BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 02:40 AM

(sorry- not at regular machine)
Amos,

You said that I was pointing something out. Like you, in the anti-Bush threads, I am merely pointing out the "Public Opinion" about someone. You have no idea if I even agree with the postings.

Sorry if you find that having your OOW questioned is so uncomfortable...





Here is another:

:"Stay Tuned for More of 'The Obama Show'

Daytime TV's newest star is good at staying on script. (By Marvin Joseph -- The Washington Post)

By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, June 24, 2009

In his first daytime news conference yesterday, President Obama preempted "All My Children," "Days of Our Lives" and "The Young and the Restless." But the soap viewers shouldn't have been disappointed: The president had arranged some prepackaged entertainment for them.

After the obligatory first question from the Associated Press, Obama treated the overflowing White House briefing room to a surprise. "I know Nico Pitney is here from the Huffington Post," he announced.

Obama knew this because White House aides had called Pitney the day before to invite him, and they had escorted him into the room. They told him the president was likely to call on him, with the understanding that he would ask a question about Iran that had been submitted online by an Iranian. "I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet," Obama went on. "Do you have a question?"

Pitney recognized his prompt. "That's right," he said, standing in the aisle and wearing a temporary White House press pass. "I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian."

Pitney asked his arranged question. Reporters looked at one another in amazement at the stagecraft they were witnessing. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel grinned at the surprised TV correspondents in the first row.

The use of planted questioners is a no-no at presidential news conferences, because it sends a message to the world -- Iran included -- that the American press isn't as free as advertised. But yesterday wasn't so much a news conference as it was a taping of a new daytime drama, "The Obama Show." Missed yesterday's show? Don't worry: On Wednesday, ABC News will be broadcasting "Good Morning America" from the South Lawn (guest stars: the president and first lady), "World News Tonight" from the Blue Room, and a prime-time feature with Obama from the East Room.

"The Obama Show" was the hottest ticket in town yesterday. Forty-five minutes before the start, there were no fewer than 107 people crammed into the narrow aisles, in addition to those in the room's 42 seats. Japanese and Italian could be heard coming from the tangle of elbows, cameras and compressed bodies: "You've got to move! . . . Oh, God, don't step on my foot!" Some had come just for a glimpse of celebrity. And they wanted to know all about him. "As a former smoker, I understand the frustration and the fear that comes with quitting," McClatchy News's Margaret Talev empathized with the president before asking him how much he smokes.


Obama indulged the question from the studio audience. "I would say that I am 95 percent cured. But there are times where I mess up," he confessed. "Like folks who go to AA, you know, once you've gone down this path, then, you know, it's something you continually struggle with."

This is Barack Obama, and these are the Days of Our Lives.

As if to compensate for the prepackaged Huffington Post question, Obama went quickly to Fox News for a predictably hostile question from Major Garrett. "In your opening remarks, sir, you said about Iran that you were appalled and outraged," Garrett said. "What took you so long?

"I don't think that's accurate," Obama volleyed testily, calling his toughening statements on Iran "entirely consistent."

The host of "The Obama Show" dispatched with similar ease a challenge from CBS's Chip Reid, asking whether his hardening line on Iran was inspired by John McCain. "What do you think?" Obama replied with a big grin. That brought the house down. And the studio audience laughed again when ABC's Jake Tapper tried to get Obama to answer another reporter's question that he had dodged. "Are you the ombudsman for the White House press corps?" the president cracked.

The laughter had barely subsided when the host made another joke about Tapper's reference to Obama's "Spock-like language about the logic of the health-care plan."

"The reference to Spock, is that a crack on my ears?" the president asked.

But yesterday's daytime drama belonged primarily to Pitney, of the Huffington Post Web site. During the eight years of the Bush administration, liberal outlets such as the Huffington Post often accused the White House of planting questioners in news conferences to ask preplanned questions. But here was Obama fielding a preplanned question asked by a planted questioner -- from the Huffington Post.

Pitney said the White House, though not aware of the question's wording, asked him to come up with a question about Iran proposed by an Iranian. And, as it turned out, he was not the only prearranged questioner at yesterday's show. Later, Obama passed over the usual suspects to call on Macarena Vidal of the Spanish-language EFE news agency. The White House called Vidal in advance to see whether she was coming and arranged for her to sit in a seat usually assigned to a financial trade publication. She asked about Chile and Colombia.

A couple of more questions and Obama called it a day. "Mr. President!" yelled Mike Allen of Politico. "May I ask about Afghanistan? No questions about Iraq or Afghanistan?"

Sorry: Those weren't prearranged. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,BEARDEDBRUCE
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 02:48 AM

Amos,

aMOS,

" in your rush to make Obama look bad, that the HuffPo question producedone of his weakest answers in the conference, and was anything but a placating softball querstion."


So, from the following comment you are saying above that not only is Obam doing what Bush was criticised for doing, but that he is lass compatent at it as well?



"During the eight years of the Bush administration, liberal outlets such as the Huffington Post often accused the White House of planting questioners in news conferences to ask preplanned questions. But here was Obama fielding a preplanned question asked by a planted questioner -- from the Huffington Post.

Pitney said the White House, though not aware of the question's wording, asked him to come up with a question about Iran proposed by an Iranian. And, as it turned out, he was not the only prearranged questioner at yesterday's show. Later, Obama passed over the usual suspects to call on Macarena Vidal of the Spanish-language EFE news agency. The White House called Vidal in advance to see whether she was coming and arranged for her to sit in a seat usually assigned to a financial trade publication. She asked about Chile and Colombia. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 06:35 AM

Iran's Ahmadinejad compares Obama to Bush
         
By Parisa Hafezi and Fredrik Dahl Parisa Hafezi And Fredrik Dahl – 1 hr 51 mins ago

TEHRAN (Reuters) – President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused President Barack Obama of behaving like his predecessor on Iran and called on him to apologize for what he called U.S. interference following the Iranian elections.

EDITORS' NOTE: Reuters and other foreign media are subject to Iranian restrictions on their ability to report, film or take pictures in Tehran.

Obama has ramped up his previously muted criticism, saying he was "appalled and outraged" by a crackdown on protests which followed Ahmadinejad's disputed re-election.

"Mr Obama made a mistake to say those things ... our question is why he fell into this trap and said things that previously (former U.S. President George W.) Bush used to say," the semi-official Fars News Agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

About 20 people have been killed in the demonstrations, but police and militia have flooded Tehran's streets since Saturday, quelling the majority of protests after the most widespread anti-government unrest since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

The turmoil has dimmed prospects for Obama's outreach to Iran over its nuclear programme, with Tehran blaming Britain and the United States for fomenting violence.

