BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 07:19 PM

And one!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 01:36 AM

Have you turned it around yet Amos?

Have you finally proven to all of the conservatives how wrong they are?

Or has reality sunk in?

"fear and intolerance" I think you wrote the book on that.

"big budget surpluses" You admitted that the deficit grew every year of the "surpluses" but you keep going back to that same chant.

How does a surplus turn into a deficit?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 09:03 AM

Ask Georgie and the BuShites. They were able to work that magic.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 10:47 AM

If I were one of the big corporate donors who bankrolled the Republican tide that carried into office more than 50 new Republicans in the House, I would be wary of what you just bought.

For no matter your view of President Obama, he effectively saved capitalism. And for that, he paid a terrible political price.

Suppose you had $100,000 to invest on the day Barack Obama was inaugurated. Why bet on a liberal Democrat? Here's why: the presidency of George W. Bush produced the worst stock market decline of any president in history. The net worth of American households collapsed as Bush slipped away. And if you needed a loan to buy a house or stay in business, private sector borrowing was dead when he handed over power.

As of election day, Nov. 2, 2010, your $100,000 was worth about $177,000 if invested strictly in the NASDAQ average for the entirety of the Obama administration, and $148,000 if bet on the Standard & Poors 500 major companies. This works out to returns of 77 percent and 48 percent.

But markets, though forward-looking, are not considered accurate measurements of the economy, and the Great Recession skewed the Bush numbers. O.K. How about looking at the big financial institutions that keep the motors of capitalism running — banks and auto companies?

The banking system was resuscitated by $700 billion in bailouts started by Bush (a fact unknown by a majority of Americans), and finished by Obama, with help from the Federal Reserve. It worked. The government is expected to break even on a risky bet to stabilize the global free market system. Had Obama followed the populist instincts of many in his party, the underpinnings of big capitalism could have collapsed. He did this without nationalizing banks, as other Democrats had urged.

Saving the American auto industry, which has been a huge drag on Obama's political capital, is a monumental achievement that few appreciate, unless you live in Michigan. After getting their taxpayer lifeline from Obama, both General Motors and Chrysler are now making money by making cars. New plants are even scheduled to open. More than 1 million jobs would have disappeared had the domestic auto sector been liquidated.

"An apology is due Barack Obama," wrote The Economist, which had opposed the $86 billion auto bailout. As for Government Motors: after emerging from bankruptcy, it will go public with a new stock offering in just a few weeks, and the United States government, with its 60 percent share of common stock, stands to make a profit. Yes, an industry was saved, and the government will probably make money on the deal — one of Obama's signature economic successes.

Interest rates are at record lows. Corporate profits are lighting up boardrooms; it is one of the best years for earnings in a decade.

All of the above is good for capitalism, and should end any serious-minded discussion about Obama the socialist. But more than anything, the fact that the president took on the structural flaws of a broken free enterprise system instead of focusing on things that the average voter could understand explains why his party was routed on Tuesday. Obama got on the wrong side of voter anxiety in a decade of diminished fortunes.

"We have done things that people don't even know about," Obama told Jon Stewart. Certainly. The three signature accomplishments of his first two years — a health care law that will make life easier for millions of people, financial reform that attempts to level the playing field with Wall Street, and the $814 billion stimulus package — have all been recast as big government blunders, rejected by the emerging majority.

But each of them, in its way, should strengthen the system. The health law will hold costs down, while giving millions the chance at getting care, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Financial reform seeks to prevent the kind of meltdown that caused the global economic collapse. And the stimulus, though it drastically raised the deficit, saved about 3 million jobs, again according to the CBO. It also gave a majority of taxpayers a one-time cut — even if 90 percent of Americans don't know that, either.


Timothy Egan in the NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 11:47 AM

Amos,

"Suppose you had $100,000 to invest on the day Barack Obama was inaugurated"

Sorry, I WAS invested at that time- in GM amoung others- AND OBAMA GAVE IT TO THE UNIONS.

My LOSS was 100% on GM stock.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 11:57 AM

How did "Georgie and the BuShites" work the magic?

Subject: RE: BS: Poplar Views: the Obama Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 12:17 PM

This is the MOST POLAR VIEW OF OBAMA EVER
Poplar view

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 04:00 PM

Bruce:

Explain, please. GM is making dough thanks to Obama's bail-out, not so?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 04:09 PM

Amos,

In case you did NOT pay attention while Obama slipped money to his supporters:

GM was in trouble- In the case of an ordinary comapany, that means the company would have been broken up, and the assets sold off to satisfy debt. Any remainder would have belonged to the stockholders.

Obama took over GM, and split it into TWO companies. The GM that the government owns, with a large amount of stock being given to the Unions, AND the one that the stockholders got. The problem was that the assets were ALL given to the one the Unions had the stock in: The DEBT was all thet the other company got- and THAT was what the stockholders of GM had stock in, after Obama screwed us over.

Go back and look at it- He took a situation where the stockholders ( and unions, who had pension plans invested) had some chance of recovery by reorganization or sale of assets) and made it one where the stockholders, including many insurance companies and mutual funds, were given ONLY THE DEBT.

But the Unions got their payoff, and screww the rest of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 05:43 PM

Beardie is obviously inhabiting his usual parallel, and delusional, universe.


But you had to ask, didn't you, Amos?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 06:03 PM

Greggie Boy,

If you bother looking at the facts, YOU might find your way out of that fog you live in.

