BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: TIA
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 11:25 AM

And George Bush campaigned on...

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."

{October 11, 2000}

I can play internet gotcha with anyone.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 10:55 AM

"Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan

Restore Fiscal Discipline to Washington

Reinstate PAYGO Rules: Obama and Biden believe that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue.

Reverse Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy: Obama and Biden will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but they will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers.

Cut Pork Barrel Spending: Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks. Obama and Biden believe that spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified. Obama and Biden will slash earmarks to no greater than year 1994 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public.

Make Government Spending More Accountable and Efficient: Obama and Biden will ensure that federal contracts over $25,000 are competitively bid. Obama and Biden will also increase the efficiency of government programs through better use of technology, stronger management that demands accountability and by leveraging the government's high-volume purchasing power to get lower prices.

End Wasteful Government Spending: Obama and Biden will stop funding wasteful, obsolete federal government programs that make no financial sense. Obama and Biden have called for an end to subsidies for oil and gas companies that are enjoying record profits, as well as the elimination of subsidies to the private student loan industry which has repeatedly used unethical business practices. Obama and Biden will also tackle wasteful spending in the Medicare program. "


http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 10:50 AM

No. Obama campaigned on NOT having a deficit.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: TIA
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 10:08 AM

In the words of Everlast "You know where it ends, yo, it usually depends on where you start..."

Are Bush and Obama starting at the same spot?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 09:42 AM

Only if you spare proportional outrage when the Obama numbers become actual.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: TIA
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 09:39 AM

Look at the "Actual" numbers on that graph. Can we spare a little of the outrage for those?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beeardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 09:05 AM

Amos, Greg F.

In cas you missed it on the clickey-

"SOURCE: CBO, White House Office of Management and Budget | The Washington Post - March 21, 2009"

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 09:02 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/03/21/GR2009032100104.html

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 08:53 AM

Blog as reality. Right.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 01:05 AM

http://vitalsignsblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/obamas-budget-adds-more-to-national.html

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 11:47 PM

The piece cited above was last updated in 2004 and is a reflection of the fiscal polciies of the President in 2004-2005, whoever that was.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 11:16 PM

Well, if you want it in depth..there's this:....
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1424

Don't or didn't know whomever the other writer was, or what bug existed where..but this is from the Center of Budget Policies

I hope this will suffice, but just in case you wanted to know..the cable news media has been reporting it for the last couple of days.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 10:16 PM

Mr. Freddoso has had a bug up his ass about Obama since before he was elected. He made up his mind back in August 2008 or before.

try again

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 07:38 PM

Here, Greg, this is 3 days old...

Thursday, March 26, 2009

The Republicans' Budget   [David Freddoso]

"It spends too much. It taxes too much. It borrows too much."

Someone, somewhere, must have a poll that shows voters react to this particular formula. I have heard dozens of Republicans use precisely those words in describing President Obama's massive budget proposal, and probably many more have as well.

More than a few conservatives wish that the Republicans had thought of this line in 2005 or 2006. But that doesn't mean they are wrong to use it now. Obama's budget, a $3.6 trillion version of which passed the House last night, is simply gargantuan by historical standards. The president's budget accumulates as much debt as did the first 43 presidents combined. The deficit for each and every year is larger than any of the deficits that President Bush ran when he had a docile Republican Congress, as Democrats complained loudly that those relatively small deficits endangered our future.

Obama's annual deficits for the next decade add up to a staggering $9.3 trillion, for a total debt greater than $23 trillion by 2019. That includes the savings brought about by withdrawing from Iraq. The president talks about including the Iraq War in his budget as a more honest way of presenting costs. It's really a clever way of masking, in part, the size of the new spending that will replace the disappearing costs of war.

In about an hour, Republicans will present their alternative budget on Capitol Hill. As President Obama pointed out in his news conference on Tuesday night, the Republican alternative will have to deal with many of the same realities that make the Obama budget so large — particularly the trillions of dollars committed in the form of long-term entitlements.

In a few minutes, I'll post a summary of Republicans' plans based on the materials they have distributed. They will be adding more details and answering reporters' questions later this morning.

03/26 10:52 AMShare

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 06:49 PM

Look it up..Obama has run up a higher budget, than ALL the presidents from Washington to Bush, combined! True story...look it up!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 06:46 PM

Uh- what about the LARGER deficit run up over the LAST 8 years....

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 02:52 PM

...and another P.S. ..Stop your whining! Address the FACTS!!! PERHAPS YOU'D LIKE TO RATIONALIZE RUNNING UP A 10 TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS, FOR STARTERS! ...in just your first quarter...as they say in Chicago, "You've been chumped!"

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 02:01 PM

Well recorded????..Who? The guy typing his answers, as what to lie, and tell the public on his teleprompter?? Hiring a tax cheat to run the treasury?? One third of his appointees are tax cheats?? Hiring lobbyists, on his cabinet, after sounding so noble, assuring us that wouldn't happen??..HEY, pal, get real, ok?? Lying as to the bailout dates and knowledge of who knew what when???? They are pandering to the lowest common denominator of intelligence of the public!! Are you telling us, that that is why you embrace that jerk so much??

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 01:48 PM

I can't hear you clearly when your arms wave that fast, lass. Your sweeping assertions of opinion-as-fact just don't give me anything to hang an understanding on. My opinion of Obama is pretty well-recorded--he seems to me to be intelligent, well-informed, and trying to make a positive difference in the way the Federal government works--not a change "in us", except possibly to stimulate a bit more responsibility for the larger well-being of the country as a whole. I don't know how effective that will be, since we are so wrapped up in semantics and local pressures, but it is an honest effort, anyway.