"I hope you avoid interfering in Iran's affairs and express your regret in a way that the Iranian nation is informed of it," Ahmadinejad said.

Iran's reformist opposition leaders have vowed to press on with legal challenges to an election they say was rigged.

The wife of opposition leader Mirhossein Mousavi, who says he won the poll, said it was a "duty to continue legal protests to preserve Iranian rights."

Mousavi supporters said they would release thousands of balloons on Friday imprinted with the message "Neda you will always remain in our hearts" -- a reference to the young woman killed last week who has become an icon of the protests.

Riot police swiftly dispersed a group of about 200 demonstrators with teargas on Wednesday, but the protest was a far cry from marches last week that attracted tens of thousands.

Protest cries of Allahu Akbar were heard from Tehran rooftops again overnight, although they were much more short-lived than on previous evenings in the capital.

COUNTRY "DEEPLY SPLIT"

The unrest has exposed unprecedented rifts within Iran's clerical establishment, with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who normally stays above the political fray, siding strongly with Ahmadinejad.

"My personal judgment is that this is a country deeply split and emotionalized," a Western diplomat in the region said. The protests had shown how dissatisfied some parts of society were with the way Iran was run -- to the chagrin of its leadership.

"I think they are deeply shocked," the diplomat said. The authorities had managed to impose outward stability, but had paid a heavy moral price, he added.

Khamenei has upheld the result of the June 12 presidential poll and has warned opposition leaders they would be responsible for any bloodshed.

Iran's top legislative body, the Guardian Council, has also ruled out a call from Mousavi to annul the election.

A spokesman for the council, which must approve the poll, said it had looked into all complaints but found no major fraud or irregularities, state Press TV reported on Thursday.

The spokesman said the vote was "among the healthiest elections ever held in the country" since the revolution.

The crackdown on the protests has stalled U.S. efforts to reach out to Tehran both over its nuclear programme and to seek its help in stabilizing Afghanistan.

The United States withdrew invitations to Iranian diplomats to attend U.S. Independence Day celebrations on July 4.

It was the first time since Washington cut diplomatic ties with Tehran in 1980 that Iranian diplomats had been invited to the embassy parties, but the move to withdraw the invites was largely symbolic as no Iranians had even responded.

U.S. ENGAGEMENT "DELAYED"

"The president's policy of engagement is obviously delayed, but we are going to have to deal with the government of Iran," Senator John Kerry, chairman of the influential Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Reuters.

The best U.S. option for pressuring Iran, the world's fifth biggest oil producer, was to drive down crude prices by reducing America's dependence on imported energy, Kerry said.

Mohammad Marandi, who is the head of North American Studies at Tehran University, said mistrust of the United States and Britain was rife, partly due to the "very negative" role of U.S.- and British-funded Persian-language television stations.

"They are working 24 hours a day spreading rumors and trying to turn people against each other," he told Reuters.

"In the short term relations will definitely get worse, but in the long term the U.S. really has to re-think its policy and to recognize that regime change is not possible in Iran."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 07:30 AM

Tilting at Green Windmills


By George F. Will
Thursday, June 25, 2009

The Spanish professor is puzzled. Why, Gabriel Calzada wonders, is the U.S. president recommending that America emulate the Spanish model for creating "green jobs" in "alternative energy" even though Spain's unemployment rate is 18.1 percent -- more than double the European Union average -- partly because of spending on such jobs?

Calzada, 36, an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, has produced a report that, if true, is inconvenient for the Obama administration's green agenda, and for some budget assumptions that are dependent upon it.

Calzada says Spain's torrential spending -- no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources -- on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada's report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies -- wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation -- sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency -- of capital. (European media regularly report "eco-corruption" leaving a "footprint of sleaze" -- gaming the subsidy systems, profiteering from land sales for wind farms, etc.) Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs elsewhere in Spain's economy.

The president's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, was asked about the report's contention that the political diversion of capital into green jobs has cost Spain jobs. The White House transcript contained this exchange:


Gibbs: "It seems weird that we're importing wind turbine parts from Spain in order to build -- to meet renewable energy demand here if that were even remotely the case."

Questioner: "Is that a suggestion that his study is simply flat wrong?"

Gibbs: "I haven't read the study, but I think, yes."

Questioner: "Well, then. [Laughter.]"

Actually, what is weird is this idea: A sobering report about Spain's experience must be false because otherwise the behavior of some American importers, seeking to cash in on the U.S. government's promotion of wind power, might be participating in an economically unproductive project.

It is true that Calzada has come to conclusions that he, as a libertarian, finds ideologically congenial. And his study was supported by a like-minded U.S. think tank (the Institute for Energy Research, for which this columnist has given a paid speech). Still, it is notable that, rather than try to refute his report, many Spanish critics have impugned his patriotism because he faulted something for which Spain has been praised by Obama and others.

Judge for yourself: Calzada's report can be read at http://tinyurl.com/d7z9ye. And at http://tinyurl.com/ccoa5s you can find similar conclusions in "Yellow Light on Green Jobs," a report by Republican Sen. Kit Bond, ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee's subcommittee on green jobs and the new economy.

What matters most, however, is not that reports such as Calzada's and the Republicans' are right in every particular. It is, however, hardly counterintuitive that politically driven investments are economically counterproductive. Indeed, environmentalists with the courage of their convictions should argue that the point of such investments is to subordinate market rationality to the higher agenda of planetary salvation.

Still, one can be agnostic about both reports while being dismayed by the frequency with which such findings are ignored simply because they question policies that are so invested with righteousness that methodical economic reasoning about their costs and benefits seems unimportant. When the president speaks of "new green energy economies" creating "countless well-paying jobs," perhaps they really are countless, meaning incapable of being counted.

For fervent believers in governments' abilities to control the climate and in the urgent need for them to do so, believing is seeing: They see, through their ideological lenses, governments' green spending as always paying for itself. This is a free-lunch faith comparable to that of those few conservatives who believe that tax cuts always completely pay for themselves by stimulating compensating revenue from economic growth.