I held GM Stock- I KNOW what happened with it. I lost money on it- If you think otherwise, should I send YOU a bill for my losses???

Long 50 MOTORS LIQUIDAT MTLQQ 04/28/09 12/07/09 224 104.48 17.52 -86.96   Non-Covered System No First In First Out
History
Long 50 MOTORS LIQUIDAT MTLQQ 04/28/09 12/07/09 224 104.47 17.52 -86.95   Non-Covered System

What knowledge do you bring to the table- the abililty to insult people rather than discus facts?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 06:06 PM

One summary from portfolio.com:

"s GM prepares to move beyond its government bailout as soon as Friday with a $16 billion IPO, here are five reasons why the salvation of the giant U.S. automaker, once considered all but dead, has worked so well.

The GM bailout may be President Obama's finest moment to date.Critics once denounced the bailout as a mere thank-you to his supporters in the unions and predicted that the government-run car company would undermine rivals and churn out cars to suit the tastes of its masters in Washington. They predicted that the taxpayers would lose money in a futile effort to save the company. And by jumping to the head of the line of creditors, the government threatened to set a bad precedent for bankruptcy law.

Well, they were wrong. GM is selling cars at a pretty brisk pace, reporting growing profits, and preparing to fully pay back taxpayers with proceeds from an IPO, should it go well. The bankruptcy process and investors have somehow survived. It's true, GM still isn't quite as robust as Ford, the only one of the three major U.S. automakers to avoid a bailout. It's growth still lags the market, albeit by just a small margin. But one can't imagine GM getting this far, this fast, without federal help. The bailout was a clear success. If anyone thinks that we should undo it and allow GM to risk a long, messy Chapter 11 or Chapter 7 liquidation, please step forward now.


Read more: http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/daily-brief/2010/08/12/five-reasons-why-the-obama-gm-restructuring-worked#ixzz14G8BHerq"

Another from politico.com:

Government assistance to the auto industry was Òcertainly a factorÓ when automakers reached a deal in May 2009 to raise average fuel economy standards for passenger cars to 35 miles per gallon by 2016, according to Martin Zimmerman, a business professor at the University of Michigan.

Until then, automakers had successfully fended off efforts to raise fuel economy rules for 19 years. The average fuel efficiency had been 27.5 miles per gallon since 1990, when the hulking Ford Taurus was the second best-selling car in America.

But a lot of things came together in the spring of 2009, according to Deron Lovaas, director of transportation policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

For one thing, the oil price shock of 2007 had transformed public attitudes about fuel efficiency, and the car companies were retooling for smaller cars already. California had raised its fuel economy standards, and auto companies suddenly faced the prospect of different standards in different states.

More important, General Motors and Chrysler were on life support, after years of poor management and the effects of the recession, which shrank the U.S. market by 40 percent in two years. In addition to the tens of billions of dollars in loans that the two companies received under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, auto makers were also benefiting from the $3 billion Cash for Clunkers program, which helped prop up auto sales in 2009.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44639.html#ixzz14G9JTdFV

---

Note also, Bruce, that the company was done in by the same fatcat types so beloved by your party who precipitated the recession from another industry. Overpaid, greed-driven bottom feeders. What a shame. I am sorry for your losses in this affair but the company was rotten--why were you invested in it? Hypnotized by their blue-chip status from the Sixties?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 07:00 PM

Amos,

That is ONE view- If I were a union that got 20+Billion out of it, I might think it a good thing, too.

But the people who had that "bluechip"stock were a lot of mutual funds and retirement plans- and THOSE people lost a lot of thier retirement and earned wealth.

So pardon me if I disagree with the idea that stealing money from little old ladies is OK, if it is Obama doing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 08:25 PM

"President Obama took office facing more challenges than any president in three generations. In the midst of two stalemated wars, the worst economy since the Great Depression and a hemorrhaging job market, the American people desperately needed a government that could take the bold action needed to halt foreclosures, end the recession, and get employers hiring again. Yet, while the new president buckled down to solve these catastrophic challenges, the GOP embraced a simple four word mantra: "I hope Obama fails." Two years later, unemployment remains tragically high, the President's signature accomplishment is widely misunderstood by voters , and Republicans rode a wave of discontent back into power. Simply put, this did not happen by accident; it was part of a concerted strategy to undermine the President's agenda and blame him for its failure.

A CAMPAIGN OF OBSTRUCTION: When the economy was spiraling out of control, Republicans filibustered the recovery. When out-of-control health premiums threatened to sink the entire federal budget, Republicans conspired to make health reform Obama's "Waterloo ." When persistent unemployment cried out for a more aggressive Federal Reserve, Republicans blocked Obama's Nobel Prize winning Fed nominee. Even something as basic as regulating the same Wall Street banks that nearly destroyed the American economy nearly fell before a GOP filibuster. This campaign of obstruction was not limited to big ticket items. As of last August, fully 372 bills had passed the House -- many of them unanimously -- but few of them are likely to every receive a vote i n the obstructionist-laden Senate. Meanwhile, Obama's judges are being confirmed at only half the rate of President Bush's, and Republicans even stalled key economic policy makers in the midst of a recession. As this campaign of obstruction began to undercut the economic recovery, the GOP doubled down. Republicans repeatedly blocked job-creating and small business-promoting legislation, often killing essential measures or requiring ambitious plans to be pared down into nearly nothing. And this obstructionism helped keep in the economy in the doldrums, the obstructionists' standing in the polls steadily grew.