You speak as though you have certain specific information of duplicity and corruption, in an Administration that hasn't even finished its first quarter. I am not privy to that kind of information and you seem reluctant to share specifics. Too bad, because it doesn't leave a lot of bandwidth for communication.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 01:44 PM

and P.S. ..you pulled out just one phrase to comment on..what about the rest of the FACTS???? Why do you always skip over them?? Most far left loonies do..they bang on the 'emotional' hot topics, and avoid the meat of the facts. They avoid logic, and common sense, and harp on some emotional crap associated with the 'ideological' side, which has very little to do with substance?? Get real! There is probably a wonderful person in there, that is hiding behind someone else's bull crap. For Pete's sake, these are scumbag lawyers turned politician, and greedy pieces of shit business swindlers you are making excuses for!..Wake up!!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 01:36 PM

..a humorous phrase??...Well, I suppose you took it that way. If it was supposed to be funny, who's laughing?..(Another failed attempt by 'Timmy Tax Cheat'?? I think it probably best, if you stopped making excuses for their exceedingly poor judgments, and ineptness...and look at it clearly!. I find nothing humorous about having our next generation 'enslaved' by the deficit debt, that these destructive clowns are conjuring up, 'allegedly' trying to 'cure' the effects from, yet, another set and series, of lowest common denominator, of intelligence coupled with greed and control. Personally, I think that high crimes were committed, on Wall Street and in Washington, but because of political payoffs, these rat scumbags, will probably go Scot free..just like Mark Rich..(remember him?)..another forerunner, of what we are seeing now!..Besides, how is the Obama administration, (or any other, for that reason) going to make any of us a better anything?? This is not about us, it's all about them..their slight of hand, their greed, their 'power',.. and need for adulation!! Stop giving it to them..and get into the quality of person you can achieve..without these psychic vampires!!!!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 12:58 PM

"Without an investigation, the reform effort will be at best, hit or miss, and at worst, a charade. Congress should start now to gear up for an investigation, using as its model the 1930s Pecora inquiry into the stock market crash, or the Watergate hearings of the 1970s. The investigation should not be performed by outside experts, like the 9/11 commission, whose report Congress is free to accept or reject. It should be part of the Congressional process and include an investigator with subpoena power and the right to participate in the questioning of witnesses, as well as to prep lawmakers for the hearings.

A real investigation might serve as a channel for the public anger now used by politicians to score quick populist points on television without tackling the real issues.

Who is to carry out the reforms? Any serious call for reform has to acknowledge the severe institutional damage that has been done to the nation's regulatory agencies. For 30 years, the political tide in this country has run against regulation and for deregulation. In the last 10 years, opponents of financial regulation have been especially successful in dismantling and undermining regulation — putting their faith and the nation's future in the hands of a market discipline that turned out not to exist and can't-miss financial products that missed, big.

There is not an agency that has not suffered a diminution of expertise or reputation.

Recent examples include the Federal Reserve's repeated failures to use its consumer-protection authority to stop unfair mortgage lending; the Securities and Exchange Commission's failure to heed repeated warnings about the Madoff Ponzi scheme; the efforts by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, a bank regulator, to block state regulators' efforts to police lending violations; and the utter failure of the Office of Thrift Supervision, A.I.G's federal regulator, to understand — or, even worse, care about — what was going on at that company.

Unfortunately, there are many, many more examples. Advocates of deregulation point to the failures as evidence that the government has no intrinsic ability to police markets. That is incorrect. The nation's regulatory agencies have been allowed to languish, underfunded, understaffed — and too often headed by political appointees who are true believers only in the dogma of deregulation and not in their agencies' missions.

If the United States is going to have meaningful reform of its out-of-control financial system, new rules will only be a first step." NYT

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 12:22 PM

"A shame to waste a good crisi9s" has nothing to do with exploitation, silly. It is a humorous phrase reflecting a truth--that when a system crumbles, it's a good opportunity to do a deep overhaul rather than just prop and patch it up. I think it's a smart observation, not a sneer. YMMV, because one thing is for sure: where there's room for interpretation, each of us brings our own filters and prejudgements to bear to erect our own misasma of half-truths.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 01:28 AM

Jeez!, messed up my 'entering' twice..(hit the wrong key)

You think???? and how do you know that??..and how do you know that what he is feeling, is 'compassion'?? It seems 'interesting' that Timmy 'tax cheat', said that, 'it would be a shame to waste a good crisis'??..sounds more like exploitation to me, doesn't it?...and as far as Lenin's statement, could it be, that we are clearing the first hurdle, of getting to a global socialist society first, to get to the final goal??...a global totalitarian state..call it what you want..but, who would you rather be controlled by??..a capitalist?..a socialist?..a Nazi?, a communist?...a Muslim??...etc, etc...OR, the freedom of being CONTROLLED by anyone?...except yourself, and the freedom to exercise, your will, and aspirations, without any outside 'supervision', 'regulation', or 'prohibitions'?? These lousy lots of politicians, past and present, are so full of shit, corrupt, paid off, that they are just doing the bidding of their puppet masters! Do you feel like you are being 'represented', or being sold on liking, and accepting the very limited choices, they present?
Now, I'm only asking questions, that I think we all need to ask ourselves....but they are certainly worth asking...then, ask yourselves, 'Are the things they are proposing, furthering to the agenda of freedom, and self determination, or are they offering us a flawed solution, to a problem, that the last flawed 'solution' and irresponsibility, gave us...which by the way, was also 'Constitution bending'? Look up Machiavellian principle! (Nixon was a master of it!)
Anyway, think about it with an open mind. This doesn't only apply to Amos, btw,....think deep into it...GWB was also doing the same thing..as was Clinton, Carter, Reagan, to a degree...Poppa Bush, all the same thing. Pelosi? Frank? Dodd?..all of them, so full of shit, I don't see how they could sit in the same room, without contaminating it! Cheney? Rove?? Rohm Emmanuel??, Geithner?? Newt??..who?? Paulsen??..a in veritable rogues gallery of traitors, and crooks! Obama has already been caught in so many lies, instead of his nose growing, like Pinocchio, I think his ears are getting so big, he could fly!..and you know its true, as utterly sad, that it is. Just who of this lot can you TRUST!???.....Actually, I trust YOUR sincerity, far more than theirs.....don't you??
Regards!
GfS

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 01:02 AM

That silent post may be the first of yours that I have fully agreed with, GfS!!


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 12:30 AM

"The goal of socialism is communism"

Obama is not a socialist in the sense that Lenin was using the wqord, and he is surely not a communist.

