 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 21 Nov 10 - 10:58 AM Guess not, Greg... I can't believe that with all these folks going around SCREAMING that Obama is for big government that Obama;s 1st budget --- you know, the one he submitted and was passed by the Dems --- actually cut the annual deficit by $100B from the one that Bush left for him... Guess the truth ain't all that important to the SCREAMERS??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Greg F. Date: 21 Nov 10 - 10:10 AM Aw, Jeez, Bobert, FACTS? Won't you ever learn? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 20 Nov 10 - 07:44 PM There were some good things to report 31 years ago, Sawz... 1. Cars didn't have computers... 2. The lost decade in terms of music hadn't hit US yet... 3. Oh yeah, as per usual, the deficit was cut, yet again by a Democrtic president... 4. Consumption of oil was down... 5. Reaganomics, also known as "voodoo economics" hadn't begun a 30 year downward spiral... 6. We had a real Christian president... 7. The standard of living for the average working class family was higher then then it has been since Reaganomics... 8. The 1st woman prime minister, even thou she was a rightie, was elected in the UK... 9. Sony introduced the "Walkman"... 10. Gasoline was 86 cents a gallon... See, Saws... Lotta good stuff was happening... Now, alot of folks like to place blame on everything that goes wrong on the president and I understand that... But I think most historians are in agreement that Jimmy Carter was just at the wrong place at the wrong time... Sure, Carter could have spent, spent, spent but reality is that when you do that you are going to drive interests rates up even more so Carter was fiscally conservative... He had to be... The US was coming off a very expensive war that had overheated our economy and it's hard to get the brakes to work all that well in situations like that... Obama kinda inherited another messed up economy and it has cost his party this election... I mean, that's the way it works... Carter didn't fuck up the economy he inherited just as Obama didn't fuck up the economy he inherited... That's just bad breaks for both of them... Both did, however, do the correct thing in bringing down the federal deficit... Of course, it's hard to get the truth out there but OBama's 1st budget cut the annual deficit by $100B over the last budget that Bush left, from $1.4T to $1.3T... But them is just the facts... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Nov 10 - 07:24 PM And this! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Nov 10 - 07:12 PM I think it's time to... Watch this again! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: DougR Date: 20 Nov 10 - 06:23 PM "Obama is right on some things, not right on others." What's he been right about? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 20 Nov 10 - 03:13 PM I don't agree that Obama is corrupt, just inexperienced, naive and not executive material. People have put too much trust in him and now they have to "protect" by denying reality. He is right on some things and wrong on others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Donuel Date: 20 Nov 10 - 02:10 PM bruce doug and sawz are going to happier than a pig in shit very soon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 20 Nov 10 - 01:31 PM Under Holder's influence, American detainee policy is a botched, hypocritical, politicized mess. Holder's Gitmo mess Washington Post November 19, 2010 The closing of the Guantanamo Bay prison and civilian trials for terrorists were more than policy changes proposed by Barack Obama as a presidential candidate. They were presented as a return to constitutional government - a dividing line from an uncivilized past. The indefinite detention of terrorists, according to Obama, had "destroyed our credibility when it comes to the rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment." Testifying last year before Congress, Attorney General Eric Holder not only defended a New York trial for lead Sept. 11 plotter Khalid Sheik Mohammed, he lectured, he taunted, he preened. Unlike others, he was not "scared" of what Mohammed would say at trial. Failure was "not an option." This case, he told a reporter, would be "the defining event of my time as attorney general." Which it certainly has been. Under Holder's influence, American detainee policy is a botched, hypocritical, politicized mess. The case of embassy bomber Ahmed Ghailani - the only Guantanamo Bay detainee the Obama administration has brought to trial in the United States - was intended to increase public faith in civilian prosecutions. But a terrorist hugging his lawyers in victory can't be considered a confidence builder. Days before the Ghailani verdict, the White House admitted that Mohammed, because of massive, public resistance, would not be seeing the inside of a Manhattan courtroom anytime soon. "Gitmo," one official told The Washington Post, "is going to remain open for the foreseeable future." Where do these developments leave Holder, for whom failure is not only an option but a habit? A recent profile by Wil Hylton in GQ magazine attempts to put his tenure in the best possible light - the lonely, naive man of principle undone by politics. But the portrait is unintentionally devastating. Holder clearly views the war on terrorism as a distraction. "The biggest surprise I've had in this job," he told