FLOODING THE AIRWAVES: Republicans did far more than simply blocking Obama's agenda, they also waged a multi-billion dollar disinformation campaign to poison the electorate on this agenda. Emboldened by the Supreme Court's egregious Citizens United decision, the right-wing U.S. Chamber of Commerce waged a $32 million campaign to defeat the President's allies in Congress, and this campaign was just the tip of a massive icebe rg of disinformation. Right-wing front groups like 60 Plus and future Florida Gov. Rick Scott's (R) Conservatives for Patients' Rights waged a multi-million dollar campaign to tarnish health reform -- often making outlandish claims that the Affordable Care Act would slash Medicare benefits or outlaw private coverage or euthanize grandma. This di sinformation campaign was not limited to health reform. Republicans blanketed the airwaves with attacks on President Obama's successful program to save the auto industry -- a program which saved more than one million jobs. The Recovery Act saved approximately 1.2 million jobs and even right-wing economists believe that it boosted the economy by 4 percent, but Republicans have done everything in their power to ensure that no one knows about these successes. Republicans have manufactured economists who deny the effectiveness of the stimulus. They falsely claim that it has not created a single job , and they repeatedly label it a "failed stimulus" -- even if they also have no compunctions about stealing credit for the law's success whenever it benefits them politically to do so. Two years of disinformation has taken its toll. Although only one-quarter of voters oppose the actual provisions of the Affordable Care Act, pluralities have been so convinced that the law is poison that they now embrace repeal. Likewise, two-thirds of voters share the false belief that the Recovery Act either hurt or did not affect the economy.

OBAMA'S UNFORCED ERRORS: To be clear, Obama's presidency has not been error-free. Obama's own economic advisor, Christina Romer, determined that $1.2 trillion in stimulus spending was necessary to spark a robust economic recovery. While such a large proposal may not have survived Congress without being cut down, Obama himself now suggests that he did not bargain hard enough with the legislature. Rather than proposing a stimulus package laden with tax cuts, the President says he should have "'let the Republicans insist on the tax cuts' so it could be seen as a bipartisan compromise." Similarly, Obama could have done more to modify his signature anti-foreclosure program in order to ease the anxieties of voters caught in the housing crisis. To date, just $600 million of the program's $50 billion has been spent . Additionally, yesterday's announcement that the Federal Reserve will launch a $600 billion effort to invigorate the economy is a reminder of the role monetary policy can play in rescuing a weak economy. One can only speculate on whether this effort would have been launched sooner if several Fed Board seats hadn't remained vacant for most of Obama's presidency, but the Obama administration's failure to fill these vacancies early in Obama's presidency certainly did not help the economy. Yet, while Obama did not always pursue the robust progressive policies needed to lift the economy from its knees, it's important to acknowledge what he ha s accomplished . The Recovery Act did grow the economy and rescue hundreds of thousands of jobs. The Affordable Care Act will slow the unsustainable growth of health costs and drive down long term deficits. Credit card companies, sexist employers and Wall Street banks are much less able to exploit ordinary Americans because Barack Obama is president. These accomplishments were not enough to save the Democrats' majorities, but they moved the country in the right direction -- something that will not continue if Obama embraces the GOP's call to reembrace the failed policies of George W. Bush. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 09:15 PM

Had Obama not responded and let GM and Chrysler go down the Repubs would be blamin' him fir that... There is no shortage of sour grapes on the crybaby Repubs side... Face it, Obama did the correct thing with the auto bailouts and the American taxpayers will actually make a profit when all is done and Obama will have saved another million or so jobs but...

...when you don't have the microphone it's hard to get the facts out above the roar of the corporate bucks buyin' up as much media (microphones) as it can...

This evening on "60 Minutes" Steve Cross asked Obma why he appeared on so mnay TV shows and Obama said, in essence, "Because its the only way I can get my message across to the people"... That is reality... If yer a Repub president, no problem... Remember when Bush wanted to sell the Iraq invasion??? Front page articles in the so-called liberal Washington Post day after day after day...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 12:30 PM

"I have been to many summits," the European Commission president, José Manuel Barroso, said afterward, but Lisbon was more "intimate, informal" and "a real exchange about the priorities" instead of mere note-reading — and he gave credit to Mr. Obama.

In the end, then, the more common diplomatic dynamic was flipped: Instead of foreign leaders taking advantage of a weakened counterpart, they rallied to his aid — for their own interests as much as Mr. Obama's, given the economic and military stakes.

In particular, they gave Mr. Obama ammunition in his Senate battle for the New Start treaty. He collected a series of supportive statements from European leaders — from Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany to leaders of former Soviet bloc nations, who remain deeply suspicious of Russia and wary of Mr. Obama's "reset" policy for warmer relations with Russia.

At a news conference after the NATO session, Mr. Obama said, "Unprompted, I have received overwhelming support from our allies here that Start — the New Start treaty — is a critical component to U.S. and European security."

The endorsers, he added, include "those who live right next to Russia, who used to live behind the Iron Curtain, who have the most cause for concern with respect to Russian intentions and who have uniformly said that they will feel safer and more secure if this treaty gets ratified."

