED ADDRESSING THE FACTS! You do this all the fucking time! So scroll down re-read the other posts, and address them, or STFU! I'm getting quite convinced that the reason you don't, and have such a blind love for this guy, is because it resembles more of a homosexual attraction you have to him, rather than taking an objective look at his policies, and the deficits he is running up, and the economic chaos that will be the result. PUT YOU BRAIN BEFORE YOUR 'POLITICS'! Btw Zogby now has him at 49%...so it sounds like I'm not alone. That is a tremendous drop, in that short of time...But, let's not get off on that...ADDRESS THE FACTS!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 02:33 PM

..and GregF, in the link I posted was a link to the New York Times, article......lazy!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 03:08 PM

Look, fellas: the economy started into a slump, a collapse of a house of cards, late in Bush's term as large numbers of screwy, unethical manipulations began to come home to roost. These criminal schemes were the direct outcome of the atmosphere of laissez-faire and deregulation which began with ROnald Reagan, and multiplied into madness under GWB. But the point is not how this catastophic economic situation came about; to hell with that. The point is that you are in no position to act surprised that remedying the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression is a very expensive task. It would be cheaper, probably, to put a bunch of bandaids and then ride your term out in the interim calm, until the underlying flaws re-asserted themselves.   It is far more responsible, if more expensive, to face up to the WHOLE problem and try to redesign our systems of management so that we cure the situation at the root instead of at the leaf.

Them's the fax, ma'am.

I would like to know specifically what it is Obama seems to be doing that he should not. Gradual back off in Iraq? Focusing on key factors in Afghanistan?    Seeking to shift our energy economy toward renewables? SHifting the tax profile to reduce the burden on middle class incomes? Get going on projects that create jobs to end the breadline atmosphere? What do you think he should not be doing he is, or do that he is not?

As for your other crap, GfS, I am not even going to dignify it, it is so full of wild-eyed impossibles. Suggest you find a small square of reality and settle down on it.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 03:55 PM

The reason you can't 'dignify' it is because you use that subterfuge, to steer away from answering it at all!!! ..because you can't. Nice try! Obama is invading all sorts of areas into our personal lives and business, that the Federal government has no business in....unconstitutional,(remember that??..the supreme law of the land??? And GWB is out of office, we already know he was another disaster. Two wrongs don't make a right! If he (Obama)persists, maybe you should call him up, and have him adjust your butt plug!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 04:17 PM

"All kinds of areas....". What a mindless generalization. How about figuring out, in the quiet of your own bed, what it is that is bothering you specifically, then, and stating as much. You keep waving your arms like that, you know, you're likely to fly off the edge of the world. And THEN where would you be?


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 04:32 PM

Another character slam..why don't you just answer the questions? Bailouts? Taking over private businesses. hiring tax evaders? pork barrel spending he said he would go through to insure there would be NONE! Hiring lobbyists, when he lied about that too. Signing bill he claims now, he didn't even read. Lying about who knew what when, about the bailout. Hiring Libby to 'replace' the head of AIG, AFTER THE BAILOUT, then taking aim at him, and the CEO's, for bonuses, when they weren't even there, before the bailout. Making a big deal over the bonuses, when the pork in the bill he signed was far larger. Voiding personal contracts, within businesses, beyond his authority, under the constitution. Refusing to let Geithner resign, or take his resignation....is that a foreshadowing of what he has for us???..This guys is trying to be a fucking dictator, pal...and you just let it slide, because you swoon over how 'cute' he is! Now, if you don't address the issues, then you are just too full of shit to even bother with!..and try to steer away from party line propaganda talking points...and by the way, your supposed 'interpretation' of Lenin's Quote, 'The goal of socialism is communism', is equally full of shit! The cracks in your whole rap are beginning to be all too apparent, and just too full of holes. IT AIN'T WORKING, COWBOY!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: TIA
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 04:43 PM

Yes, we certainly are hearing a lot of "party line propaganda talking points."