Regardless, he does believe in a compassionate intervention to reduce the bloodletting in an untrammeled capitalist structure. I think a reasonable intervention is necessary because of the power-concentration inherent in the capitalist system. I think it needs to be minimalized so as not to breed an excess of Federalism. But it needs to exist to preserve the minimum necessary democracy.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Mar 09 - 11:39 PM

Amos, I don't think quoting a source 'The Progressive' is going to be a fair source to quote, being as it is so far left, it might be a foul ball, and no play is called. However, that being said, I've noticed something for a long time, which has even spread it's tentacles, even on to here..and that is, the 'presses' all seem to be polarized, to the left or the right...such as 'Fox' to 'MSNBC', and so on and so forth. Depending on who we watch, will support our slant, as it does the rest of the country. It's done subtly, through which stories they carry, which ones they don't, and even down to tone inflections, as to how, 'indignant', or 'hopeful',..or whatever we are 'supposed' to be and feel, by the time we listen,..(or read), their slant on the 'news' being reported. Rarely , if ever, do we get the whole story, as it is to ALL the facts! Could all this be a DISTRACTION, to the reality that is, and HAS been going on. This bailout thing, started during GWB's term, and carried right through to Obama's. We now find out that Geithner was the architect of the first, under GWB, and now the rest, as well. The war policy was the same way. GWB announces a pullout, and withdrawal, and reinforcement, to Afganistan, and a distancing alliance with Pakistan, and sure as God made little green apples, Obama is doing just that....(hold on, gotta check the oven)......(ok, back)....Geithner is back, now as Treasurer, the policies are virtually the same, but now under a different face, and further along, at what very much looks like, not a different agenda, but an agenda moved further along, possibly the very same agenda. Such as Poppa Bush, advanced the idea, and term ' New World Order', and now its just progressed, to where Obama is 'considering' a global currency, allegedly based on what the Chinese, and Russians, 'suggested'. The only 'Change', I can detect at this point, is that the countries, (and not just this one), are now even more polarized, people split, angry, 'helpless'(?), and 'pre-informed', as to where it is going. To effect any massive Change out of our form of government, based on the Constitution, the country MUST be divided, to achieve their goals. Could it be that a huge portion of this, is nothing more that high level 'street theater', when all of it is blatantly stupid? Did you happen to see Geithner's expressions on his face, while Michelle Bachmann, questioned him on the legality of his actions, and policies, before the hearings? If not, I'm sure Youtube, or somewhere, you can find it. He was ANNOYED, PUZZLED, AND TOTALLY OBLIVIOUS, to what she was asking him, and if you look at his face, rather surprised, as to the relevance, to it all. These people, from the last few administrations done give a rat's ass about the Constitution! GWB's Presidential orders, are clear evidence of that, and so are Obama's! It is ONLY AN ILLUSION, given to us, that there is a difference...The only 'Change' is that the whole country is at odds with each other, such as seen by you, DougR, Sawzaw Bruce, Greg, and the rest!(I just covered the ones on this page.) I'm willing to bet, that if we all sat down together, broke out the instruments, and played our asses off, nobody would give a flying fuck, about these issues. What makes that reality different than the rest of the time we spend,...thinking of 'righteous division'?? Very few, in Washington are concerned with preserving our freedoms, and our well being...just who, or what controls the money, and who is going to be controller of the people...and honestly, does any one on here, need to be controlled????......and if so, be whom, other than your own self determination. Folks, they are trying to deceive this country, as to the real thing going on...all their 'benefactors' are the same people!!!! All the bailout recipients got their money, and left the auditorium....before this became such a controversial issue, in regards to the bonuses. Am I wrong?? Uh-Uhh!...But go ahead and keep arguing(therefore, doing nothing)...but keep one eye open,..and watch this coming to fruition, as I posted before..."The goal of socialism is communism" -Vladimir Lenin .(Refer to my earlier post). I think most all on here are sincere, but also, sincerely deceived, and because of it, sincerely wrong! Yes, you are all right, in your sides, but it takes two sides to make sense of the whole.
Warmest Regards, to all of you..........................(even you, Amos)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 09 - 02:11 PM

"ECONOMY -- REPORT: OBAMA'S BUDGET WILL HELP SMALL BUSINESSES: A common attack refrain by conservatives on President Obama's budget proposal is that tax increases will hurt small businesses. Beginning in 2011, Obama's plan would slightly increase taxes on households earning more than $250,000 and individuals earning over $200,000. In defending the Republican's alternative budget proposal that offers a large tax cut to businesses, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) said, "Republicans know that raising taxes on small businesses will only result in more workers losing their jobs." However, a new study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities finds that "under the Clinton Administration, when the tax treatment of high-income families was very similar to what President Obama has proposed, small businesses generated jobs at twice the rate as under the Bush tax code."

During the Clinton years, small businesses generated 756,000 new jobs, versus only 367,000 new jobs under the tax conditions set by Bush, which Republicans seek to replicate. Further, "more small business owners would receive tax cuts" under Obama's plan because they do not fall into the $250,000-plus tax bracket. "Most small business owners aren't in the top two marginal tax rates," said Benjamin Harris of the Tax Policy Center. "In my opinion, there's some misunderstanding in these political debates that the people who'll be affected are middle-income Americans who run mom-and-pop stores."

(The Progressive)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 09 - 01:27 PM

Swzawl:

You have made it clear you are not one, either.

Your predisposition to pass severe judgement on subjects about which you know nothing is unbecoming. I suppose, though, that my own is also.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Mar 09 - 10:40 AM

They won't tolerate any criticism of the president or his administration, finding it easier to simply attack critics.

Ruben is apparently confused; he's describing the BuShite tactics of Rove, Limblagh, Cheney, et. al.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 04:57 PM

"I am in no wise an economist."

If you were you would be blasting Obama and Bush would be a distant memory like Clintoon.

Ignorance is Bliss.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 04:43 PM

No, I am not. Extrapolating a probable hypothetical course of action from one instance is scarcely reliable thinking, in my opinion. As for your question of when it becomes Obama's economy rather than Bush's catastrophe, certainly not in the first 100 days, given the inertial mass of the beast. I don't have a fair answer--I am in no wise an economist.