Like the Eastern Europeans, NATO leaders more broadly agreed, in effect, that the Mr. Obama's "reset" relationship with Russia had enabled a parallel reset of their own ties with the former Communist bloc leader. The NATO-Russia Council meeting was the first since Russia went to war with Georgia to its south in 2008.

Mr. Obama also made progress drawing Russia into cooperating with, rather than opposing, a new missile defense network in Europe aimed at countering any future threat from Iran. The White House hopes that Russian cooperation could undercut the argument of conservative critics of New Start that the treaty would crimp missile defense plans.

...NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 06:06 PM

Doesn't much matter, Amos...

Obama could find a cure for cancer and the Repubs would accuse him of trying to put doctors out of business...

There is no pleasing them so...

...screw 'um...

Just wish that Obama would call Bill Clinton about 5 times a week... Slick Willie always had a way of out maneuvering the Repub when it came to PR...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 08:37 PM

ABC News reports that the Congressional Budget Office this week released its latest report on the effects of the Recovery Act and found that it Òraised the GDP, lowered unemployment, and increased the number of people with jobs.Ó According to the report, CBO estimates that the Recovery ActÕs policies in the third quarter of the calendar year 2010 had the following effects (emphasis added):

       * They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent,
       * Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.8 percentage points and 2.0 percentage points,
       * Increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.6 million, and,
       * Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 2.0 million to 5.2 million compared with what would have occurred otherwise (see Table 1). (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 12:18 AM

Uh........what?

Huh?????

Could you all repeat what you just said in the past 50 or so posts?

I need to hear it all again, okay?

Just type it out a little more slow-w-w-w-ly.....that way it will be much easier for me to read and I will get full comprehension of all the really important points and counterpoints.

I will grade you all at the end, and decide who has won! ;-D

(The winner gets an all-expense-paid weekend with Jean Chretien and his lovely wife Aline in scenic Shawinigan, Quebec.)

Jean and Aline Chretien

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 12:47 AM

Don't scoff! Most Canadians would kill for such an opportunity. ;-D

"Dat Aline, she can really cook up one great meal, by Gar! And dat petit Jean, mon dieu!...'e is a real card! Dat little guy from Shawinigan is da life of da party!"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 10:43 AM

Purdy simple, LH...

While the righties and the further-righties (i.e. Tea Party) scurry about trying to paint Obama as a socialist and Keynesian economics as bogus, it is also having to do quite a bit of revising of reality to fir their biases and prejudices...

The one I love is, "The stimulus hasn't created any jobs"??? I mean, even Chongz understands that if if you put $700B into the economy, over half into "shovel ready" projects that it must be difficult for anyone with an IQ greater than that of an animal cracker so say that and keep a straight face...

Bottom line: Yeah, the rightie/corporatist media is busy trying to revise history, replace reasonable economic theory with flat-earth mythology and paint anyone who does not agree with them as an Obama socialist it is fine that Amos continues calling them on their ballgames...

There, that purdy much sums up the last 50 posts, or 1000 posts, fir that matter...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 12:37 PM

They're just playing politics as usual, Bobert. ;-D The basic job of the Republican Party, after all, is to:

1. Constantly attack and undercut the Democrats.

2. Keep the old divide-and-conquer game going full steam so you'll all keep fighting with each other and troop dutifully out to the polls next time instead of taking to the streets and overthrowing the entire damn $ySStem by a popular revolution.

And the basic job of the Democratic Party is to:

1. Constantly attack and undercut the Republicans.

2. Keep the old divide-and-conquer game going full steam so you'll all keep fighting with each other and troop dutifully out to the polls next time instead of taking to the streets and overthrowing the entire damn $ySStem by a popular revolution.

To do this effectively...they must be different from one another. And they are. ;-D But not in a way that does you much good. They're different like two football teams. They've got different names, different logos (elephant, donkey), different uniforms (red, blue), different management, and a different style of play. But they play the same football game on the same field. They both desperately want to win that game, because winning delivers money and prizes to the winners. So they play the game damn hard.

But the game is not being played on behalf of the general public. The public is just there to buy all the tickets and fill the stadium and pay taxes. The game is played so the League can get rich! And you know who the League is?

Yeah, I think you know. The League is the same bunch of guys you often refer to as Boss Hog. ;-D They are the guys who fund those two political football teams, own the media, build the stadium, and sell you the tickets for the big playoff game.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Dec 10 - 11:43 AM

I like this Speech Obama Should Give by Eliot Spitzer.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Dec 10 - 05:06 PM

Citigroup Said to Discuss Hiring Former White House Budget Director Orszag

By Bradley Keoun - Dec 1, 2010 1:47 PM ET

Citigroup Inc., recovering from its $45 billion bailout in 2008, is in advanced talks to hire former White House Budget Director Peter Orszag, people with knowledge of the matter said.

Orszag, 41, may take a job in the New York-based firm's investment-banking division, the people said, declining to be identified because the discussions are private. An announcement may come as early as today, one of the people said.

Orszag, an economist trained at Princeton University and the London School of Economics, helped shape U.S. economic stimulus during the financial crisis and overhaul the health- care system. The youngest member of President Barack Obama's cabinet, he spent 18 months as White House budget director, stepping down in July.

He has since become a distinguished visiting fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a contributing columnist for the New York Times, writing about health care, budget policy and Social Security. His successor as budget director, Jacob Lew, worked at Citigroup from 2006 to 2009.