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 05:39 PM

On Feb. 26, President Obama delivered an ambitious $3.6 billion budget that would "finance vast new investments in health care, energy independence and education by raising taxes on the oil and gas industry, hedge fund managers, multinational corporations and nearly 3 million of the nation's top earners." Obama acknowledged that the proposal would "add to our deficits in the short term to provide immediate relief to families and get our economy moving," but he said that these investments had been put off for too long and could not face more delays. Republicans immediately attacked the plan. "The era of big government is back, and Democrats are asking you to pay for it," said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH). "The administration's plan, I think, is a job killer, plain and simple." When a recent National Journal poll asked how Congress should "respond to the recent deficit projections," zero percent of Republican lawmakers said that Congress should pass "something close to President Obama's budget." So what is their alternative? As the AP summarized, it's "a glossy pamphlet short on detail and long on campaign-style talking points."

THE GLOSSY PAMPHLET: Last week, reporters excitedly gathered for a GOP press conference where House leaders said they would announce their alternative to Obama's budget. The proposal that GOP leaders presented, however, was a huge disappointment; basically, it was nothing more than a "brochure." Annoyed at being summoned for this non-event, reporters quizzed Boehner on specifics of the plan: "Are you going to have any further details on this today?" "What about some numbers? What about the out-year deficit? What about balancing the budget?" Reporting on MSNBC, host Contessa Brewer exclaimed, "Give me some substance!" The GOP "budget," in fact, contains almost no numbers -- except where they criticize the Obama administration's figures. The few ideas their plan does have include undoing the economic recovery package (which would be hard to do since some of the money is already out the door), and lowering the 35 percent, 33 percent, and 28 percent income tax brackets to 25 percent (regressive cuts that would gut government revenue). According to a Citizens for Tax Justice analysis, more than a quarter of all taxpayers -- mostly low-income families -- would pay more in taxes under this plan than they would under Obama's. On the other hand, "the richest one percent of taxpayers would pay $100,000 less, on average, under the House GOP plan." Additionally, although Republicans claim to be so concerned about the rising deficit, their income tax proposals "would cost over $300 billion more than the Obama income tax cuts in 2011 alone." "The party of 'no' has become the party of no new ideas," quipped White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs in response to the GOP proposal.

TAX WINDFALL FOR CORPORATE EXECUTIVES: According to the Republican leadership, the reason that lawmakers didn't release numbers last week is because they intend to do so this week. "The numbers will come next week with a multi-hundred page piece of legislation" that Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is currently drafting, Boehner's office told First Read. Ryan's bill will still likely be short on new, deficit-cutting ideas though. As the Wonk Room's Pat Garofalo has noted, his plan "consists almost entirely of massive tax cuts for corporations and the rich," including lowering the top marginal tax rate to 25 percent, lowering the corporate tax rate to 25 percent, and completely eliminating the capital gains tax. Not only are these tax cuts regressive, but they will result in significant lost government revenue. According to a Center for American Progress Action Fund analysis, Ryan's plan gives the average CEO a $1.5 million tax break, while doing nothing for minimum wage workers.

THE RECONCILIATION HYPOCRISY: Republicans are also standing firm against allowing Obama to use the reconciliation process to pass key parts of his budget, such as health care and energy reform. This 25-year-old procedure "allows for the passage of a budget by a simple majority vote rather than the usual 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster." Republican senators have said that they are prepared to go "nuclear" -- essentially shutting down the Senate through the use of parliamentary maneuvers -- if budget reconciliation is pursued. Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) compared reconciliation to "an act of violence" against the GOP. However, Republicans employed the same procedure to pass major Bush agenda items, including the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, and the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005. In fact, in 2005, Gregg defended using the reconciliation procedure, arguing, "The president asked for it, and we're trying to do what the president asked for."

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 05:45 PM

What private businesses has he taken over?