Windmills are iconic in the land of Don Quixote, whose tilting at them became emblematic of comic futility. Spain's new windmills are neither amusing nor emblematic of policies America should emulate. The cheerful and evidently unshakable confidence in such magical solutions to postulated problems is yet another manifestation -- Republicans are not immune: No Child Left Behind decrees that by 2014 all American students will be proficient in math and reading -- of what the late senator Pat Moynihan called "the leakage of reality from American life."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 06:52 AM

Emotion, few details, in Obama's health care pitch


Jul 1, 8:00 PM (ET)

By PHILIP ELLIOTT and CHARLES BABINGTON


ANNANDALE, Va. (AP) - President Barack Obama wanted to put a human face on his plans to overhaul health care, and a Virginia supporter did just that Wednesday. Fighting back tears, Debby Smith, 53, told Obama of her kidney cancer and her inability to obtain health insurance or hold a job.

The president hugged her - she's a volunteer for his political operation - and called her "exhibit A" in an unsustainable system that is too expensive and complex for millions of Americans.

story

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 09:53 AM

Washington Post sells access, $25,000+

By MIKE ALLEN | 7/2/09 8:04 AM EDT

For a price, The Washington Post offers lobbyists off-the-record access to 'those powerful few.'

For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post is offering lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to "those powerful few" — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and the paper's own reporters and editors.


The astonishing offer is detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he feels it's a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its "health care reporting and editorial staff."


The offer — which essentially turns a news organization into a facilitator for private lobbyist-official encounters — is a new sign of the lengths to which news organizations will go to find revenue at a time when most newspapers are struggling for survival.


And it's a turn of the times that a lobbyist is scolding The Washington Post for its ethical practices.


"Underwriting Opportunity: An evening with the right people can alter the debate," says the one-page flier. "Underwrite and participate in this intimate and exclusive Washington Post Salon, an off-the-record dinner and discussion at the home of CEO and Publisher Katharine Weymouth. ... Bring your organization's CEO or executive director literally to the table. Interact with key Obama administration and congressional leaders …


"Spirited? Yes. Confrontational? No. The relaxed setting in the home of Katharine Weymouth assures it. What is guaranteed is a collegial evening, with Obama administration officials, Congress members, business leaders, advocacy leaders and other select minds typically on the guest list of 20 or less. …


"Offered at $25,000 per sponsor, per Salon. Maximum of two sponsors per Salon. Underwriters' CEO or Executive Director participates in the discussion. Underwriters appreciatively acknowledged in printed invitations and at the dinner. Annual series sponsorship of 11 Salons offered at $250,000 … Hosts and Discussion Leaders ... Health-care reporting and editorial staff members of The Washington Post ... An exclusive opportunity to participate in the health-care reform debate among the select few who will actually get it done. ... A Washington Post Salon ... July 21, 2009 6:30 p.m."


POLITICO has asked The Washington Post for a response, and will post it when it arrives.


more

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 10:20 AM

Speaking of leakage of reality, does the pontificator you are copying and pasting have any hard numbers, or is he doomed to wander forever in a cloud of nounless generalities and woebegone opinions?

Not having been halfg as obsessed with theminutiae of the administration as BB is, I don't know the exact actual context of Obama's remarks, nor the actual numbers and causes of SPain's current finances.

As regards energy, the issue is pretty simple: the value of the energy produced needs to exceed the amortization and maintenance of the units which produce it, with perhaps a quality factor added to the computation for the hard to measure but undeniable benefits of renewability versus oil-fueld energy production.

What the devil is this guy talking about? ANd what are the specifics? And why, without them, is this worth a BB C&P Special? Even though he says he is imitating me in everything he does, that doesn't make it a good idea.


A


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 10:46 AM

YOU are the one who established ( from YOUR posts) the " cloud of nounless generalities and woebegone opinions?" I am just faithfully following the path laid out for me by those who have gone before.





BUT:
"the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs elsewhere in Spain's economy. "

" And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation -- sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency -- of capital."


Hard enough number for you?


"Judge for yourself: Calzada's report can be read at http://tinyurl.com/d7z9ye. And at http://tinyurl.com/ccoa5s you can find similar conclusions in "Yellow Light on Green Jobs," a report by Republican Sen. Kit Bond, ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee's subcommittee on green jobs and the new economy. "


I know, YOU never provided the real sources of any of your claims, but I thought I might deviate from your path in this instance.


Amos,

You state : "I don't know the exact actual context of Obama's remarks"

Shall I treat you now as you treated me when I said I did not know something about Bush???

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 11:10 AM

This reminds me of Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner...except the odds are more evenly matched. Either participant may run off the cliff, jump the shark, etc...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 11:16 AM

Bruce:

Treat me as you like. Why you insist on continuing your role as the wounded partridge escapes me. The proposition that creating jobs in the alternative energy sector loses jobs somewhere else strikes me as pretty superficial and hard to support. If it is true, why is that any more than normal market dynamics, buggy whips giving way to auto bodies?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 01:35 PM

July 6 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. service industries from retailers to homebuilders shrank last month at the slowest pace in nine months, as measures of new orders and employment increased.

The Institute for Supply Management’s index of non- manufacturing businesses, which make up almost 90 percent of the economy, rose more than forecast to 47 from 44 in May, according to data from the Tempe, Arizona-based group. Readings less than 50 signal contraction.

The index’s third straight monthly improvement reflects signs of stabilization in housing and consumer spending and increased demand from overseas as a gauge of export orders rose to the highest level since February 2008. Still, mounting job losses and stagnant wages are likely to restrain some domestic purchases, limiting the impact of any recovery.

The economy is “no longer contracting but it’s certainly not back to healthy growth,â€쳌 said Robert Stein, senior economist at First Trust Advisors in Lisle, Illinois. “We’re kind of in that interim stage where you could still lose a lot of jobs but things are gradually rising.â€쳌

The index was projected to increase to 46, according to the median forecast in a Bloomberg News survey of 64 economists. Estimates ranged from 44 to 48.

The ISM non-manufacturing industries index of employment rose to 43.4 from 39 the prior month, and its gauge of new orders increased to 48.6 from 44.4.

‘Encouraging Report’

A gauge of export orders gained to 54.5 from 47 while a measure of prices paid rose to 53.7 from 46.9.