"I am in the process of figuring out my future," Orszag said in an interview today at a conference in New York. "When there is an announcement to be made, we will make it."

Citigroup spokeswoman Danielle Romero-Apsilos said she couldn't comment.

Before joining the White House as director of the Office of Management and Budget, Orszag was director of the Congressional Budget Office and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Ties to Rubin

He previously served as economic adviser to President Bill Clinton and was a staff member of Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers.

Orszag's tenure at the Clinton White House overlapped with Citigroup's former executive-committee chairman, Robert Rubin, who served as Treasury secretary from 1995 to 1999. In 2006, when Rubin, 72, helped to found an economic research group at the Brookings Institution called the Hamilton Project, Orszag was named its first director. Obama, then a senator from Illinois, spoke at the project's unveiling.

Rubin, who in late 2007 helped oversee the search that led to the appointment of Vikram Pandit as chief executive officer, retired from Citigroup last year.

Citigroup repaid $20 billion of its bailout money last year and the rest was converted into stock. The Treasury Department still owns 11 percent of the bank's shares.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 12:34 AM

Obama does something right. Again.

Obama has proposed a freeze on wages of federal workers for 2 years.

I believe this is a good move and shows executive leadership.

I try to agree with people whenever I can to show that nobody is wrong all the time and nobody is right all the time.

I judge the good or bad of what someone does by the action itself rather than theperson that acted.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 02:22 PM

Federal Reserve Withholds Collateral Data, Denying Taxpayers Gauge of Risk

By Caroline Salas and Matthew Leising - Dec 2, 2010 12:00 AM ET

The Federal Reserve withheld details on individual securities pledged as collateral by recipients of $885 billion in central bank loans, denying taxpayers a measure of the risks they faced from its emergency aid.

The central bank yesterday released data on 21,000 transactions from $3.3 trillion in emergency lending to stem the financial crisis. July's Dodd-Frank law required the Fed to disclose the names of borrowers, the size and interest rates of loans, and "information identifying the types and amounts of collateral pledged or assets transferred."

For three of the Fed's six emergency facilities, the central bank released information on groups of collateral it accepted by asset type and rating, without specifying individual securities. Among them was the Primary Dealer Credit Facility, created in March 2008 to provide loans to brokers as Bear Stearns Cos. collapsed.

"This is a half-step," said former Atlanta Fed research director Robert Eisenbeis, chief monetary economist at Cumberland Advisors Inc. in Sarasota, Florida. "If you were going to audit the facilities, then would this enable you to do an audit? The answer is 'No,' you would have to go in and look at the individual amounts of collateral and how it was broken down to do that. And that is the spirit of what the requirements were in Dodd-Frank."

Fed spokeswoman Susan Stawick in Washington declined to comment.

Public Disclosure

The public disclosure of the lending data should have been prevented because it could spur runs on the banks listed, said Darrell Duffie, a finance professor at Stanford University.

"That's a very destructive process," he said. Still, with the data released, "if you're justified in getting the information, then you're justified to get enough information to judge the risk the Fed took," he said.

Under its definition of the "ratings unavailable" category for collateral posted under the PDCF, the Fed said that "in some limited cases, ineligible collateral was pledged, but it was reviewed with the clearing banks for exclusion from future pledges." The central bank didn't elaborate.

The secrecy surrounding Fed bailouts led lawmakers to demand disclosure after the central bank approved aid dwarfing the federal government's $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Collateral Pledged

The loans extended to primary dealers under the PDCF by the New York Fed were recourse loans, meaning the potential liability of borrowers who defaulted was greater than the value of the collateral pledged, according to the Fed. Primary dealers are the firms authorized to deal in government securities directly with the Fed. At its peak, borrowing under the facility came to about $156 billion.

It is "specifically impossible" to know how much risk taxpayers were taking by looking at pools of collateral grouped by asset class and rating, said Sylvain Raynes, a principal at R&R Consulting in New York and co-author of "Elements of Structured Finance," published in May by Oxford University Press.

"I need to know the individual composition because a $2 billion pool can be one asset of $2 billion, which would be very risky, or 2,000 assets of $1 million each, and that's not risky at all," Raynes said. "The spirit of Dodd-Frank was not respected, and they used the vagueness in the wording of the law to weasel out of fulfilling their duty to the American people."

Corporate Debt

Over the life of the PDCF, $1.5 trillion of collateral with "ratings unavailable" was pledged, according to the Fed data. That's larger than the $1.39 trillion of municipal debt pledged. Corporate debt posted totaled $2.35 trillion.

A total of $8.95 trillion was lent over the life of the PDCF, backed by $9.67 trillion in collateral.

The Fed released details identifying thousands of transactions including bonds bought under its mortgage purchase program and asset-backed commercial paper pledged under its Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money-Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility.

The central bank also omitted details on individual securities pledged as collateral under its Term Auction Facility and its Term Securities Lending Facility, which was announced on March 11, 2008, as the first program under which the Fed planned to lend to non-bank dealers.

The Fed authorized its New York branch to establish the PDCF on March 16, 2008, the same day it made commitments to convince JPMorgan Chase & Co. to buy troubled dealer Bear Stearns. A run on New York-based Bear Stearns was seen as threatening the stability of global markets, and the PDCF for the first time allowed dealers to borrow on a collateralized basis from the New York Fed.