This whole list you offer of "specifics" is a lot of context-free hogwash,, as far as I am concerned. Ignore the context and turn it into a handful of radioactive bullets, and use them as suppositories and start screaming. Do you have a reasoned and complete statement to make on any of these points? Sheeshe. Never mind the rest of your bizarre polemic.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 06:06 PM

ok, that's a lot better...but(always a 'but')..I agree with you on the Republicats stuff, being short on numbers(they are not exempt from being deceitful assholes, either), we'll see what they have. How about, the other lying, about lobbyists in his cabinet, and 1/3 of his appointees being tax cheats, and all the pork that he promised would not go through his bill signing, firing the CEO of GM, and threatening taking over private corporations,,that were NOT part of the bailouts? ..But, I'll say, that your response was a tad bit better than your earlier posts...just for that, and keeping with your global vision...I'll give you a link, to warm your heart.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAqj9NVsjf4

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 07:46 PM

And the CEO of GM gets a 20 million dollar pay off, just for leaving. That's the kind of shit that pisses people off!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 08:24 PM

Here's one solution.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 10:26 PM

"NEW YORK (Reuters) - Some frustrated taxpayers cheered President Barack Obama's tough steps to shore up the reeling auto industry on Monday but critics called his decision to fire General Motors' chief a heavy-handed power grab.

Obama forced out General Motors (GM.N) chief executive Rick Wagoner, pushed Chrysler LLC toward a merger with Italy's Fiat SpA (FIA.MI), and threatened bankruptcy for both, marking an escalation in Washington's involvement in rescuing the faltering economy.

Skeptics asked whether it was an early sign of a more activist administration or an isolated example. GM shares tumbled 30 percent on the news and the Dow Jones Industrial average.DJI sank nearly 4 percent.

Experts called it potentially the most significant presidential intervention in the private sector since Harry Truman tried to seize the steel industry during the Korean War in 1952, only to be rebuffed by the Supreme Court.

"I don't think the president should be running the economy. They should have let the company go bankrupt. The guy would have lost his job anyway," said Edward Prescott, a 2004 Nobel laureate in economic sciences.

As a candidate last year, Obama supported rescuing the financial sector, and since then he has shifted to attacking the bonuses and corporate jets for companies taking taxpayer money to pushing out a CEO and replacing members of the board of directors.

"Politics is certainly entering the process. GM should have gone into bankruptcy in the fall. We would be much further along with the workout by now," added Randall Filer, a professor of economics at Hunter College in New York.

Stephen Schork, editor of an industry report on the energy and shipping markets, feared Obama was trying to engineer a hasty conversion to green energy. "They are expressing abject hostility toward the hydrocarbon industry," Schork said.

WILL POPULAR SUPPORT HOLD?

At the same time, Obama's approval ratings have held firm above 60 percent in most public opinion polls. In a Cincinnati coffee shop, retiree Sharon Schmidt, 74, said she supported the decision to push Wagoner out.

"If GM is going to take a big bailout from the federal government, the people who brought it to this state should probably go," Schmidt said. "These bankers and so on are making million dollar bonuses? They should be gone, too."

In a Dallas suburb, accountant John Shaffer, 47, also approved. "I feel he was fired to force the unions and bond holders to seriously negotiate with the company. So I think it was good," he said...."

Reuters

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 11:50 PM

"If you have particular ideas that would be a better path to reversing the national decline, by all means let's hear about it!!"

I'd say stick to his campaign promises to begin with.

No Earmarks

No lobbyists

Strict requirements for being in the Obama administration

Eliminate all capital gains taxes on investments in small and start-up firms.