“Overall, it’s an encouraging report,â€쳌 Anthony Nieves, chairman of the ISM survey, told reporters on a conference call from Beverly Hills, California. “We’re starting to see this leveling off. In the next few months, we might see some uptick.â€쳌

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 12:48 AM

That was NOT really a post by Amos! The Freds have taken over his mind and he is now a helpless automaton serving their dark agenda for a takeover of Planet Earth. Note the strange alien symbols that are scattered here and there through his post. It's a dead giveaway. The Freds have him in thrall. He's like one of those things in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". He must be stopped!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 09:52 AM

Better men than you have tried, LH, and ended up regretting it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 10:43 AM

LOL! Yes, well, I am simply exhorting others to stop you, Amos, while I sit back and watch the fur fly....good entertainment. I'm what you call an instigator. A rabble-rouser. A shit-disturber.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 12:52 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama is backing efforts to create a new government program to provide long term care insurance as part of the broader health care overhaul.

The voluntary insurance program, sponsored by Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, would pay a modest daily cash benefit of at least $50 that people could use for in-home services or nursing home bills.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a letter to Kennedy that the administration supports the program because it would help elderly and disabled people stay in their own homes. But the Congressional Budget Office is questioning the program's long-range solvency. A Senate committee could vote Tuesday on the plan.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 12:55 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) — Saying global warming poses unprecedented threats to Americans' way of life, four of President Barack Obama's top environmental and energy officials urged the Senate on Tuesday to pass legislation to reduce the pollution linked to the planet's rising temperature.

The heads of the Energy Department, Agriculture Department, Interior Department and Environmental Protection Agency told a Senate panel it should pass a bill similar to one the House narrowly cleared late last month. That legislation would impose the first limits on greenhouse gases, eventually leading to an 80 percent reduction by mid-century by putting a price on each ton of climate-altering pollution.

"We will not fully unleash the potential of the clean energy economy unless this committee, and the Senate, put an upper limit on the emissions of heat-trapping gases that are damaging our environment," Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in prepared testimony. Salazar acknowledged that another Senate panel has already advanced a bill that would boost the amount of energy generated from renewable sources.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu warned that a projected temperature increase would make the world a much different place, and said the only way to avoid that outcome is by enacting legislation.

"Denial of the climate change problem will not change our destiny; a comprehensive energy and climate bill that caps and then reduces carbon emissions will," Chu said.

The appearance of the three Cabinet secretaries and EPA administrator signals the beginning of the Senate's work on a climate bill. The committee hopes to draft and advance legislation before the August recess, and Senate leaders have said they want to take up the measure this fall, before talks on a new global treaty to reduce heat-trapping gases.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 01:22 PM

We won't know too much about Obama until we see what he does with Israel and immigration.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 02:14 PM

I don't see that those are such diagnostic issues, Rig. WHy do you choose them as your litmus test? Seems to me you can know a lot about Obama by studying all that had already occurred.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 02:30 PM

One thing I enjoy is knowing there is someone in the WHite House with a deft sense of humor.

" President Obama took another whack at his colorfully mouthed chief of staff Friday night, when, in remarks to journalists at the Radio and Television Correspondents' Dinner, he compared Mr. Emanuel to a camel.

"In Egypt, we had the opportunity to tour the pyramids," Mr. Obama said, referring to his trip earlier this month. "And by now, I'm sure you've all seen the pictures of Rahm on that camel. I admit, I was a little nervous about the whole situation. I said at the time, 'This is a wild animal known to bite, kick and spit. And who knows what the camel could do.' " (June 17 NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 04:46 PM

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1910208,00.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 03:40 PM

"U.S. Opens Path to Asylum for Victims of Sexual Abuse

    By JULIA PRESTON
Published: July 15, 2009

The Obama administration has opened the way for foreign women who are victims of severe domestic beatings and sexual abuse to receive asylum in the United States. The action reverses a Bush administration stance on an issue at the center of a protracted and passionate legal battle over the possibilities for battered women to become refugees.

In addition to meeting the existing strict conditions for being granted asylum, abused women need to show a judge that women are viewed as subordinate by their abuser, according to a court filing by the administration, and must also show that domestic abuse is widely tolerated in their country.

The administration laid out its position in an immigration appeals court filing in the case of a woman from Mexico who requested asylum, saying she feared she would be murdered by a common law husband there. According to court documents filed in San Francisco, the man repeatedly raped her at gunpoint, held her captive, stole from her and at one point attempted to burn her alive when he learned she was pregnant.

The government submitted its legal brief in April, but the woman only recently gave her consent for the confidential case documents to be disclosed to The New York Times. The government has marked a clear, although narrow, pathway for battered women seeking asylum, lawyers said, after thirteen years of tangled court arguments, including resistance from the Bush administration to recognize any of those claims."...NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 11:24 AM

Most schools have poor accountability systems and inadequately track student outcomes. They have little information about what works. They have trouble engaging students on campus. Many remedial classes (60 percent of students need them) are a joke, often because expectations are too low.

The Obama initiative is designed to go right at these deeper problems. It sets up a significant innovation fund, which, if administered properly, could set in motion a spiral of change. It has specific provisions for remedial education, outcome tracking and online education. It links public sector training with specific private sector employers.

Real reform takes advantage of community colleges' most elemental feature. These colleges educate students with wildly divergent interests, goals and abilities. They host students with radically different learning styles, many of whom have floundered in traditional classrooms.

Therefore, successful reform has to blow up the standard model. You can't measure progress by how many hours a student spends with her butt in a classroom chair. You have to incorporate online tutoring, as the military does. You have to experiment with programs like Digital Bridge Academy that are tailored to individual learning styles. You have to track student outcomes, as the Lumina Foundation is doing. You have to build in accountability measures for teachers and administrators.

Maybe this proposal, too, will be captured by the interest groups. But its key architects, Rahm Emanuel in the White House and Representative George Miller, have created a program that is intelligently designed and boldly presented.

It's a reminder that the Obama administration can produce hope and change — when the White House is the engine of policy creation and not the caboose. (Republican columnist for the NYT David Brooks)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 01:03 PM

(waiting on BillD to comment on lack of quotes for the last post)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 01:06 PM

Obama hasn't done much for American-resident chimpanzees or other great apes yet, not to mention monkeys. I am reserving judgement until he does.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 05:52 PM

Freshman Dems oppose Pelosi's tax increase

By Mike Soraghan
Posted: 07/17/09 02:23 PM [ET]

Twenty-one freshman Democratic House members have signed a letter opposing their leadership's plan to raise taxes to finance a healthcare overhaul.

Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) circulated the letter, saying that the income surtax on the wealthy would place an undue burden on small businesses, some of which pay taxes in the same way as an individual. The letter had 22 signers, all freshmen except for Rep. Paul Hodes (D-N.H.), who is in his second term.