Lehman Collapse

In September that year, as Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. was on the brink of filing for bankruptcy, the PDCF was expanded to accept all types of collateral pledged in tri-party repo deals, including high-yield, high-risk securities and equities. The previous program only accepted investment-grade debt securities.

The first peak of PDCF lending occurred in April 2008 at nearly $40 billion, according to the New York Fed. As financial markets improved, banks reduced their balance-sheet risk and the PDCF pricing became less attractive, usage of the facility fell off and stopped in mid-July that year.

Borrowing then leapt to over $140 billion in mid-September 2008 from no activity the previous week, according to the New York Fed. The program ended Feb. 1 this year.

Under the TSLF, dealers could swap investment-grade securities, including mortgage bonds, for U.S. Treasuries for 28 days. Usage peaked at $235.5 billion in October 2008, and the program was also closed in February.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Dec 10 - 03:51 PM

CNN Reporter Put On Watch List After Criticizing TSA
      

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, December 3, 2010

In light of new reports alleging that the TSA is creating a watch list of individuals who criticized the agency as a form of collective punishment, it's revealing to note that CNN journalist Drew Griffin was also put on a TSA watch list immediately after he filed reports critical of the organization back in 2008.

As we highlighted earlier this week, a reported TSA memo was circulated at the height of last month's opt out controversy which "officially addresses those who are opposed to, or engaged in the disruption of the implementation of the enhanced airport screening procedures as 'domestic extremists'."

In response to the story, former Congressman Bob Barr filed a Freedom of Information Act request which demanded to know if the TSA had categorized those leading the charge against invasive security measures, namely Matt Drudge, Alex Jones, and John Tyner, via the websites drudgereport.com and prisonplanet.com, as "domestic extremists".

There can be no doubt whatsoever that Homeland Security has engaged in political witch hunts against Americans critical of big government. Earlier this year, Big Sis was caught spying on Tea Party groups as well as State Representative Daryl Metcalfe.

The TSA itself has also listed journalists critical of its policies as potential terrorists, ostensibly as a punishment and a warning to other reporters that if they broadcast anything negative about the agency then they will be bracketed together with Al-Qaeda members and be forced to endure copious amounts of hassle and harassment every time they wish to fly.

Shortly after he began a series of investigative reports that were critical of the TSA in May 2008, CNN journalist Drew Griffin was placed on a watch list that at the time had swelled to over a million names. TSA claimed that he was unfortunate enough to share the name with another Drew Griffin who had been legitimately placed on the list, but then denied that he was on the list altogether and blamed the airlines. The airlines responded by saying they were merely following a list provided to them by the TSA.

"Coincidentally, this all began in May, shortly after I began a series of investigative reports critical of the TSA," said Griffin. "Eleven flights now since May 19. On different airlines, my name pops up forcing me to go to the counter, show my identification, sometimes the agent has to make a call before I get my ticket," Griffin reported. "What does the TSA say? Nothing, at least nothing on camera. Over the phone a public affairs worker told me again I'm not on the watch list, and don't even think that someone in the TSA or anyone else is trying to get even."

Given the fact that the TSA has made a habit out of deceiving the American people and spinning the truth about airport security, the notion that Griffin was deliberately targeted by the TSA as a punishment for his critical reports about the agency is almost a given.

The fact that the TSA curtailed its so-called 'imperative' security measures for several days around Thanksgiving as a political ploy to deflate the opt out day protest shows that the agency will go to any lengths to deflect criticism.

The TSA has now announced that it will check the name of every traveler against a government watch list 72 hours before they fly, greasing the skids for "domestic extremists" who exercise their first amendment right to speak out against the TSA to be harassed and hindered.

Former Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff was later confronted on the Griffin case by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. Chertoff parroted the TSA line in claiming that Griffin merely had the same name as another suspected terrorist.

The outcome of Bob Barr's FOIA request is eagerly awaited as it will give an insight into how the TSA responded internally to the national outrage surrounding body scanners and pat downs, while also giving an indication as to whether people like Matt Drudge and Alex Jones were placed on a watch list for having the temerity to stand up to children being sexually molested by low-paid thugs in uniforms.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Dec 10 - 04:03 PM

Gee, Bruce, maybe hiring a bunch of thugs to man the TSA was a pisspoor idea.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 11:36 PM

Clean Energy Patents Have Skyrocketed with Obama's Brains Upgrade

   

By Cleantechnica at Cleantechnica

Tue Dec 7, 2010 11:49am EST

by Susan Kraemer

"When the Obama administration Nobel prizewinner Steven Chu took over from Bush/Cheney oil man Bodman at the Department of Energy, he prioritized clean energy innovation. By December last year, to speed the development of clean energy solutions to prevent climate change, he had overhauled the patent review process, hiring experts so he could put clean energy patents on a fast track.

Inventors had long suffered a shortage of the skilled reviewers that had the technical expertize to evaluate the science. Patent decisions were taking 40 months. But the new and improved DOE added enough scientific experts to review more ideas faster. Among patents already in the queue, the next 3,000 patent petitions and about 25,000 more that had been gummed up in the works were eligible for the new sped-up review program.

Looks like that investment in patent-reviewing brains is paying off. An upward trend is clear by the beginning of 2010, according to the data from the Clean Energy Patent Growth Index.