And let me just add that if you see no difference in moral dimension between Clinton covering up a blow job and Bush covering up a national wreckage job, I can only shake my tired head sadly.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 04:33 PM

Obama: Anti-terror plans focus on Pakistan, Afghanistan

Story Highlights
Intelligence shows al Qaeda planning attacks on U.S., President Obama says

Part of Afghan strategy is $1.5 billion annually for five years in aid for Pakistan

U.S. to send 4,000 more troops to Afghanistan as well as 17,000 announced earlier

Hundreds of civilian specialists also to be deployed

   
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- More troops, new legislation, improved troop training and added civilian expertise highlight President Obama's strategy to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Obama on Friday announced his plan to tackle what he called an "international security challenge of the highest order."

Stressing soberly that "the safety of people around the world is at stake," Obama said the "situation is increasingly perilous" in the region in and around Afghanistan, where the United States has been fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban for more than 7½ years after attacks in New York and at the Pentagon.

"The United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan. Nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on September 11, 2001, for doing nothing more than going about their daily lives," said Obama, who has vowed to make Afghanistan the central front in the fight against terrorism.

"So let me be clear: Al Qaeda and its allies -- the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks -- are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the U.S. homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan.

"And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban -- or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged -- that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can."

more

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Acorn4
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 03:36 PM

Does Bob the Builder write Obama's speeches for him:-

"Can we fix it?"
"Yes we can!"

Sorry, it's all getting a bit bitter and thought a lighter note might be a change.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 03:17 PM

Amos,

Are you claiming that Clinton did not launch a cruise missile against what turned out to be an aspirin factory in Afghanistan? He was getting a lot of political pressure for having been caught in lying to Congress and the grand Jury, and was trying to take some heat off.

You know, lying under oath ( unlike Bush, who even you admit was NOT under oath when you claim he lied ( that "impeachable" offense you keep convicting him of, without trial or examination of the evidence))

And do you know that you will have to give up blaming Bush for the state of affairs in this country SOMETIME before Obama runs for re-election, right????

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 03:11 PM

Which proposal are you referring to where you assert that President Obama "then pushed votes through when even congresscritters had not had the chance to read what they were voting on."??

As for your hypothetical scenario about Bill Clinton, let me suggest you have no basis for comparison, first of all, and second of all even with such a base, no grounds fro making the extrapolation you have made as a probable response. Third of all, it is conceivable that if such a course of action had occurred--a well placed cruise missile taking out Saddam pere et fils at a critical moment--the nation would have had a much less bloodthirsty path to reconstruction.

But this is just an example of armwaving hypotheticals being used as a substitute for data. It has no rational bearing on the situation.

As for your question of when it becomes Obama's economy rather than Bush's catastrophe, certainly not in the first 100 days, given the inertial mass of the beast. I don't have a fair answer--I am in no wise an economist. Maybe the right answer is when you get over the offense you felt I perpetrated on you with my long threads on the Bush Administration. You do know the day will come when you have to let go of that upset, don't you?


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 02:53 PM

Amos,

"Unlike Bush he is not resorting to insane violence or cronyism, is not performing in secret, and is not hiding either is decisions or his rationale from the people it will effect."

I do not think the violence that Bush "resorted " to was insane- if it had been Clinton, he would have sent over cruise missiles before even talking to the UN ( BAsed on Clinton's actions while president).

As for cronyism, I see far more in the present administration than was in the Bush one. Obama made great promises about having the legislation available for all to see for 48 hours before votes- then pushed votes through when even congresscritters had not had the chance to read what they were voting on. How long will you claim that the problems are "all Bush's fault" when the Obama administration is taking suc major actions, whithout either accountability or oversight?

You said you would be as observant of Obama as you were of Bush- but I cannot see that- EVERY criticsm of Obama is met with a blanket denial, regardless of the facts.

If in acting half as adversarial to Obama as you were to Bush is something you find to be objectionable, why do you think that those who disagree with you were NOT supposed to find YOUR efforts to be offensive?

You "can not make an informed judgment. (you) see a lot of hypotheticals and dire predictions being used as rhetorical devices, but few actual data points being offered. "

Sort of like what we saw in much ( not all, but much) of your comments about Bush.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 02:34 PM

Bruce:

As far as I am concerned, you are non grata if you insist on justifying this bad habit of yours. And I think I am within my rights to label your ill-mannered conduct as surly and poltroonish if it is; you have personally earned it. Furthermore, when you use my language to assert your obsessibe rationalization against me, without bringing any sense of differentiation or distinction to bear on the issues, you are already setting the framework as having nothing to do with issues, since you reduce the dialogue to playground-level mockery.

You have made the point that you did not like my frequent forwarding of reports about Bush's inadequacies, idiocies, and criminality, and I am sorry if I stepped on your toes. If you cannot see why he was a bad leader for this nation, despite all the reports both in the Bush threads and since then, then your nose for competency, decency and straight-forward thinking is badly bent.

As far as the critics' attitudes toward the Obama efforts to repair the Bush catastrophe, I can not make an informed judgment. I see a lot of hypotheticals and dire predictions being used as rhetorical devices, but few actual data points being offered. Like Bush, Obama is wading into a very tricky situation and using the best judgement he can make. Unlike Bush he is not resorting to insane violence or cronyism, is not performing in secret, and is not hiding either is decisions or his rationale from the people it will effect.
These things alone make him a better leader, let alone the difference in character. That's my perspective. The actual roll-out of our economic future seems to me to be something we will have to watch as it happens, as I see no-one in all the critical noise who seems qualified or able to offer a fact-based critique combined with pro-active suggestions for improvement.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 02:33 PM