Enforce pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budget rules

Create a $3,000 tax credit for companies that add jobs

Crack down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 02:33 AM

"Experts called it potentially the most significant presidential intervention in the private sector since Harry Truman tried to seize the steel industry during the Korean War in 1952, only to be rebuffed by the Supreme Court."....Gosh, why did they do that??? You mean, because it was unconstitutional?
   Anyway, that being said, (or asked)the thread is about Obama's ADMINISTRATION...so, other than the Fact, that he chose them(we are told), and he is in charge, and he has broken promises, I've shifted my total dislike for the character, to just a firm distrust!..and only he can change that. So as far as his administration goes, I think they are totally a bunch of unqualified, corrupt, sleazy, tax cheatin', hypocritical, left wing loonies!..Him, I'm going to actually cut a little slack to...FOR THE TIME BEING! I know his devotees, are optimistic about 'his' plan, and after LISTENING to some of their raps, and being fair, in looking at it from their 'Kumbayah' point of view, and having LISTENED to Rush, Hannity, ..even Maher, and their panels of guests, plus a bit of research on my own, I once again allowed myself to be, neutral, the best I could be, just to see. So, Amos, your decent reply(finally), gave me my first pause..and though I still have my doubts, I'm trying my best, to embrace the other point of view, which in my mind, is still quite faulty....but, I'm giving it my best, overlooking all the dishonesty, this administration has brought with it. Fair enough?...and, that being said,..I hope you, and even others, will take pause, and consider the 'other' side as well! I, myself am not a complete right wing nut...in fact, in so many places(that I need not enumerate on here, a lot of you make me look like I'm so 'liberal' that you look like Nazis!
Now, Sawzaw, brought up some VERY valid points, that always seem to be avoided. If the rest of the country, is going to be divided, over this stuff, why do we..IF...we hash them out, and get to the bottom of this crap. Certain things are givens, though. Dodd, Pelosi, Frank, and Geithner, and Maxine Waters more than likely, should be facing criminal charges. If you don't know why, yet, I think if you keep your ears open, you'll find out why. (Though, I personally think that through our governments corruptness, they'll probably walk, Scot-free!)
   Fair enough, Amos??...(Though I think you're pom-pomness, has gotten out of hand).
   Hope you enjoyed the link I gave you.
P.S. With me, its not a 'right vs. left' issue. Its Governing within the bounds of the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, and upholding it, as these guys took an oath to do...including Bush, Clinton, Carter, Reagan, Bush, again, and Obama. They cross that line (again), then, as far as I am concerned, they are traitors!..to us all!
Regards, GfS

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 04:33 PM

U.S. and Iranian diplomats took baby steps toward thawing tensions between their countries Tuesday, at an international conference on Afghanistan put together by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

In a significant move, Iran's deputy foreign minister, while criticizing U.S. plans to send more troops into Afghanistan, said Iran is "fully prepared" to help fight the drug trade in Afghanistan -- a campaign the U.S. wants to escalate.

The U.S. is planning to send of surge of narcotics agents into Afghanistan to help stem the opium trade, which is a goal Iran shares.

Iran's Mehdi Akhundzadeh also met with Richard Holbrooke, Clinton's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, on the sidelines of the conference, held at The Hague in the Netherlands.

Holbrooke's meeting "did not focus on anything substantive. It was cordial, it was unplanned and they agreed to stay in touch," Clinton told reporters as the day-long conference was winding down.

The gathering was being closely watched for signs that the U.S. and Iran can work together on a common problem after years of hostility. The two countries cooperated in 2001 and 2002 after U.S.-led forces ousted Afghanistan's Taliban government.

But relations were frozen during the administration of George W. Bush, who referred to Iran as part of the "axis of evil," although Bush's former Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell had informal contacts with Iranian foreign ministers.

---

Gee--maybe Barak really knows something George did not.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 04:42 PM

Of course, it's hard for Barak to know anything until his handlers tell him.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 04:56 PM

He has taken bold steps to fulfill his promises; but6 rather than accept these in context, Sawz and his cohorts wish to beef about the progress being insufficient. This kind of thoughtless absolutism is just unrealistic.

I appreciate your reasonable approach. My view is that rhetoric aside, changiung things in the real world always happens on a gradient, whether steep or slow, and absolute conditions are unobtainable. ALl I can say is, so far, I am grateful for the huge improvements.

As for his hard stance vis-a-vis Detroit, maybe he is drawing a line int he stand because they have NOT corrected their inherent rot for so long and have become a public problem of national scale. Sure lkooks that way to me.

I can tell you this much--he has taken on more than any President in my lifetime, head on, explicitly and overtly, and is far less slimey in his operations than any of his predecessors in my memory (well, to be honest, I wasn't paying much attention to Ike, or even to KEnnedy before he got assassinated).

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 05:04 PM

In one of the first major environmental acts of his presidency, President Barack Obama on Monday signed a far-reaching measure to provide wilderness protection to 2.1 million acres of federal land and restore salmon to California's second-longest river, the San Joaquin.