And this quarter, a record number of clean energy patents have been granted."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Dec 10 - 10:47 AM

Wednesday was not a good day for Senator Mitch McConnell's single-minded project to make Barack Obama a one-term president. Over the minority leader's objections, 13 Republicans joined every Democratic senator to ratify the New Start nuclear arms treaty with Russia, reducing the size of the countries' nuclear stockpiles and making the world a safer place. The 71-to-26 vote was the capstone to what now shapes up to be a remarkably successful legislative agenda for President Obama's first two years.

Earlier in the day, the president signed a bill allowing the repeal of the military's ban on open service by gay, lesbian and bisexual soldiers — a bill passed with the assistance of 23 Congressional Republicans, again over the objections of Mr. McConnell.

And the Senate unanimously approved a bill to pay for the medical care of workers who cleaned up ground zero after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, coming to its senses after Mr. McConnell and other Republicans blocked the bill 13 days earlier, causing a national uproar.

(Unfortunately, the bill was scaled back substantially by the demands of a few holdout senators who thought it was too generous, though it added nothing to the deficit. The bill was later approved by the House.)

These deeply gratifying developments hardly spell the end of partisanship, which is likely to return with a vengeance in the next Congress. But they do suggest that many Republicans are willing to reject Mr. McConnell's particularly noxious version, under which any bill, no matter how beneficial for the country, can be blown up if it could be seen as a victory for President Obama. On Tuesday, to pick one shabby example, he made a thoroughly underhanded attempt to sabotage the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" when he thought no one was looking.

In a more rational world, of course, the ratification of New Start could have been done by unanimous consent. Though the treaty is vital, it makes relatively modest reductions in the nuclear stockpile and continues the inspection regime employed by Democratic and Republican presidents going back to Ronald Reagan. If the same document had been signed by a Republican president, it would have been approved months ago.

In the obstructionist climate of the 111th Congress, the ratification could be done only in the last hours. Mr. McConnell and his allies, notably Jon Kyl of Arizona, put up a series of specious arguments to delay it, mostly centering around a fiction: that the treaty would prevent the United States from erecting a missile defense system. Their efforts backfired, making Mr. Obama's victory ring more loudly that it should have.

Thirteen Republicans wouldn't buy that nonsense, and others saw the wisdom in letting all Americans serve their country honestly and openly. Those defeats and others infuriated the party's dead-enders. "Harry Reid has eaten our lunch," complained Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who voted against both measures, referring to the majority leader.

There were disappointments in the lame-duck session, and Mr. Obama said at a news conference that the biggest was probably the Republicans' killing of the Dream Act, which would have given the children of illegal immigrants a chance at being legal if they serve in the military or attend college. The failure of the Senate to pass a spending bill for the current fiscal year means that the budget fights in the next term will be deeper and longer, and potentially more destructive to the economy.

Mr. McConnell won those fights. But to be repudiated on the treaty and on "don't ask" by so many members of his own caucus clearly stung, and turned him into a very sore loser. On Tuesday, Mr. McConnell tried to sneak an amendment into the defense authorization bill that would require the approval of each military service chief before "don't ask, don't tell" could be repealed. Given the continuing reservations of the Marine Corps, that could have stalled progress indefinitely. But Joseph Lieberman objected to the amendment, and it was defused.

Next term, there will be many more Republicans in Congress spoiling for a fight, and the White House will have to be far more pugnacious and adept to preserve its priorities and avoid trickery and extortion. But this week's examples of Democrats and Republicans coming together for a common purpose will not soon be forgotten. As the president said on Wednesday, if that continues, "we are not doomed to endless gridlock."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Dec 10 - 08:05 PM

Yeah, I believe that Mitch has just had a little reality move into a few of those vacant apartments in his head... But not to fear... There's still plenty of room for more new comers...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 09:22 AM

WASHINGTON — For the third straight year, President Barack Obama ranks as the man most admired by people living in the U.S., according to an annual USA Today-Gallup poll.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is the most-admired woman for the ninth year in a row, edging out former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and TV host Oprah Winfrey, as she did last year.

The poll, released Monday, asked respondents what man and woman, living anywhere in the world, they most admired. Rankings from one to 10 were based on total mentions and reported in percentages.

Obama has been the poll's most-admired man since his election in 2008. With 22 percent choosing him, Obama leads his predecessors, George W. Bush, with 5 percent, and Bill Clinton, with 4 percent.

However, Obama's percentage has fallen over the years. In 2008 he led the list with 32 percent and in 2009 with 30 percent.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 11:49 AM

That poll has obviously been faked! Everyone knows that William Shatner is the man most admired by people living in the U.S., not to mention just about everywhere else. ;-) Shatner's numbers have hovered over 60% every since 1968, for gosh sakes!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 03:50 PM

Shatner didn't even MAKE the list, Mister Bubblewrap...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 03:59 PM

Go back and reread the poll, LH... The 60% is Shatner's chances of having a heart attack from havin' to haul so much blubber around...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 04:03 PM

LOL!!! Oh, the lack of respect around here. It's shocking.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 04:05 PM

Yes, it is... I mean, one day I might have to quit this joint... 'Er not???