In Banking, Emanuel Made Money and Connections
New York Times December 3, 2008
      In late 1998, while Washington was in the throes of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Rahm Emanuel, a departing senior political aide to President Bill Clinton, ventured out to an elegant restaurant in Dupont Circle for something of a job interview. John Simpson, who ran the Chicago office of the investment banking boutique Wasserstein Perella & Company, had flown to Washington to meet with Mr. Emanuel at the behest of Mr. Simpson’s boss, Bruce Wasserstein, a major Democratic donor and renowned Wall Street dealmaker who had gotten to know Mr. Emanuel. "I had this idea that this could work and that it had upside," said Mr. Wasserstein, now chairman and chief executive of Lazard, the investment bank. It worked out better than I could have hoped.â€쳌 And better than Mr. Emanuel could have imagined as well. Over the course of a three-hour-plus dinner, Mr. Simpson and Mr. Emanuel discussed how they might work together. Shortly afterward, Mr. Emanuel accepted an offer, nudging him down what has by now become a well-trodden gilded path out of politics and into the lucrative world of business.
      Mr. Emanuel, who was chosen last month to become President-elect Barack Obama’s White House chief of staff, went on to make more than $18 million in just two-and-a-half years, turning many of his contacts in his substantial political Rolodex into paying clients and directing his negotiating prowess and trademark intensity to mergers and acquisitions. He also benefited from the opportune sale of Wasserstein Perella to a German bank, helping him to an unusually large payout. The period before he was elected to a House seat from Illinois is a little-known episode of Mr. Emanuel’s biography. Former colleagues said the insight it afforded him on the financial services sector is invaluable especially now. But Mr. Emanuel built up strong ties with an industry now at the heart of the economic crisis, one that will be girding for a pitched lobbying battle next year as the incoming Democratic administration considers a potentially sweeping regulatory overhaul.
      After Mr. Emanuel left banking to run for Congress, members of the securities and investment industry became his biggest backers, donating more than $1.5 million to his campaigns dating back to 2002, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Mr. Emanuel also leaned heavily upon the industry while he was chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee during the 2006 midterm elections. Financial industry donors contributed more than $5.8 million to the committee, behind only retirees. Friends of Mr. Emanuel’s from his private-sector days said he still checks in with them regularly to plumb their insights on economic issues. "He asks me what am I seeing, what business is like, what’s the climate, where are the weak spots," said John A. Canning Jr., chairman of Madison Dearborn Partners, a Chicago private equity firm that is in the same building as Wasserstein’s offices.
      Mr. Canning was one of many financial executives Mr. Emanuel met with soon after he left the White House to discuss job prospects, with Mr. Emanuel’s political connections often opening doors. Mr. Canning agreed to sit down with Mr. Emanuel at the recommendation of several friends, including Stanley S. Shuman, an investment banker at Allen & Company and a major Democratic donor who once stayed in the Lincoln Bedroom at the White House as a guest of President Clinton’s. Mr. Canning could not offer him a job, but Mr. Emanuel came to pitch deals to him and they became friends. Employees of that particular firm became Mr. Emanuel’s biggest financial supporters in Congress, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
      When the House was weighing a measure last year to significantly increase the tax rate on profits earned by private equity firms, Mr. Canning said Mr. Emanuel attended a luncheon with Madison Dearborn executives, first reported by Bloomberg News, to listen to their arguments against the changes.
Mr. Emanuel, however, wound up joining other Democrats in voting for the measure. In an interview, Mr. Emanuel, pointed to other actions he had taken over the objections of the financial industry, including sponsoring a bill last year to curb the ability of hedge fund managers to defer paying taxes on compensation they stashed in offshore tax havens and another measure that imposed new reporting requirements on financial firms for what investors pay on stocks and mutual funds.
      "I would say I’ve been as tough on my friends as others," Mr. Emanuel said. "I call it like I see it." Confidants of Mr. Emanuel’s said he decided to try his hand at business because he wanted financial security for his family, before eventually returning to public service. " He had a number in his head to make enough for the family," said Ezekiel J. Emanuel, one of Rahm’s two brothers and a prominent bioethicist at the National Institutes of Health. It was Morton L. Janklow, the literary agent for several former presidents, who introduced Mr. Emanuel to Mr. Wasserstein. Erskine B. Bowles, the White House chief of staff and a former investment banker, also said he recommended Mr. Emanuel. Mr. Emanuel met in Mr. Wasserstein in his New York office, where they had a wide-ranging discussion about the future of financial regulation, as well as Mr. Emanuel’s plans.
      Jeffrey A. Rosen, now deputy chairman of Lazard and a former managing director of Wasserstein Perella’s international practice, said Mr. Emanuel was "both a developed and a raw talent.â€쳌 "His years in the White House and what he’d done before that really honed what I’d call deal-making instincts, which could be easily translated into the business arena," Mr. Rosen said. "Plus, he was someone who was well connected in Chicago and highly respected." Mr. Emanuel turned out to be an effective banker, proving a quick study with financial concepts, even as he relied on others in his office for heavy number crunching, former colleagues said. He worked 12-hour days and was known among clients for his relentlessness, constantly on the phone or sending e-mail, and being unafraid to pitch deals. Revenue in Wasserstein’s Chicago office climbed significantly after his arrival.
      There is no evidence Mr. Emanuel used his political clout on behalf of his clients, but his connections certainly helped drum up business and contributed to his hiring, former colleagues said. Indeed, a partial list of clients from Mr. Emanuel’s Congressional financial disclosure in 2002 is easily linked up to the various strands of his political career, including his time as a fund-raiser for Mayor Richard M. Daley of Chicago and then for Mr. Clinton’s first presidential run. The clients included Loral Space & Communications, run by Bernard L. Schwartz, one of the Democratic Party’s biggest donors, who said he got to know Mr. Emanuel while he was in the White House; the Chicago Board Options Exchange, whose chairman and chief executive, William J. Brodsky, became friends with Mr. Emanuel while he was working for Mayor Daley; and Avolar, a business aviation company whose top executive, Stuart I. Oran, was formerly in charge of governmental affairs for United Airlines, a role in which he said he interacted with Mr. Emanuel at the White House.
      One of Mr. Emanuel’s major deals was the purchase in 2001 of a home alarm business, SecurityLink, from SBC Communications, the telecommunications company that was run by William M. Daley, the former secretary of commerce in the Clinton administration and the brother of Chicago’s mayor. Mr. Emanuel represented GTCR Golder Rauner, a Chicago private equity firm that was buying the business for an affiliate. Bruce Rauner, the firm’s chairman, had first met Mr. Emanuel when he was still exploring job prospects in Chicago after getting a call from Mr. Bowles, an old friend. Instead of private equity, Mr. Rauner advised Mr. Emanuel to pursue investment banking, where his political experience might be more valuable in landing deals in regulated industries.
      Mr. Emanuel called him back after starting at Wasserstein and asked if he could take over coverage of GTCR for his new employer. That eventually led to the nearly $500 million SecurityLink deal. Mr. Emanuel’s biggest transaction came in late 1999 when he landed an advisory role for Wasserstein in the $8.2 billion merger of two utility companies, Unicom, the parent company of Commonwealth Edison, and Peco Energy, to create Exelon, now one of the nation’s largest power companies. John W. Rowe, the former chief executive of Unicom who now holds the same position at Exelon, sought out Mr. Emanuel after he went to Wasserstein. Mr. Rowe said he believed Mr. Emanuel would offer a different dimension, providing wisdom on what might pass muster at the governmental level.
      "You can’t understand utility transactions without thinking about whether they’ll play or not play in legal and political circles," said Mr. Rowe, who was first introduced to Mr. Emanuel by Lester Crown, the billionaire scion of Chicago’s influential Crown family. Tax returns Mr. Emanuel released while first running for office and reported in news articles, along with Congressional financial disclosures, reveal his steep financial ascent while working at Wasserstein. He earned more than $900,000 in 1999, his first year at the firm; nearly $1.4 million in 2000; and $6.5 million in 2001, when he left the firm in midyear to run for Congress. He collected $9.7 million more from the firm in deferred compensation in 2002.
      Mr. Emanuel’s annual salary was not especially large but his hefty paydays came from bonuses for the business he brought in, as is customary in investment banking, along with the company’s sale in 2001 to the German Dresdner Bank, which allowed him to benefit from an equity stake, as well a large retention bonus paid to him based on his prior performance. The bonanza Mr. Emanuel reaped would come in handy when he ran for the House seat vacated by Representative Rod R. Blagojevich, now governor. Mr. Emanuel contributed $450,000 out of his own pocket to his campaign in the primary, and his leading rival accused him of trying to buy a seat in Congress.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 10:44 AM