"Especially in a recession, we need to make sure not to kill the goose that will lay the golden eggs of our recovery," the letter said. "We are concerned that this will discourage entrepreneurial activity."

Polis voted against the plan at the Education and Labor Committee markup Friday as a protest against the tax. But the letter itself did not threaten that its signers would vote against the bill. Instead, it asks for a different source of money to be found, and says more cost savings should be found so that less money is needed.

Freshman members, who are worried about the taxes and other controversial aspects of the bill, have had two meetings with leadership in recent days. On Friday, they went to the White House for a meeting with President Obama .

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has backed down slightly on the tax, saying it could be lowered if more cost savings could be found in the system. But she has said there will be some sort of tax on high-earners.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 05:54 PM

And not that I expect anyone to bother reading this, but...




http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=328

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 08:39 PM

"July 17, 2009
Categories: House Democrats

Big Dem cash dump on eve of climate vote

Three House Democratic leaders who were whipping members on the climate change bill gave tens of thousands in campaign cash to party moderates around the time of the 219-212 vote on June 26, according to Federal Election Commission records.

It's impossible to tell if that torrent of cash was an attempt to schmear wavering Democrats -- or just part of the usual cash dump made by leaders on the eve of the June 30 quarterly fundraising deadline.

Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC) doled out $28,000 to reps who eventually voted yes on June 24, two days before the big vote -- on a day when House leaders were doing some heavy-duty arm-twisting.

Clyburn recipients who voted for the bill included a who's-who of battleground district Dems: Steve Driehaus, D-OH ($2,000); Martin Heinrich, D-NM ($2,000); Suzanne Kosmas, D-Fla. ($4,000); Betsy Markey, D-Colo. ($2,000); Carol Shea-Porter, D-NH ($2,000), Baron Hill, D-Ind. ($2,000); Alan Grayson, D-Fla. ($2,000); Leonard Boswell, D-Iowa ($2,000); Jim Himes, D-Conn. ($2,000); Mary Jo Kilroy, D-OH ($2,000); Kurt Schrader, D-Ore. ($2,000); Jerry McNerney, D-Calif. ($2,000) and Tom Perriello, D-Va. ($2,000).

On the other hand, Clyburn also gave at least $14,000 to Democrats who voted no despite his pressure: Mike Arcuri, D-NY ($2,000); Marion Berry, D-Ark. ($2,000); Bobby Bright, D-Ala. ($2,000); Chris Carney, D-Penn. ($2,000); Chet Edwards (D-Tx.), Travis Childers , D-Miss. ($2,000); Parker Griffith, D-Ala. ($2,000) and Harry Mitchell, D-NM ($2,000).

The same pattern held true for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who gave $4,000 to yes-voting Ohio Democrat Zack Space and the same amount to no-voting Chris Carney.

House Energy and Commerce Henry Waxman gave at least $16,000 to yes-voters on June, 25, FEC records show.

A Waxman campaign spokesman said the payouts were part of the usual "end-of-quarter activity."

Ken Spain, communications director of the National Republican Congressional Committee emails this response:

"If this was a concerted effort by the Democratic leadership to purchase votes for Nancy Pelosi's national energy tax at the eleventh hour, then it is unconscionable at best and corrupt at worst. The sad fact for those Democrats who were seemingly bought and paid for, is that it will take a lot more money than they received to defend such an atrocious vote."

UPDATE: Democrats have responded, turning up their own list of vulnerable Republicans who received leadership money at the end of the reporting period. Not surprisingly, they're dismissive of Republican accusations that votes were bought.

"What House Republican leaders may be lacking in solutions for the American people, they more than make up for in hypocrisy and bogus charges," said DCCC spokesman Ryan Rudominer. "Considering the long list of contributions that Leader Boehner gave to his own rank and file right after their 'just say no' vote to creating jobs and reducing America's dependence on foreign oil, their false accusations against Democrats are at best phony outrage and at worst, hypocrisy of the highest order."

Boehner gave $2,000 each in late June to Reps. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.); Chris Lee (R-N.Y.), Erik Paulsen (R-Minn.), Joseph Cao (R-La.), Judy Biggert (R-Ill.), Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), Dan Lungren (R-Calif.), and Thad McCotter (R-Mich.). All of these Republicans are among the most vulnerable politically."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0709/Big_Dem_cash_dump_on_eve_of_climate_vote.html?showall

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 08:53 PM

None of that sheds any light on human-ape-monkey relations in contemporary America.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 09:26 PM

LH - That's too tempting. I won't say it!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 06:28 AM

" The Squandered Stimulus

By Robert J. Samuelson
Monday, July 20, 2009

It's not surprising that the much-ballyhooed "economic stimulus" hasn't done much stimulating. President Obama and his aides argue that it's too early to expect startling results. They have a point. A $14 trillion economy won't revive in a nanosecond. But the defects of the $787 billion package go deeper and won't be cured by time. The program crafted by Obama and the Democratic Congress wasn't engineered to maximize its economic impact. It was mostly a political exercise, designed to claim credit for any recovery, shower benefits on favored constituencies and signal support for fashionable causes.

As a result, much of the stimulus's potential benefit has been squandered. Spending increases and tax cuts are sprinkled in too many places and, all too often, are too delayed to do much good now. Nor do they concentrate on reviving the economy's most depressed sectors: state and local governments; the housing and auto industries. None of this means the stimulus won't help or precludes a recovery, but the help will be weaker than necessary.

How much is hard to determine. By year-end 2010, the package will result in 2.5 million jobs, predicts Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy.com. But as Zandi notes, all estimates are crude. They involve comparing economic simulations with and without the provisions of the stimulus. The economic models must make assumptions about how fast consumers spend tax cuts, how quickly construction projects begin and much more.

Depending on the assumptions, the results vary. When the Congressional Budget Office made job estimates, it presented a range of 1.2 million to 3.6 million by year-end 2010. Whatever the actual figures, they won't soon mean an increase in overall employment. They will merely limit job losses. Since late 2007, those have totaled 6.5 million, and there are probably more to come.

On humanitarian grounds, hardly anyone should object to parts of the stimulus package: longer and (slightly) higher unemployment benefits; subsidies for job losers to extend their health insurance; expanded food stamps. Obama was politically obligated to enact a campaign proposal providing tax cuts to most workers -- up to $400 for individuals and $800 for married couples. But beyond these basics, the stimulus plan became an orgy of politically appealing spending increases and tax breaks.