The law will put billions of gallons of fresh water back into the river, potentially improving drinking water quality for large sections of the Bay Area, including Silicon Valley.

"This legislation guarantees that we will not take our forests, rivers, oceans, national parks, monuments, and wilderness areas for granted," Obama said at a White House ceremony. "But rather we will set them aside and guard their sanctity for everyone to share."

The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, co-written by Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Sen. Barbara Boxer, is the largest wilderness preservation bill since President Clinton signed the Desert Protection Act in 1994.

---

Your mythology about handlers is still unsubstantiated, Rig, and still smells bad.



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 05:57 PM

If he wanted to do something about the environment, he'd crack down on illegal immigration.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 08:29 PM

Jaysus, Rig, you are a cracker sometimes...



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: TIA
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 10:08 PM

"Of course, it's hard for Barak to know anything until his handlers tell him."

Awk Riggy want a cracker. Awk.


He learns to speak from Rush Limbaugh.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 12:33 AM

(Gritting my teeth)..I'm trying, I'm trying!! Hey, did anyone hear the speach(or letter) Benjamin Netanyahu, sent to Obama. It was read today on the radio..but I can't find the text anywhere. It had to do with telling Obama to deal with Iran's nukes, before they become a firm threat to Israel, or he will. (I know this is slightly off topic, but not by much) It was quite eloquent, and to the point. Actually, quite sobering!..If so can you post a link?..Would prefer text, not commentary. Thanks

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 07:17 AM

Actually, it's not off topic at all. Obama's handlers will tell him to deal with Iran's nukes. That's what they're there for.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 08:27 AM

USA Today leads with a look at some of the first projects funded by the stimulus package and notes that the federal money appears to be creating jobs, as intended. State highway departments have been able to take advantage of the package the quickest by pumping money into "shovel-ready" projects. In an unscientific review of 16 construction projects, the paper found that all of them will start by summer, and the vast majority would not have been carried out without the stimulus cash...

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 11:10 AM

"... Many people were wringing their hands about the president forcing the resignation of Wagoner, whose G.M. lost $82 billion in the last four years, took $13.4 billion in bailout money and asked for $16.6 billion more, even as the carmaker's market share melted from 33 percent to 18 percent and its stock slid from more than $70 a share to less than $4 — about the price of a couple gallons of gas.

But Mr. Obama's move was bracing, a sign, at long last, that the president will not tolerate failure, not when he has to print all the money in the universe to underwrite obtuseness. Wagoner showed no foresight or willingness to curb an unhealthy appetite for the big. He failed to eliminate brands and launched the Hummer line in 2001. (Hummers remain icons of power in Iraq.)

"I thought it was absolutely bizarre," said Maryann Keller, an independent automotive analyst, adding that "it was aimed at people who didn't know what to do with the money they had. It was discretionary spending by males who clearly had other cars in their garages."

Wagoner stuck to gas-guzzling pickups and S.U.V.'s long after it was clear that higher gas prices meant he should vary the fleet with more fuel-efficient vehicles.

The Iran hostage crisis in 1979 put America on notice that future relations with the Middle East would be volatile and that we had better get some methadone or ethanol or switch grass or something and get over our addiction to oil.

But Detroit defiantly stuck its head in the sand. A lot of longtime auto watchers felt relief and excitement at Wagoner's crisp dismissal, knowing that the reckoning is at last here. The problems in the car industry have been so apparent for so long, and the failure to face up to them and move into a greener future has been so frustrating.

President Obama must nurse us through our affluenza, addressing both our visceral need to be big and our cerebral decision to be leaner — and much, much smarter. " (Maureen Dowd)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 11:40 AM

"Senate Republicans are struggling to adapt to an altered political world when it comes to candidates for federal courts and senior Justice Department posts.

No longer able simply to defend choices made by a fellow Republican, as they did under President George W. Bush, Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have turned into vocal critics of many of President Obama's legal nominees. They complain that several are committed liberal ideologues, much in the way Democrats complained that Mr. Bush's choices were committed conservative ideologues.