Wow! For years, the only time you heard from Ruben Navarrette Jr. was when he was banging the drum for illegal immigrant rights. It seems like he's moved on from there. Or maybe illegal immigrants have given up on Obama already as well.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 10:22 AM

Commentary: Obama is flunking economics

By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Special to CNN
   
SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- Welcome to March Madness on the Potomac.

Many Americans are so emotionally invested in the Obama presidency that they consider it too historic to fail.

They won't tolerate any criticism of the president or his administration, finding it easier to simply attack critics. And whatever goes wrong that they can't defend or deflect, they just blame on George W. Bush.

But to many of the rest of us, it's clear that President Obama is flunking economics. He is trying to do too much at once, and so he is not doing any of it well. He vows to cut the federal deficit while proposing an avalanche of new spending that will -- says the Congressional Budget Office -- increase it by as much as $9.3 trillion over the next decade.

Here's the really bad news, though. No matter what else goes awry, Obama's strong suits are supposed to be communications and marketing. Yet, this week we learned that this isn't the case when he has to communicate and market his message on economics.

It doesn't help matters much that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner seems too small for his chair. When he needs to inspire confidence, Geithner does the opposite. Whenever he speaks and comes up short on specifics, the Dow plummets. And when that happens, the Obama supporters don't care and insist that Wall Street is part of the problem and thus can't recognize the solution.

This week, after learning of the Treasury Department's plan to help banks unload so-called toxic assets, the market bounced back a bit. And now the Obama supporters are singing a different tune.

But here's the big question: When Wall Street smiles on a government bailout, is it a good or bad thing for average Americans? It depends on how much is being given away and who has to pay the bill.

This much is indisputable: The administration's economic plan is so sweeping, and our financial situation so precarious, that the administration needs nothing less than a master salesman for its economic agenda. Clearly, Geithner isn't up to the job. The sooner he steps aside, the better it will be for the administration.

According to the pundits, Obama is supposed to pick up the slack and seal the deals that Geithner can't seem to close. However, anyone who tuned into this week's press conference has to wonder whether the president hasn't lost his touch. The popular narrative from conservatives -- that Obama stumbles when he is off the teleprompter -- is becoming more believable.

When asked by a reporter about whether his budget would blow up the deficit and stick future generations with the bill, Obama got defensive and turned his answer into a slam against Republicans and then obfuscated his way through the rest of the question.

When CNN's Ed Henry asked the president why it took him so long to publicly condemn the more than $150 million in AIG bonuses, as opposed to New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo who turned the issue into a national outrage, Obama appeared to take a swipe at Cuomo, a fellow Democrat, by saying: "I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak."

Or maybe it's just that Obama realized that his administration wasn't guilt-free in the AIG debacle. There are many unanswered questions. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, told CNN last week that someone at the Treasury Department told him to put in the language in the bailout bill allowing for executive bonuses.

If he's telling the truth (and really who knows, given that CNN caught Dodd being untruthful on the subject earlier) we need to know who in the Obama administration ordered the loophole. And that person needs to be removed.

This week's news conference wasn't exactly Obama's finest hour. Still, it wasn't as bad as making a mocking reference to the Special Olympics on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" or joking about the recession on CBS' "60 Minutes."

How is it possible that someone who was so likeable and so inspiring while running for president could, day by day, be so unlikable and so uninspiring as president?

It's become more common for people to say that they want President Obama to fail. I don't want him to fail. I want him to succeed. I just don't see how we get there from here.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 09:39 AM

Amos, that's a hell of an insult to rats.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 08:51 AM

Sorry, Amos,

I take my lead from your comments, and when I see some common decency there about something you dislike, I will try to emulate you. Until then, I guess you will have to suffer what you made those who disagreed with you suffer through.

And ad hominem attacks just lead us to think you have no support for your viewpoint.