......
There are growing demands for another Obama "stimulus" on the grounds that the first was too small. Wrong. The problem with the first stimulus was more its composition than its size. With budget deficits for 2009 and 2010 estimated by the CBO at $1.8 trillion and $1.4 trillion (respectively, 13 and 9.9 percent of gross domestic product), it's hard to argue they're too tiny. Obama and congressional Democrats sacrificed real economic stimulus to promote parochial political interests. Any new "stimulus" should be financed by culling some of the old.

Here, as elsewhere, there's a gap between Obama's high-minded rhetoric and his performance. In February, Obama denounced "politics as usual" in constructing the stimulus. But that's what we got, and Obama likes the result. Interviewed recently by ABC's Jake Tapper, he was asked whether he would change anything. Obama seemed to invoke a doctrine of presidential infallibility. "There's nothing that we would have done differently," he said. "


Entire article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/19/AR2009071901762.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 06:36 AM

"The key to understanding Obama's predicament is to realize that while he ran convincingly as a repudiation of Bush, he is in fact doubling down on his predecessor's big-government policies and perpetual crisis-mongering. From the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists to gays in the military to bailing out industries large and small, Obama has been little more than the keeper of the Bush flame. Indeed, it took the two of them to create the disaster that is the 2009 budget, racking up a deficit that has already crossed the historic $1 trillion mark with almost three months left in the fiscal year.

Beyond pushing the "emergency" $787 billion stimulus package (even while acknowledging that the vast majority of funds would be released in 2010 and beyond), Obama signed a $410 billion omnibus spending bill and a $106 billion supplemental spending bill to cover "emergency" expenses in Iraq and Afghanistan (and, improbably, a "cash for clunkers" program). Despite pledges to achieve a "net spending cut" by targeting earmarks and wasteful spending, Obama rubber-stamped more than 9,000 earmarks and asked government agencies to trim a paltry $100 million in spending this year, 0.003 percent of the federal budget.

In the same way that Bush claimed to be cutting government even while increasing real spending by more than 70 percent, Obama seems to believe that saying one thing, while doing another, somehow makes it so. His first budget was titled "A New Era of Fiscal Responsibility," even as his own projections showed a decade's worth of historically high deficits. He vowed no new taxes on 95 percent of Americans, then jacked up cigarette taxes and indicated a willingness to consider new health-care taxes as part of his reform package. He said he didn't want to take over General Motors on the day that he took over General Motors.

Such is the extent of Obama's magical realism that he can promise to post all bills on the Internet five days before signing them, serially break that promise and then, when announcing that he wouldn't even try anymore, have a spokesman present the move as yet another example of "providing the American people more transparency in government."
What the new president has not quite grasped is that the American people understand both irony and cognitive dissonance. Instead, Obama has mistaken his personal popularity for a national predilection toward emergency-driven central planning. He doesn't get that Americans prefer the slower process of building political consensus based on reality, and at least a semblance of rational deliberation rather than one sky-is-falling legislative session after another.

On this last point, Obama is a perfect extension of Bush's worst trait as president. In the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush administration pushed through the Patriot Act, a massive, transformative piece of legislation that plainly went unread even as Congress overwhelmingly voted aye. Bush whipped up an atmosphere of crisis every time he sensed a restive Congress or a dissatisfied electorate. And at the end of his tenure, he rammed through the TARP bailout at warp speed, arguing that the United States yet again faced catastrophe at the hands of an existential threat.
.....

Bush learned the hard way that running government as a perpetual crisis machine leads to bad policy and public fatigue. Obama's insistence on taking advantage of a crisis to push through every item on the progressive checklist right now is threatening to complete that cycle within his first year.


What are his options? First, stop doing harm. Throwing money all over the economy (and especially to sectors that match up with Democratic interests) is the shortest path to what Margaret Thatcher described as the inherent flaw in socialism: Eventually you run out of other people's money.

No matter how many fantastical multipliers Obama ascribes to government spending, with each day comes refutation of the administration's promises on jobs and economic growth. Even his chief source on the topic, economic adviser Christina Romer, now grants that calculating jobs "created or saved" by Team Obama is simply impossible.

Which leads to the second point: Stop it with the magical realism already.

Save terms such as "fiscal responsibility" for policies that at least minimally resemble that notion. Don't pretend that a budget that doubles the national debt in five years and triples it in 10 is the work of politicians tackling "the difficult choices." Americans have a pretty good (if slow-to-activate) B.S. detector, and the more you mislead them now, the worse they'll punish you later. Toward that end, producing real transparency instead of broken promises is the first step toward building credibility.

That the administration is now spending millions of dollars to revamp its useless stimulus-tracking site Recovery.gov is one more indication that, post-Bush, the White House still thinks of citizens as marks to be rolled.

Finally, it's time to connect the poster boy for hope to the original Man From Hope. After Bill Clinton bit off more domestic policy than even he could chew, leading to a Republican rout in the midterm elections of 1994, the 42nd president refocused his political intelligence on keeping his ambitions and, as a result, the size of government growth, limited. Though there is much to complain about in his record, the broad prosperity and mostly sound economic policy under his watch aren't included.

This shouldn't be a difficult task for Obama. As a political animal, he has always resembled Clinton more than Carter. This might help him avoid the Carteresque pileup he's driving into. Far more important, it just might help the rest of us. "



entire article

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 05:26 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/presidential-approval-tracker.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 05:52 PM

"The key to understanding Obama's predicament is to realize that while he ran convincingly as a repudiation of Bush, he is in fact doubling down on his predecessor's big-government policies and perpetual crisis-mongering. From the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists to gays in the military to bailing out industries large and small, Obama has been little more than the keeper of the Bush flame. Indeed, it took the two of them to create the disaster that is the 2009 budget, racking up a deficit that has already crossed the historic $1 trillion mark with almost three months left in the fiscal year. "

If that is so, BB, it confirms exactly what I have long felt which is that the Republicans and Democrats unfailingly serve the very same entrenched powers and interests...not the public...and that no matter which one of them you elect, the same basic agenda inevitably goes forward.