But so far, facing a solid Democratic majority in the Senate, they have been able to do little beyond briefly delaying confirmation. Now they are weighing whether to use the filibuster — a threat of extended debate, the tool many Republican senators regularly denounced when it was used by Democrats to block some Republican nominees. These are certainly different times.

The current Republican focus is on a pair of nominees: Mr. Obama's first selection for a federal appeals court seat, David F. Hamilton, and his choice to head the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, Dawn Johnsen. (By coincidence, the two are in-laws.)

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the Judiciary Committee's ranking Republican, has complained that the Democrats are moving too quickly to consider Mr. Hamilton, a federal trial judge in Indiana since 1994. The committee has set for Wednesday the confirmation hearing on Judge Hamilton, who was nominated only in mid-March.

But the attacks on the nomination of Ms. Johnsen, who is married to Judge Hamilton's brother, have been more severe. Ms. Johnsen, a law professor at Indiana University, was an unsparing critic of memorandums, written by lawyers at the Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush administration, that said the president could largely ignore international treaties and Congress in fighting terrorists and that critics have portrayed as allowing torture in interrogation.

The broad reading of presidential authority was "outlandish," and the constitutional arguments were "shockingly flawed," Ms. Johnsen has written. While her language was harsh, the memos have largely been withdrawn, and among lawyers a consensus agreeing with her views has emerged.

Nonetheless, Republicans have denounced her comments. Senator John Cornyn of Texas, a member of the committee's minority, said Ms. Johnsen lacked the "requisite seriousness" to head the Office of Legal Counsel.

A committee Democrat, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, said he was astonished by the attacks. After the "long, dark days of degradation" of the office, Mr. Whitehouse said, it is hypocritical of Republicans who were then silent to complain now about partisanship.

"Now suddenly they come forward with concerns," he said. "Where were you when those incompetent, ideological opinions were being issued?" ..."

---

Sounds like the trumpets of surrender are still ringing in the red-faced camp. Irrational partisan loyalty at the expense of reason has finally come home to roost.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 12:27 PM

That is all fine Amos, except for the Constitutionality of it...you know, that stupid little paper that guarantees us, that the government, cannot intrude on our rights, of..what?..free speech, search and seizure, the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the freedom of religion, without government intervention, the right to bear arms, if need be, from a government that over reaches its limitations..etc..etc. Before this is over, if our country can avoid a mega-clash over this, while half the country feels their government, is going tyrannical, and the other half pushes through a socialist agenda, I'll be amazed! I think it high time, for those promoting either the agenda of greed, either for political power, or money, through corruption, and greed, and return to the PRINCIPLES of what this country is about, the better off we'll be. What we are bearing through now, is abuse, or abusive 'remedies' from both sides....that is, if you want to look at it 'sanely'!! So let, at least us, go off the 'deep end' one way or the other!!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 01:49 PM

" Conservative leader David Cameron has said US President Barack Obama is "incredibly impressive" after meeting him for the second time in London.

Describing their meeting at the US ambassador's residence as "productive", Mr Cameron said Mr Obama was "extremely personable" and "easy to get on with".

The two first met when the then Senator Obama visited the UK last summer.

Earlier, in Parliament, Mr Cameron said "everyone" wanted G20 leaders to agree reforms on trade and tax reforms.

'Productive'

But he attacked Gordon Brown for leaving the British economy "exposed".

President Obama's meeting with Mr Cameron, which lasted about 30 minutes, came between his high-level one-to-ones with the Russian and Chinese presidents.

        
He is a very easy person to talk with and exchange views with
Cameron on Obama

Obama praises Brown's integrity

Mr Cameron said the private meeting - which covered economic and foreign policy matters - was "excellent".

Asked if Mr Obama was a man he could "do business with" - echoing Margaret Thatcher's famous comment about Mikhail Gorbachev in 1984 - Mr Cameron replied: "He is a very easy person to talk with and exchange views with.

"He is an incredibly impressive politician and leader but he is also an extremely personable human being and someone it is easy to get on with and strike up a relationship with."