Try attacking the content of what I say, and not me personnally. You might even find that you learn something, by addressing facts instead of attacking people.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 08:40 AM

Well use your own goddamned words to do it, you surly poltroon. What I am asking for is common decency, and you are snarling like a rabid sewer-rat.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 07:20 AM

"The goal of socialism is communism" -Vladimir Lenin

Just think of all the 'new progressive freedoms' you can all look forward to!..Like China has, and the USSR enjoyed! ..And all the wonderful support for folk music, and openness to all the different musics of the world, and unblocked new websites you can go to!! All the 'uncensored' new things you can all lavish in! And all the new things you can think up, and express, to anyone, anytime. This new administration is going to bring all those wonderful things to us! I can hardly wait!..and just think,..if you write a new song, or piece of literature, as long as the state approves it, they will also own it! Can't you just anticipate how wonderful that will be?!?! They will even tell you were you can work, and what you'll be allowed to do, so you won't have to waste all that time on the internet out of boredom, too! What a wonderful world it will be!!..and the immigration problem will go away too, because no one will be fleeing here, anymore..oh goody!..and just think, the song 'Kumbayah' won't be sung anymore, because of its antiquated religious overtones! ..and women won't have to worry about being fat anymore...because there won't be that much 'extra' food to stuff their faces with!..and men, won't be getting loaded all the time, unless its some cheap crap made from potatoes, hidden away in their cellars. And there will be housing for everyone!!!...they will even house those who criticize and oppose them, even house them together, in large camps, so they can frolic together, and not argue. I could go on and on...but i guess I won't have to!!..You already know this and are working so hard to promote it! Keep up the great work....comrades!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 07:08 AM

Amos,

And I am just pointing out that your comments apply to your own distortions. Why do you think you have some superiour status? Who died and made you God?

Isn't one Ubermensch here enough?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 10:40 PM

Rahm Emanuel's profitable stint at bailed out mortgage giant.
      Rahm Emanuel. was named to the Freddie Mac board in February 2000 by Clinton, whom Emanuel had served as White House political director and vocal defender during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky scandals. The board met no more than six times a year. Unlike most fellow directors, Emanuel was not assigned to any of the board's working committees, according to company proxy statements. Immediately upon joining the board, Emanuel and other new directors qualified for $380,000 in stock and options plus a $20,000 annual fee, records indicate.
      On Emanuel's watch, the board was told by executives of a plan to use accounting tricks to mislead shareholders about outsize profits the government-chartered firm was then reaping from risky investments. The goal was to push earnings onto the books in future years, ensuring that Freddie Mac would appear profitable on paper for years to come and helping maximize annual bonuses for company brass. The accounting scandal wasn't the only one that brewed during Emanuel's tenure. During his brief time on the board, the company hatched a plan to enhance its political muscle. That scheme, also reviewed by the board, led to a record $3.8 million fine from the Federal Election Commission for illegally using corporate resources to host fundraisers for politicians. Emanuel was the beneficiary of one of those parties after he left the board and ran in 2002 for a seat in Congress from the North Side of Chicago.
      The board was throttled for its acquiescence to the accounting manipulation in a 2003 report by Armando Falcon Jr., head of a federal oversight agency for Freddie Mac. The scandal forced Freddie Mac to restate $5 billion in earnings and pay $585 million in fines and legal settlements. It also foreshadowed even harder times at the firm. Many of those same risky investment practices tied to the accounting scandal eventually brought the firm to the brink of insolvency and led to its seizure last year by the Bush administration, which pledged to inject up to $100 billion in new capital to keep the firm afloat. The Obama administration has doubled that commitment.
      Freddie Mac reported recently that it lost $50 billion in 2008. It so far has tapped $14 billion of the government's guarantee and said it soon will need an additional $30 billion to keep operating. Like its larger government-chartered cousin Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac was created by Congress to promote home ownership, though both are private corporations with shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange. The two firms hold stakes in half the nation's residential mortgages. Because of Freddie Mac's federal charter, the board in Emanuel's day was a hybrid of directors elected by shareholders and those appointed by the president.
      In his final year in office, Clinton tapped three close pals: Emanuel, Washington lobbyist and golfing partner James Free, and Harold Ickes, a former White House aide instrumental in securing the election of Hillary Clinton to the U.S. Senate. Free's appointment was good for four months, and Ickes' only three months. Falcon, director of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, found that presidential appointees played no "meaningful role" in overseeing the company and recommended that their positions be eliminated.
John Coffee, a law professor and expert on corporate governance at Columbia University, said the financial crisis at Freddie Mac was years in the making and fueled by chronically weak oversight by the firm's directors. The presence of presidential appointees on the board didn't help, he added.
      "You know there was a patronage system and these people were only going to serve a short time," Coffee said. "That's why [they] get the stock upfront." Financial disclosure statements that are required of U.S. House members show Emanuel made at least $320,000 from his time at Freddie Mac. Two years after leaving the firm, Emanuel reported an additional sale of Freddie Mac stock worth between $100,001 and $250,000. The document did not detail whether he profited from the sale. Sarah Feinberg, a spokeswoman for Emanuel, said there was no conflict between his stint at Freddie Mac and Obama's vow to restore confidence in financial institutions and the executives who run them. At the same time, Feinberg said Emanuel now agrees that presidential appointees to the Freddie Mac board "are unnecessary and don't have long enough terms to make a difference." Former President George W. Bush voluntarily stopped making such appointments following Falcon's assessment of their uselessness.
      In an interview, Falcon said the Freddie Mac board did most of its work in committees. Yet proxy statements that detailed committee assignments showed none for Emanuel, Free or Ickes during the time they served in 2000 or 2001. Most other directors carried two committee assignments each. Contrary to the proxy statements, Feinberg said she believed that Emanuel served on board committees that oversaw Freddie Mac's investment strategies and mortgage purchase activities. But Feinberg acknowledged she had no official documents to back up that assertion. The Obama administration rejected a Tribune request under the Freedom of Information Act to review Freddie Mac board minutes and correspondence during Emanuel's time as a director. The documents, obtained by Falcon for his investigation, were "commercial information" exempt from disclosure, according to a lawyer for the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
      Emanuel's board term expired in May 2001, and soon after he launched his Democratic congressional bid. One of Emanuel's fellow directors at Freddie Mac was Neil Hartigan, the former Illinois attorney general. Hartigan said Emanuel's primary contribution was explaining to others on the board how to play the levers of power. He was respected on the board for his understanding of "the dynamics of the legislative process and the executive branch at senior levels," Hartigan recalled. "I wouldn't say he was outspoken. What he was, was solid."
      By the time Emanuel joined Freddie Mac, the company had begun to loosen lending standards and buy riskier sub-prime loans. It was a practice that later blew up and contributed to the current foreclosure crisis. In his investigation, Falcon concluded that the board of directors on which Emanuel sat was so pliant that Freddie Mac's managers easily were able to massage company ledgers. They manipulated bookkeeping to smooth out volatility, perpetuating Freddie Mac's industry reputation as "Steady Freddie," a reliable producer of earnings growth. Wall Street liked what it saw, Freddie Mac's stock value soared and top executives collected their bonuses.
      Another focus of Freddie during Emanuel's day—and one that played to his skill set—was a stepped-up effort to combat congressional demands for more regulation.
During a September 2000 board meeting—midway through Emanuel's 14-month term—Freddie Mac lobbyist R. Mitchell Delk laid out a strategy titled "Political Risk Management" aimed at influencing lawmakers and blunting pressure in Congress for more regulation. Through Delk's initiative, Freddie Mac sponsored more than 80 fundraisers that raised at least $1.7 million for congressional candidates despite a federal law that bans corporations from direct political activity.
Emanuel spokeswoman Sarah Feinberg said Emanuel "can't remember the meeting or topic" but might have been in attendance when Delk outlined his plans. Feinberg downplayed the significance of the fundraiser thrown for Emanuel, which brought in $7,000, stressing that it was but one of many hosted by Delk. The event stood out in at least one respect, however.
      The Freddie Mac-linked events were mostly for Republicans, and only a handful benefited Democrats like Emanuel. "Rahm was a good friend of mine. He was on Freddie Mac's board. He was very much supportive of housing," said Delk, who resigned under pressure in 2004.Then-Freddie Mac CEO Leland Brendsel also hosted a fundraising lunch for Emanuel's 2002 campaign that netted $9,500 from top company executives. Brendsel was later ousted in the accounting scandal.
      Federal campaign records show that Emanuel received $25,000 from donors with ties to Freddie Mac in the 2002 campaign cycle, more than twice the amount collected that election by any other candidate for the U.S. House or Senate.Emanuel joined the House in January 2003 and was named to the Financial Services Committee, where he also sat on the subcommittee that directly oversaw Freddie Mac. A few months later, Freddie Mac Chief Executive Officer Leland Brendsel was forced out, and the committee and subcommittee launched hearings to sort out the mess, spanning more than a year. Emanuel skipped every hearing, congressional records indicate.
      Feinberg said Emanuel recused himself "from deliberations related to Freddie Mac to avoid even the appearance of favoritism, impropriety or a conflict of interest."