What do you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 07:10 PM

I think you are both very nearsighted and incapable of seeing differences. This is just more hogwash and rhetorical generalizing. The idea that Bush, in all his eight years, would accomplish as much for the general betterment of the nation as Obama will have done in his first two, is to laugh, Monsieur, all your rhetoric-spouting naiveté aside. To laugh, you heat? Ha, ha! Ho, ho!! C'est a rire, mon vieux ivrogne!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 05:17 PM

With his "political capital on the line," President Obama "won a crucial victory on Tuesday when the Senate voted to strip out $1.75 billion in financing for seven more F-22 jet fighters from a military authorization bill." The "nation's premier fighter-jet program" was conceived in the waning days of the Cold War to defend against "a highly advanced enemy fighter fleet," but the jets have "yet to fly a single combat mission in Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else." Limiting the F-22 to the 187 already authorized was "a key policy victory for Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who has been campaigning against the plane since April" as a "niche, silver bullet solution" against a non-existent threat. As Glenn Greenwald noted, this fight is not about the overall military budget: "Barack Obama campaigned on a platform of increased defense spending.  True to his word, Obama's 2010 fiscal year budget calls for $534 billion in defense spending (not including the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan)." Rather, it was a battle of political will between the influence of defense contractors and the legitimate national security interests of the United States. "If the Department of Defense can't figure out a way to defend the United States on a budget of more than half a trillion dollars a year," Gates argued during the F-22 debate, "then our problems are much bigger than anything that can be cured by a few more ships and planes." Following the dramatic vote, Obama responded, "I reject the notion that we have to waste billions of taxpayer dollars on outdated and unnecessary defense projects to keep this nation secure."

'HUGE HUGE VICTORY': "This is a big deal," declared Slate's Fred Kaplan. "I think it is fair to say that this is a huge huge victory for Obama and Gates," military analyst Max Bergmann agreed, "and is a big step forward toward instituting a strategic shift within the Pentagon." "It's a win for Obama and Gates," Steven Benen wrote, "but just as important, it's a win for military priorities, fiscal discipline, and changing how the system operates." The political stakes were high, as "Obama stuck his neck out and threatened the first veto of his presidency" over this "indefensible defense budget boondoggle." Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Lawrence Korb explained that a defeat on the F-22 would make it hard for Gates "to be an effective Secretary of Defense during the rest of his tenure." When the plan to cut F-22 funding was announced, executive director of the Project On Government Oversight Danielle Brian warned, "This is going to be a real test of Obama's ability to push back on the Congress." "Just last week, conventional wisdom held that the $1.75 billion authorization would easily survive a challenge on the floor." Now, "the 58-to-40 vote clearly gives the Obama administration more leeway to overhaul military spending."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 05:31 PM

"If that is so, BB, it confirms exactly what I have long felt which is that the Republicans and Democrats unfailingly serve the very same entrenched powers and interests...not the public...and that no matter which one of them you elect, the same basic agenda inevitably goes forward.

What do you think? "

I am not arguing with you on this topic- you appear to have a good grasp of the situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 07:57 PM

Thank you. I wish it wasn't so, but I believe it is.

Kind of like ancient Rome that way. The patricians always run the show and the plebes get bread and circuses...enough to keep them pacified most of the time.

It's like that in Canada too. No matter which party we elect, the same BS just keeps happening over and over again. The rich get richer. The general social infrastructure deteriorates gradually. We get embroiled in foreign wars that were not of our choosing and are not in our collective interest. Our young men (and women) die for nothing on some distant piece of foreign land.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Jul 09 - 10:04 AM

"Some observers questioned whether the president should have so strongly backed Gates, a longtime friend, over the police who arrested him without fully knowing exactly what took place between the professor and Crowley.

"Obama is the president for all American not just black Americans," said Democratic political strategist and ABC News consultant Donna Brazile.
"


Not often I AGREE with Brazille.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jul 09 - 01:07 PM

Regarding that, BB, I think Charley Noble summed it up perfectly when he said this on the "Gates" thread:

"This story is more grist for the mill for those who want the American people to focus on other problems than enacting comprehensive and affordable health care and restoring our economic viability, problems that divide us rather than programs that bring us together.

Obama usually demonstrates more political sense than to be drawn into such a potentially divisive dispute, even if it were the case of a respected colleague that he had known for a long time. But shame on the talk-show hosts and political pundits who are exploiting this sad incident.

Charley Noble

****

If ever I've seen a tempest in a teapot, and much ado about almost nothing at all, that story is it. What a frikkin' waste of people's time it is to obsess about some cops who overreacted a bit, and a bad-tempered and tired homeowner who overreacted a bit when he was caught in a frustrating situation he had no reason to expect. They all showed some lack of good judgement. So what? Those sort of things happen every day in the USA...and in Canada...and wherever there are stressed-out cops and stressed-out people whom those cops are dealing with. Obama's main error was to get involved in it at all...but Gates is a personal friend of his.

If any one of us had heard of a personal friend of ours being arrested by some cops at his own house over a break-in report...well, our first assumption would have been that the cops acted "stupidly", wouldn't it? ;-) And it would take a fair bit of evidence to the contrary to get any one of us to come around to the notion that it might have possibly been our friend's fault too, wouldn't it?

But we might begin to consider that possibility if we weren't totally stubborn about it. (and most of the people here are totally stubborn once they've made an initial judgement of any kind).

Obama's a guy who is willing to admit to having made a mistake. He's done so before. I wonder if Gates is willing to admit to having made a mistake? Maybe not. Doesn't sound like it. How about the cop? Maybe not him either. If so...they'd be acting just like most of the people on this forum...stubborn to the bitter end.

In any case, the whole Gates incident is utterly trivial, and it's being exploited now by an irresponsible media...and by people who'd like to damage Barack Obama...and by other people who are obsessed with divisive racial issues. In all three of those cases, they are not people who are doing anything good...they're just causing a bunch of useless controversy, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jul 09 - 10:24 PM

"SIX months ago, when President Obama and I took office, we were confronted with an economic crisis unparalleled in our lifetime. The nation was hemorrhaging more than 700,000 jobs a month, the housing market was in free fall, and the fate of the financial system hung in the balance. Credible economists were handicapping the probability of a depression. The actions we took — passing the Recovery Act, stabilizing the banking system, pressing to get credit flowing again and helping responsible homeowners — brought us back from the precipice. Monthly job losses are down, financial markets are improved, and economic contraction has slowed. We still have a long way to go, but clearly we are closer to recovery today than we were in January. The Recovery Act has been critical to that progress.

Notwithstanding this progress, the nature of the Recovery Act remains misunderstood by many, and misconstrued by others: critics have suggested that the entire $787 billion is being spent on pet programs. As the person leading the administration's efforts to put the Recovery Act into effect, I want to set the record straight.