There was much "common ground" between the Obama administration and the Conservatives, he added, stressing there was a "wide range of agreement" on many issues. ..."(BBC)

---

GfS, the executive who had driven GM into stagnation resigned at the request of the Obama administration. By implying or making it a condition of bail-out funding they put him in a position where he would have looked a real ass had he not cooperated.

But bear in mind the man was asking for billions in Federal funds. The government did not fire him. The corporation was not prevented from saving itself, ever. So where is the constiututional compromise, here? Seems to me this is just prudence in the management of taxpayer money.

You may recall that the Bush administrations bailout money went down the rathole with no accountability or stipulations on its use.

Is that your idea of constitutional process?

At no point was anyone in GM prevented from speaking freely, associating freely, bearing arms, or required to house soldiers in their domiciles or incriminate themselves by enforced testimony.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: heric
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 01:57 PM

""The truth is that that's just arguing at the margins," Mr. Obama said at a joint press conference Wednesday in London with Mr. Brown. "The core notion that government has to take some steps to deal with a contracting marketplace and to restore growth is not in dispute."

That's what Obama said in response to Sarkozy. That's our man. An American President fit for the world stage again, at last.


(Sarkozy: "I will not associate myself with a summit that would end with a communiqué made of false compromises that would not tackle the issues [of stricter regulation, more than stimulus] that concern us.")

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 02:08 PM

"Obama praises Brown's integrity" of course he does.......click the link
!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 03:58 PM

PROMISES, PROMISES: Obama tax pledge up in smoke

Apr 1 11:55 AM US/Eastern
By CALVIN WOODWARD
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - One of President Barack Obama's campaign pledges on taxes went up in puffs of smoke Wednesday.
The largest increase in tobacco taxes took effect despite Obama's promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000.

This is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich.

To be sure, Obama's tax promises in last year's campaign were most often made in the context of income taxes. Not always.

"I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

He repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."

Now in office, Obama, who stopped smoking but has admitted he slips now and then, signed a law raising the tobacco tax nearly 62 cents on a pack of cigarettes, to $1.01. Other tobacco products saw similarly steep increases.

The extra money will be used to finance a major expansion of health insurance for children. That represents a step toward achieving another promise, to make sure all kids are covered.

Obama said in the campaign that Americans could have both—a broad boost in affordable health insurance for the nation without raising taxes on anyone but the rich.

His detailed campaign plan stated that his proposed improvement in health insurance and health technology "is more than covered" by raising taxes on the wealthy alone. It was not based on raising the tobacco tax.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 05:03 PM

Wait till the carbon TAX takes effect!!...I thought trees, and plants take in CO2..what?..he has something against trees?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 05:06 PM

Of course, you can't take anything Obama lip-synched off his teleprompter during the campaign seriously.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 05:24 PM

Though I'm gritting my teeth, I'm giving him, a 'new-found break'! ..and Amos, It is unbecoming for one man to drool over another man, in public!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 06:14 PM

Just correcting the balance, dearie--there's entirely too much opportunistic snarling going on, not to mention whinging. Raising the cigarette cost to support health care for children--a terrible, unconscionable tradeoff, innit? Tsk, tsk. It's drawing a long bow to construe this as a violation of a promise concerning personal taxes. This is a life-style tax.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 07:29 PM

Yeah!!! Trees don't need to breath!..Besides, 95% of all forest fires are caused by them!!!!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 08:57 PM

HEy, if you're really not in good shape financially, why are you catering to an addiction to tobacco?

Sheeshe.

It's a sin tax.



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Apr 09 - 10:21 PM

NYT Reports:

WASHINGTON — The House approved a $3.6 trillion federal budget on Thursday with no Republican support, a sign of deep partisan tensions likely to color Congressional efforts to enact the major policy initiatives sought by President Obama.

The Senate was moving toward passing a similar $3.5 trillion budget, solely on the strength of Democratic votes as well, after a day spent laboring over amendments that did little to change a fiscal blueprint generally in keeping with Mr. Obama's ambitious agenda.