Hylton, "is how much time the national security issues take." He was oblivious to predictable reactions in the Mohammed case. "The political furor that erupted next," says the article, "took Holder completely by surprise." The attorney general has been stripped of authority over the trial venue by the White House. And Holder's unshakable legal principles, it turns out, were more like poses. "In case after case, he seems to have reconciled himself to policies that he would have once condemned," concludes Hylton, a true progressive believer. "As we went back and forth, I began to realize that it was impossible to know how much of Holder's argument he really believed, and how much he was merely willing to say." Holder clearly believes that his virtue was violated by politics. But there is a better explanation. President Obama's undeniable continuity in conducting the war on terrorism - the use of indefinite detention, Guantanamo Bay and targeted killing of terrorists - reflects the continuity of the threat. These measures did not result from some anti-constitutional ideology. They were difficult, conflicted but reasonable responses to an ongoing terrorist offensive - a war that is more than a metaphor. Civilian courts were not designed for high-profile enemy combatants such as Mohammed, who would use a New York trial to embrace martyrdom and encourage violence. The use of military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay is fully constitutional, approved by Congress and consistent with wartime precedent. Obama seems to be realizing - gradually, reluctantly - that applying the rules of war in the midst of a war does not destroy the credibility of the rule of law or encourage terrorist recruitment. But his public inability to admit this shift seems to be leading to the worst of possible outcomes. In all likelihood, Mohammed won't be tried in a civilian court. But Obama's progressive allies would revolt against a military tribunal for the killer of Wall Street Journal correspondent Daniel Pearl and the mastermind of Sept. 11. So Mohammed is left in legal limbo. This, in its own way, does seem at odds with the rule of law - a prisoner condemned to detention without trial because a president cannot admit he was wrong. How does Obama back down and accept a tribunal? He could begin by appointing an attorney general who understands the requirements of national security. Some on the left believe Holder should resign out of principle. Some on the right believe he should leave because he is out of his depth. Such bipartisanship should not go to waste. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 20 Nov 10 - 01:25 PM The US has been using faulty economic principles for 30 years and it has now come to the rest of the world lookin' at US and sayin', "Tighten yer shit up"... OK Perfesser Bobert, Tell us what the economic situation was 31 years ago, Was everything Ok back then? "Well, what would be yer plan, Sawz???"> My plan would be to elect a chief executive that is an executive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 19 Nov 10 - 12:27 PM Like I said, Dougie... Even a blind squirrel.,.. I mean, I'd stack my predictions up against yers any day of the week... The Repub victory (if you can call it that) wasn't all that hard to call... Hundreds of millions of dollars have been thrown at trying to bring Obama down... PR ain't rocket surgery... Throw enough negative ads at anyone, Jesus included, and you can purdy much predict any outcome... PR folks understand these principles all too well... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: DougR Date: 19 Nov 10 - 12:06 PM GUEST TIA: I don't recall writing that ALL my predictions were correct. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: GUEST,TIA Date: 19 Nov 10 - 09:36 AM "Check back in the records and see who predicted the giant Republican victory on election day..." Other famous DougR predictions: There will be no invasion of Iraq because the grown-ups are in charge now... Just give the inspectors more time, the weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq... Oh, I could go on and on, but it ain't worth it (you know the teach a pig to sing thing). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: DougR Date: 19 Nov 10 - 12:17 AM That far in advance, Bobert? Not THAT often. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 18 Nov 10 - 04:54 PM Even a blind squirrel stumbles upon an acorn on occasion, Dougie... B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: DougR Date: 18 Nov 10 - 04:40 PM Aw Greggie, now you done gone and hurt my feelings. Bobert: "Doug is never correct?" Check back in the records and see who predicted the giant Republican victory on election day. Hint: you will find it in a post shortly after Pelosi, Harry, and Obama shoved national health care legislation down our throats. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Nov 10 - 05:20 PM "Why on earth would I buy into their bullshit??? I know what they are up to and they have lost all credibility with most people who developed critical thinking skills along the way..." Sort of like how I feel about the Democrats... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 17 Nov 10 - 05:09 PM Well, bruce, the way I see it is that if I stick my hand on a hot stove and burn it badly I don't need to do that anymore... Americans for Tax Reform is a right winged organization and it has one purpose only and that is to serve their corporate maters and twist semi-truth into something that can readily be consumed by Epsilon Nation... Why on earth would I buy into their bullshit??? I know what they are up to and they have lost all credibility with most people who developed critical thinking skills along the way... As fir you being mis-informed??? I donno??? I do know that you su7pport a party that is made up of a combination of corporate ass-kissers and Epsilons... There used to be be something called Republicans... I donno??? Maybe you are one of the last few... As for MSNBC v FOX??? I doubt if you ever watch Keith Olberman or Racheal Maddow but there are righties who make that part of what they do fir their corporate masters and these people pick thru every word looking for stuff to challenge MSNBC on and there are occasionally corrections that Keith or Racheal will make if they make an error in facts... FOX do that??? Not in a million gazillion years because FOX no longer pretends to be in the news business so if they get stuff wrong, like who cares??? If FOX was 1/100th as concerned about getting stuff correct then I'm sure that progressives would tune in and call them on their outright lies and distortions... But FOX doesn't really care about the truth... They are there to entertain the Epsilons amnd they do a fine job of it... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Nov 10 - 02:58 PM Bobert, The first symptom of bigotry is the decision that any information from a source you disagree with is false, without looking at it or determining what the raw facts were. IF I were to state that ANYTHING Obama or the democrats said was false, by saying "so I take most anything that comes from them as either complete mythology or highly twisted semi-facts by people who's only job is to spin chicken salad outta chicken crap..." I THINK you might actually argue with that assessment. SOME of us look at the factual basis of claims by BOTH sides to determine the truth of what they say. Since I read the WaPo and listen to NPR every day, like you do, I fail to see how **I** can be misinformed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 17 Nov 10 - 02:39 PM Americans for Tax Reform is a right winged organization so I take most anything that comes from them as either complete mythology or highly twisted semi-facts by people who's only job is to spin chicken salad outta chicken crap... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Nov 10 - 01:13 PM Low-tax states will gain seats, high-tax states will lose them By: Barbara Hollingsworth Local Opinion Editor 11/17/10 10:00 AM EST Migration from high-tax states to states with lower taxes and less government spending will dramatically alter the composition of future Congresses, according to a study by Americans for Tax Reform Eight states are projected to gain at least one congressional seat under reapportionment following the 2010 Census: Texas (four seats), Florida (two seats), Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington (one seat each). Their average top state personal income tax rate: 2.8 percent. By contrast, New York and Ohio are likely to lose two seats each, while Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania will be down one apiece. The average top state personal income tax rate in these loser states: 6.05 percent. The state and local tax burden is nearly a third lower in states with growing populations, ATR found. As a result, per capita government spending is also lower: $4,008 for states gaining congressional seats, $5,117 for states losing them. And, as ATR notes, "in eight of ten losers, workers can be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. In 7 of the 8 gainers, workers are given a choice whether to join or contribute financially to a union." Imagine that: Americans are fleeing high tax, union-dominated states and settling in states with lower taxes, right-to-work laws and lower government spending. Nothing sends a message like voting with your feet. Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/low-tax-states-will-gain-seats-high-tax-states-will-lose-them-108681159.html#ixzz15Z4i7k1x |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 13 Nov 10 - 10:50 AM Yup, Greg... That's the entire sad scenario we have going on in the country... These people will travel anywhere on the face of the planet to see out the very best medical treatment when they are sick but... ...have no problem letting the Rush Limbaughs and Glen Becks of the world write economic policy??? No wonder we are slipping down that slippery slope at an astounding speed??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Greg F. Date: 13 Nov 10 - 09:46 AM Thing is, Bobert, I don't find him amusing or entertaining - & can't understand those that do. He's a living symbol of why the U.S.is currently in the toilet, and proud of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 12 Nov 10 - 06:38 PM Well, what would be yer plan, Sawz??? The US has been using faulty economic principles for 30 years and it has now come to the rest of the world lookin' at US and sayin', "Tighten yer shit up"... Problem is that too many people, both Dems and Repubs, don't understand economics one bit yet are the one's making decisions... What, do you think the rest of the world can carry US indefinitely??? The worst thing about this is that with flat-earthers about to take over the House we aren't going to see any sane economic policy for awhile... What we are going to see is more bullshit voodoo economics... I mean, just how much more wealth do you want to see redistributed to the rich, who BTW aren't creating any jobs, Sawz??? This ain't about socialism... It's about making our country more competitive in a global economy and now we have the Tea Party anchor on US... I mean, what do ya'll think is going to happen when the working class just up and quits... You thing national strikes aren't in our future??? Think again... Failed economies come from failed economic policies... The G-20 sees it all to well... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 12 Nov 10 - 03:02 PM "He was collected, humorous, competent and smart. He was also articulate and civil, impressive and competent." Yes. A hell of a good community organizer but he was a failure at the G20. A businessman NOT: WSJ: President Barack Obama headed toward the close of the Group of 20 summit, weakened by an anemic economic recovery and an election drubbing that have left world leaders questioning U.S. authority. In private meetings with Mr. Obama on Thursday, Chinese President Hu Jintao resisted his pressure on currency revaluation. Mr. Obama also failed to secure a free-trade agreement with South Korea by a deadline he set for Thursday, a blow to a president who has pledged to double U.S. exports over the next five years. The summit of the Group of 20 industrial and developing nations is expected to conclude with a communiqué that papers over differences on fiscal and monetary policy that had been exposed in the run-up to the gathering. That will leave it to the G-20's finance ministers to come up with some kind of mechanism to measure progress toward more balanced trade and flexible currency exchanges. Although the communiqué won't include numerical targets, a senior U.S. administration official acknowledged the world will have to come up with some in the future. "You have to have numbers. This is economics," he said. "And everybody recognizes that." The International Monetary Fund will be asked to judge the progress toward this "rebalancing." Undersecretary of the Treasury Lael Brainerd said currency policy dominated a meeting between Messrs. Obama and Hu after the U.S. president raised it. Mr. Hu told his U.S. counterpart that China will push forward on revamping the yuan exchange-rate mechanism a longtime goal of U.S. policy but that such a move requires "a sound external environment" and can proceed only gradually, according to state television and a government spokesman. He also told Mr. Obama that China is paying attention to the U.S. Federal Reserve's decision to pump $600 billion into the U.S. economy over the next eight months, which critics say is driving down the value of the dollar. Mr. Hu urged the U.S. to consider the interests of emerging markets, according to Chinese state TV. "The major reserve-currency issuers, while implementing their monetary policies, should not only take into account their national circumstances but should also bear in mind the possible impacts on the global economy," Zheng Xiaosong, director general of the Ministry of Finance's International Department, reiterated at a pressbriefing. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs pushed back on the notion that Mr. Obama's authority has diminished. China was not responding to currency pressure when the U.S. president was far more popular, he noted, and critics of US economic policies, like the outgoing president of Brazil, remain helpful on other fronts, from Iran to climate change. That China was emboldened to lecture the U.S. on its currency, a notable reversal of recent meetings, underscores how it and other countries, including Brazil and Germany, have emerged from the global economic crisis faster and more strongly than the U.S. Domestic politics may also be at play. An aide to South Korean President Lee Myung-bak blamed the trade pact's failure in part on the U.S. elections, which he said distracted the White House at a key time. White House aides said Mr. Obama could not accept the deal on the table because it could not get through the new Congress. Mr. Obama found himself in the odd position of having to defend the U.S.'s independent central bank. He was also unable to quell concerns that the U.S. government is deliberately trying to weaken the dollar to boost exports. Brazi's President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said Thursday he would press Mr. Obama to explain the Fed's move. President Lee demurred when asked about it. "I think that kind of question should be asked to me when President Obama is not standing right next to me," Mr. Lee answered. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Lee "stressed their common concern" over the U.S. Fed's move in their bilateral meeting, a German official said. The U.S. says the policy is designed only to boost U.S. domestic growth, which is critical to the global economy. It also argues that the dollar's value is correlated to confidence in the U.S. and global recovery, and some other countries have rushed to the Fed's defense. "Those who are criticizing the policy of the Federal Reserve, I'm not sure what alternative they're suggesting," Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper told reporters in Seoul. "I'm not sure anyone else has provided any compelling argument as to what alternative policy they would pursue, at least in the short term." The meeting of world leaders in Korea kicked off in earnest Thursday evening with a dinner and closed-door meetings focused in part on disputes over currency valuations and trade imbalances. The leaders are expected to reach several agreements before they adjourn Friday, namely on financial regulation and the role of the International Monetary Fund. But the issues that divide them have led officials to quash expectations of a breakthrough on the top issues of currencies and trade. "When you see the final communiqué, it will reflect a broad-based consensus about the direction that we need to go," Mr. Obama said. "There may be at any given moment disagreements between countries in terms of particular strategies." The communiqué won't include a numerical target for trade surpluses or deficits, which the Obama administration had pushed. Nor is it likely to explicitly pressure China to accelerate increasing the value of the yuan, to make Chinese exports more expensive and to empower Chinese consumers. Similarly, it also isn't expected to level direct criticism at the Fed's recent decision to buy bonds. However, the U.S. and China could be criticized indirectly for running big current-account deficits and surpluses, which underlie and reflect exchange rates. The senior U.S. official was blunt about Washington's ability to dictate hard policy: "You've got to live in the real world. This is the world of sovereign states. There is no country that is going to be willing to cede sovereignty over its economic policy to a committee." Mr. Obama and Chancellor Merkel agreed to play down the sniping from officials that dominated the run-up to the summit. Both resolved to pick up the phone before going public with their frustrations. "They both agreed that it's not ideal in the run-up of a meeting like the G-20 to be reading attacks on specific economic or financial policies in newspapers from Germany or the U.S.," a German official said. "There was an agreement that in the future, perhaps, there could be better consultation." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 12 Nov 10 - 02:34 PM Well, Greg, Dougie does have ***his moments***...lol... They don't come often so ya' have to be very patient... Is he ever right??? Always, but rarely correct... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 12 Nov 10 - 02:18 PM "New York, 2:14 PM Fri Nov 12 White House Staffers Got a Bigger Raise Than You Did Last Year Did you get a raise last year? Seventy-four percent of White House staffers did, according a Gawker analysis of the White House's annual salary reports to Congress. Probably for the great job they're doing with the economy. Earlier this week, USA Today published an analysis of the federal workforce showing that it pays to work for the government: The number of feds earning more than $150,000 per year has increased tenfold since 2005, and the number earning above $180,000 has increased twentyfold. That prompted us to take a look at White House salaries, and it turns out that working for Barack Obama is not a bad gig. Obama famously instituted a salary freeze for all White House staffers earning more than $100,000 on his first day in office because "during this period of economic emergency, families are tightening their belts, and so should Washington." But there wasn't a lot of belt-tightening for the rest of the staff: We crunched the numbers and found that, of the 344 White House employees who were listed on the payroll in both White House's 2009 and 2010 salary reports, 253—or 74%—got raises in 2010. And among that lucky overwhelming majority, the average raise was 9%. And plenty of people making more than $100,000 a year did get a raise as long as a title change came with it. That's a lot better than most people did! According to the compensation-tracking firm Hewitt Associates, base salaries for executives and salaried workers went up 2.4% over the same time period. And John Challenger, the CEO of the executive consulting firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas, says "nine percent is double what we'd see for most executives, and even more for the rank and file. In 2009, companies were in recession at least half the year. Raises were much more in the range of 2% to 3%, maybe 4% to 5% for executives." And while Challenger says its not unusual for companies to reward 75% of staffers with annual raises, last year many firms skipped the practice. "Many more companies than normal cut raises altogether," he says. "Nine percent would be unusual," says Paul Rowsen, managing director of WorldatWork, a trade association for human resources professionals. "Most employers froze pay last year, and some even reduced pay to get through tough times." Now, there are some important caveats: First of all, these are mostly staffers making less than $100,000, so the amounts aren't obscenely large. The biggest raise in absolute terms went to Jennifer Psaki, who went from making $113,000 a year as a special assistant to the president and deputy press secretary to $150,000 as a deputy assistant to the president and deputy communications director, a 33% bump. The biggest in percentage terms went to speechwriters Cody Keenan, Jonathan Lovett, and Jeffrey Stephens, all of whom got 66% percent raises, from $45,000 to $75,000. Secondly, the 9% average is calculated from the 253 people who got