The single largest part of the Recovery Act — more than one-third of it — is tax cuts: 95 percent of working Americans have seen their taxes go down as a result of the act. The second-largest part — just under a third — is direct relief to state governments and individuals. The money is allowing state governments to avoid laying off teachers (14,000 in New York City alone), firefighters and police officers and preventing states' budget gaps from growing wider.

And those hardest hit by the recession are getting extended unemployment insurance, health coverage and other help to get through these tough times. The bottom line is that two-thirds of the Recovery Act doesn't finance "programs," but goes directly to tax cuts, state governments and families in need, without red tape or delays.

As for the final third, the act is financing the largest investment in roads since the creation of the Interstate highway system; construction projects at military bases, ports, bridges and tunnels; long overdue Superfund cleanups; the creation of clean energy jobs of the future; improvements in badly outdated rural water systems; upgrades to overtaxed mass transit and rail systems; and much more. These investments create jobs today — and support economic growth for years to come. Far from being a negative, the wide array of these investments is needed given the incredible diversity of the American economy.

Projects are being chosen without earmarks or political consideration, and many contracts have come in under budget. More than 30,000 projects have been approved, and thousands are already posted on recovery.gov — providing a high level of transparency and accountability. Taxpayers should know that we have not hesitated to reject proposals that have failed to meet our merit-based standards.

The care with which we are carrying out the provisions of the Recovery Act has led some people to ask whether we are moving too slowly. But the act was intended to provide steady support for our economy over an extended period — not a jolt that would last only a few months. Instead of quick-hit rebates, we are giving Americans a tax cut in each paycheck. Instead of pumping out all the state aid immediately, we are spreading it over the two years that it will be needed. Road projects, energy projects and construction projects are being started as soon as they pass review, contracts are competitively bid and reporting systems are in place.

Even with such care being taken, we have already committed more than one-fourth of the Recovery Act's total funds, and we are on track to meet the deadline set when the act was passed in February — spending 70 percent by the end of September 2010.

The Recovery Act is not the cure for all our economic ills — no single piece of legislation could be. But how many government initiatives can point to both large numbers of projects coming in under budget and a Government Accountability Office finding that we are ahead of schedule in key areas?

It is true that the act's effort to address multiple problems simultaneously makes it an easy target for second-guessing. Critics have argued that the tax cuts are too small (or too large); that too much (or not enough) aid is going to rural areas; that too little (or too much) is being spent on roads. Recently, some have even criticized the act for helping support soup kitchens and food banks.

But the way I see it, our balanced approach recognizes that there is no silver bullet, no single thing, that can address the many and complex needs of America's vast economy. We need relief, recovery and reinvestment to cope with our multifaceted crisis — and only 159 days after it was signed by President Obama, the Recovery Act is already at work providing all three."

(Joe Biden is the vice president of the United States.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Jul 09 - 11:42 PM

What we've learned since the election is Joe Biden is an idiot.

             But here's what I've learned about the Economic Stimulus Program. The only thing they've been able to do in our area is to overlay existing streets with asphalt paving. The reason is, to do anything else, like build a bridge for instance, requires design, geo-technical reports, environmental impact statements, reports of local seismic activities, permits, permit fees, and etc.

             I bid jobs for a heavy construction firm in Oregon. I spend most of my time bidding on overlaying one street or another, some state highway, a parking lot for the fire department, but nothing that would really help the flow of traffic. The reason, the jobs that would help with traffic are not shovel ready for the above mentioned reasons.

             This money is being wasted. Not only that, the demand for asphalt based materials is now driving the cost of fuel up.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 04 Aug 09 - 03:16 PM

Obama administration withholds data on clunkers
         

Brett J. Blackledge, Associated Press Writer – 42 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration is refusing to quickly release government records on its "cash-for-clunkers" rebate program that would substantiate — or undercut — White House claims of the program's success, even as the president presses the Senate for a quick vote for $2 billion to boost car sales.

The Transportation Department said it will provide the data as soon as possible but did not specify a time frame or promise release of the data before the Senate votes whether to spend $2 billion more on the program.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Sunday the government would release electronic records about the program, and President Barack Obama has pledged greater transparency for his administration. But the Transportation Department, which has collected details on about 157,000 rebate requests, won't release sales data that dealers provided showing how much U.S. car manufacturers are benefiting from the $1 billion initially pumped into the program.

The Associated Press has sought release of the data since last week. Rae Tyson, spokesman for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said the agency will provide the data requested as soon as possible.

DOT officials already have received electronic details from car dealers of each trade-in transaction. The agency receives regular analyses of the sales data, producing helpful talking points for LaHood, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs and other officials to use when urging more funding.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 09 - 03:21 PM

They say they will release the data as soon as possible--presumably meaning as soon as they digest it and reformat it. I don't see that this constitutes withholding.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 04 Aug 09 - 03:25 PM

sorry:

Waiting until AFTER the Senate vote?


Amos, I have this Obama-approved oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 04 Aug 09 - 03:31 PM

above was my post - can't put cookie on this machine.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 09 - 04:11 PM

Wait, I don't get it--you are speculating as to their meaning, in an uncharitable way, and asserting I am being naive? Yet you seem to have no data whatsoever to support your speculation.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Aug 09 - 04:49 PM

Amos,

I posted the article as it was presented- ** I ** am not specyulating at all, just presenting the article for critical evaluation. Feel free to argue the points brought up in the article- but it indicates that the information is, and has been available, as it is being used to push the administration agenda, but is NOT being allowed out to the public.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Aug 09 - 10:03 AM

Obama Squelches His Truth Whisperers

By Ruth Marcus
Wednesday, August 5, 2009

Does President Obama care more about passing health-care reform that truly gets costs under control, or more about getting reelected? Does he care more about getting the nation's fiscal house in order, or more about getting reelected?

Right now, the evidence points to getting reelected. Exhibit A came at Monday's White House briefing: 45 minutes of press secretary Robert Gibbs restating the president's "clear commitment in the clearest terms possible, that he's not raising taxes on those who make less than $250,000 a year."

Duh, some of you may say. Self-preservation is the first instinct of any politician. Breaking promises and raising taxes is a combination that is toxic to electoral hopes, and it's naive to expect Obama to walk the tax plank in the midst of the health-care fight. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/04/AR2009080402423.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Aug 09 - 01:36 PM

Obama has been in office for about 200 days. Here, he describes what he's been doing to voters in Indiana. The record of accomplishment, so far, certainly looks better than all of the last eight miserable eyars.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Aug 09 - 01:38 PM

One Thousand!