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 05:05 PM

BB:

I have mentioned this before, but when you take my expressions, which are original with me, and try to make points by throwing them back at me, you end up looking puerile and slightly at a loss for words, as well as discourteous in the extreme because I have asked you several times not to steal my writing and you choose to ignore that. I just want to call your attention to the fact that ir makes you sound something like a grade-school lad in a recess mob.

In other news:

" In a lighthearted moment, the president said that the White House had received many questions about the potential economic upside of legalizing marijuana. Obama did not display any of the questions, but he did briefly address the topic.Video Watch Obama say legalizing marijuana 'not a good strategy' »

"This was a fairly popular question. ... I don't know what this says about the online audience," the president joked. "No, I don't think this is a good strategy to grow our economy." (CNN)

Sommeone better tell Bobert. I just hope West Virginia doesn't try to secede over this.



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 03:17 PM

n the Bush administration, the Office of Legal Counsel gave a green light to many objectionable policies, from a lawless expansion of executive power to the use of torture. President Obama has nominated Dawn Johnsen to lead the office, but her nomination is being attacked by Republican senators who still prefer the Bush approach. Ms. Johnsen is superbly qualified and has fought for just the sort of change the office needs. The Senate should confirm her without further delay.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
Times Topics: Dawn E. Johnsen

The Office of Legal Counsel is little known to the public, but it plays an important role in guiding national policy. As the legal adviser to the executive branch, it informs the White House and the agencies about what the law requires — and what it prohibits. The office was thrust into the limelight a few years ago when word leaked out of an O.L.C. torture memo that cleared the way for horrific forms of interrogation.

Ms. Johnsen, a law professor at Indiana University, spent five years in the office under President Bill Clinton, including a stint as its acting chief. In response to the abuses of the Bush years, she joined in a much-needed statement of principles, signed by 19 former lawyers from the office. It called for the office to be more transparent and to show greater respect for Congress and the courts.

Republican senators' harsh criticism of the nomination is groundless. They have questioned Ms. Johnsen's commitment to fighting terrorism, but their main complaint seems to be her opposition to torture and to extreme views on presidential power. Her critics are outraged that early in her career, Ms. Johnsen worked for an abortion-rights advocacy group, but her views on abortion are hardly unusual.

Senator John Cornyn, a Republican of Texas, has made the bizarre accusation that despite her impressive legal record, Ms. Johnsen has not demonstrated the "requisite seriousness" for the job. It is an odd charge coming from someone who was a staunch defender of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, to whom that description actually applied.

Ms. Johnsen made it through the Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote, and there is talk that Republicans may try to filibuster her nomination. That would be an outrage. There is no corner of the executive branch in greater need of a new direction than the Office of Legal Counsel. The impressive Ms. Johnsen is an excellent choice to provide it. (NYT Editorial)

---

Can you spell "obstructionism"???? SUUUURE you can!!!!



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 08:40 AM

..but doing it in the best AMOS style--vindictively and exaggeratedly, in the belief that bitterness is a fine rook, and the merit of play is only in the winning.