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 04:10 PM

I've thought of walking out several times because of people dissing William Shatner. There are some things, after all, that fall under the category of "sacred". Things like Winona Ryder, Shatner, and Dachshunds, for example...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 04:51 PM

Well, I might walk out if they dissed Winona...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 10:39 AM

Obama Created More Jobs in One Year Than Bush Created in Eight

Friday 07 January 2011

by: Alex Seitz-Wald | T

Obama Created More Jobs in One Year Than Bush Created in Eight
(Photo: Siemar / Flickr)

Yesterday morning, the Labor Department released its employment data for December, showing that the U.S. economy ended the year by adding 113,000 private sector jobs, knocking the unemployment rate down sharply from 9.8 percent to 9.4 percent Ñ its lowest rate since July 2009. The Òsurprising drop Ñ which was far better than the modest step-down economists had forecast Ñ was the steepest one-month fall since 1998.Ó October and NovemberÕs jobs numbers were also revised upward by almost 80,000 each. Still, 14.5 million Americans remain unemployed, and jobs will have to be created much faster in coming months for the country to pull itself out of the economic doldrums.

Responding the jobs report, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) noted that President Obama and the Democratic Congress have created Òmore jobs in 2010 than President Bush did over eight years.Ó

Indeed, from February 2001, BushÕs first full month in office, through January 2009, his last, the economy added just 1 million jobs. By contrast, in 2010 alone, the economy added at least 1.1 million jobs. This chart, produced by PelosiÕs office, demonstrates the difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration on jobs:

As the Wall Street Journal noted in the last month of BushÕs term, the former president had the Òworst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records.Ó And job creation under Bush was anemic long before the recession began. BushÕs supply-side economics Òfostered the weakest jobs and income growth in more than six decades,Ó along with Òsluggish business investment and weak gross domestic product growth,Ó the Center for American ProgressÕ Joshua Picker explained. ÒOn every major measurementÓ of income and employment, Òthe country lost ground during BushÕs two terms,Ó the National JournalÕs Ron Brownstein observed, parsing Census data.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 07:19 PM

Steven Thomma, McClatchy Newspapers: "President Barack Obama has bounced back from his low point after November's elections and enjoys stronger support heading into the 2012 election cycle, particularly against Sarah Palin, according to a McClatchy-Marist poll released Thursday. Obama's fortunes appear to be rising along with the country's. The poll found a jump in the number of people who think the country's heading in the right direction. Also, the president probably benefited from the productive post-election session of Congress."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 May 11 - 03:31 PM

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 11 - 04:01 PM

True, pdq. The greatest problem is massive debt. But that's far less a question of Mr Obama (and his supposed management or mismanagement of the situation) than it is a question of the entire prevailing system of finances and governance as it presently exists. Obama is just a temporary "happy face" PR sticker that has been briefly stuck on the front of a very large, hungry, dangerous, and ugly beast. Remove Obama, and the large ugly beast will still be standing there. And then they'll find another temporary face to stick on it...meaning the next president.

Keep people and commentators obsessed with these stick-on faces, though, and they hopefully won't notice the ravening beast that stands behind them. That's how it works.

A leader simply cannot practice real leadership when he is in fact just a puppet.

(And no, I'm not planning to argue with any of you about it now. I just felt like saying something myself briefly, that's all, because like the rest of you, I like to express myself now and then. Arguing about it with others here on this forum would be completely futile and would change nothing...it would merely cause shared stress and ill will. I wanted to express a thought. I did. It doesn't matter if it doesn't dovetail with your thoughts. Don't worry about it.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 11 - 04:02 PM

correction: I was responding to Sawzaw's last post, not pdq.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 May 11 - 04:23 PM

Maybe it's a sign that we can't afford to start wars in multiple countries at once, Sawz, or to shelter highlevel corruption when it undermines our economy.

I think your laddy Bush had more to do with that lot of errors than Obama, although he has not done anything dramatic to reverse them. Instead he has proceeded on a series of deliberate, considered improvements which will never suit those who are infatuated with hate or melodrama. Nevertheless, in the long run I suspect his steadfy hand will prevail. Despite your bitterness.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 May 11 - 05:58 PM

Or maybe we can't keep giving billionaires and mega-corporations idiotic tax breaks & loopholes a la Reagan & the BuShites and then be surprised when the books don't balance.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 May 11 - 08:41 AM

How am I bitter?

That was a quote from candidate Obama. And he was right.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 May 11 - 04:17 AM

Right on Sawzaw!!

I guess, as mp said, so well, "..having a hard time living up to my double-standard"..
Here, I'm going to borrow this from one of my last threads, but some people NEED to know what is behind the costumes:.......


"From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 May 11 - 10:56 PM

Two headlines on the same paper today: "FEMA faces shortfall on funds for tornado victims"

"Obama administration approves $34 million bonus for six Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae execs."

Go figure!!!

Don't you just LOVE making excuses for such foul behavior!!??!!

GfS

P.S. "Change you can believe in."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 28 May 11 - 09:23 AM

Here's the deal...

The right wants to make the story all about Obama and the debt but reality is that Obama inherited 90% of it... And we never heard all these righties crying their poor little hearts out while George Bush was running it up like a drunken sailor...

That's called hypocrisy, folks!!!

Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 28 May 11 - 09:50 AM

It should also be pointed out that the last president to cut the annual budget deficit was Obama...

The last Bush annual budget deficit was for the '09 budget which had been passed and signed came in with a $1.4T annual budget deficit and...

...I know, horrors... Obama's '10 annual budget deficit was $100B less at $1.3T...

B~