Democrats said the two budgets, which will have to be reconciled after a two-week Congressional recess, cleared the way for health care, energy and education overhauls pushed by the new president. The Democrats said the budgets reversed what they portrayed as the failed economic approach of the Bush administration and Republican-led Congresses.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said Democrats would like to find consensus with Republicans, but not at the expense of the infusion of federal money that the majority calls crucial in a time of economic distress...."

---

I believe he is getting it going. The man has his game on, yes indeedy.



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Apr 09 - 11:29 PM

So, did GWB *not* use a teleprompter, and *not* have handlers. He did it all on his own did he?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 10:43 AM

DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Friday, April 3rd 2009, 7:42 AM

WASHINGTON - Other heads of state found in President Obama a guy who could take "No" for an answer Thursday at the world economic summit, and that's what they liked best.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev raved about "my new comrade," and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reinforced Obama's rock star status by asking for Obama's autograph - he said it was for his daughter!

This came after Obama backed off in the face of French and German resistance on his push for developed nations to embrace big spending plans similar to the $800 billion program adopted by the U.S.

Instead, the G-20 nations agreed to pump $1 trillion into the International Monetary Fund rather than prime the pumps in their various home countries.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy gushed that Obama was "a very open man, very open-minded, entirely in line with what we want - namely that politicians shoulder their responsibilities and face up to them."

Sarkozy had threatened to walk out if Obama didn't back off on stimulus, but "things went very well, very smoothly. We are going to do good things together."

Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel got what they wanted: tighter regulation of world markets in the form of blacklists for tax havens and a new international oversight body.

Medvedev and other leaders contrasted Obama's easygoing style with the with-us-or-against-us stance of former President George Bush.

Obama was "totally different" and exuded the humility Bush only preached, Medvedev said. "He can listen," Medvedev said. "We now see a completely different approach, and this suits me."

At a rambling news conference, Obama disputed that he had been rolled by European leaders, adding he expects other nations to "give us the benefit of the doubt. They're still going to have their interests, and we're going to have ours."

The British especially liked Obama's aura of calm. A commentary in the Daily Mail noted: "He came across as a President who would consult and think thrice before bombing the smithereens out of a foreign capital. This can be counted progress."

---

That's a change I can believe in. Whatever that means.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 10:54 AM

April 2, 2009.

"This has most likely been President Obama's best single day since inauguration.

His and first lady Michelle Obama's first foray onto the world stage since being elected cannot be dubbed anything but successful. Obama appeared to be quite comfortable and confident as president of the United States at the G-20 summit that produced an unprecedented global economic recovery package.

The president's polling numbers at home are coming in at an impressive rate. A Democracy Corps poll taken this week found that the percentage of likely voters saying the country is going in the right direction is up to 38 percent, the highest level recorded in more than three years."

(JAmes Carville, CNN)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 08:26 PM

Sorry, forgot to post name...again....


"(JAmes Carville, CNN"...Well, that's a reliable source, when it comes to reporting, about the Democrats!!!..Jeez!

'Comrade?'...Well, that I can believe!

Pumping money into the IMF??..Hey wasn't that's who Timmy Tax Cheat was working for, when he was cheating on his taxes???

'...and now for the rest of the story....'(P.H.)

And Amos, I'm still just observing, but your fawning over Obama, still is a bit over the top......(maybe just a wee bit?)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 04:46 AM

Carville is known to be a registered Democrat and Obama supporter.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 08:14 AM

I know, Amos..but what else is he??..Jeez, don't take us all to be stupid! By the way, it looks like your pal Rahm is highly involved with the Blago scandal..sort of a corruption thing. On the other side, so far, it looks like Obama has done pretty good in some areas with the trip to Europe..not all, but some really good..ok?(I'm trying to be fair here)...Let's see where he is going with it.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 10:28 AM

"Carville is known to be a registered Democrat and Obama supporter."

               The intense light reflecting off Carville's head has been known to blind people from the facts.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 11:28 AM

600! My assessment of his ADMINISTRATION is still the same...a buch of cheats and swindlers, hiding behind the 'nobility' of a political, patriotic, cover!