raises, because that's what we think "average raise" means. If, as the White House insisted to us is more accurate, you include all the staffers who didn't get raises, the average drops to 6%—or more than twice what the average white-collar worker saw. And thirdly, these salary increases include, as in Frankel's case, promotions. But the larger point is fairly inescapable: Despite Obama's well-intentioned desire to visit some of the pain of the recession on his own staff, the White House essentially governed itself last year like there wasn't an "economic emergency" going on. That's probably because it's not like revenues were collapsing and there's no way they could make budget without layoffs—it's in one sense silly to expect White House employees to be buffeted by the same economic forces that lash the private sector. Why lay people off, or cut salaries, if there's no economic imperative to do it? On the other hand, the impulse behind Obama's salary freeze makes intuitive moral sense: The people running this country ought to know what it feels like for most of its citizens, and most of its citizens aren't enjoying 9%—or even 6%—raises. Either way, it's important to know precisely how removed White House staffers are from the fiscal realities of most Americans, and even the similarly situated Americans working in the private sector. We asked the White House for comment, and spokesman Nicholas Shapiro insisted that the real average raise for White House employees was 3%, arguing that the figure should exclude people who got promotions along with their raises (we think the common usage of the term "raise" encompasses situations in which salary increases are accompanied by title changes). He also argued that, as mentioned above, we ought to have included staffers who didn't get raises in calculating the average raise, which doesn't make sense to us. He also said it's just the way it goes in the White House: "It is not uncommon in the second year of a new administration for many low level staffers to change positions and move up the ranks to hold new jobs with increased responsibilities. President Obama is committed to continuing to reduce costs in government while providing high-quality services to the American people." UPDATE: Nick Shapiro, the charming young man from the White House who offered comment for this story—and got an $18,000 raise last year—just e-mailed to say, "Next time you write a story, how about you use my quote instead of your perception of what I meant or said. Was a real pleasure working with you, hope I don't have to do it again." Oh don't get so down, Nick! We understand how frustrating it is when people refuse to simply let you take over a story you object to and insert a statement of whatever length you please. So we 'll give in. For the record, here's the full statement Nick sent us: White House raises on average were 3% not the inaccurately reported 9%. People who got entirely new jobs, not uncommon after the first year of a new administration got new salaries, which were on average 6% higher than the salary of their previous job. In fact, on his first day in office, President Obama instituted a pay freeze for all staff making over $100k, and none of these folks received any raise whatsoever. In addition, in the President's FY 2011 budget he included a pay freeze for all senior political appointees across the entire Administration. It is not uncommon in the second year of a new administration for many low level staffers to change positions and move up the ranks to hold new jobs with increased responsibilities. President Obama is committed to continuing to reduce costs in government while providing high-quality services to the American people. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Greg F. Date: 12 Nov 10 - 01:24 PM Bobert: Whatever. DougR That is the absolute limit of his analytical powers, Bobert. You expected something more? Why? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 12 Nov 10 - 01:18 PM "I mean, if I'm a German or a Japanese I'm rooting for the Tea Party..." If then what? Garbage in = Garbage out. If Oscar the grouch was rooting for the Green Party then ?? Garbage in = Garbage out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 11 Nov 10 - 07:36 PM Whatever what, Dougie??? Yo, LH... Me thinks that you keep turning budget and GNP into the same thing... It ain't... I know that... Budgets to me are smoke an' mirrors... GNP, however, is the meat 'n taters... Budget is what the government spends from the taxes it collects and GNP is the entire economy... I think the 20% is purdy close when it comes to ***all*** defense spending... I mean, even if it's 18%, it is money that basically is spent that does not enhance the lives of the average American... (But it keeps the commies from comin' ashore, Boberdz...) Well, lets lay that one to rest, too... What country would want to think it could do a better job or governing this mess of a country??? Well, I'll tell which one... None!!! B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: DougR Date: 11 Nov 10 - 06:36 PM Bobert: Whatever. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Stringsinger Date: 11 Nov 10 - 06:30 PM Obama is probably unpopular, now. The Dems are not popular but their lack of popularity the polls shows that this is exceeded by the lack of popularity of Republicans. "So that is why your president is halfway around the world instead of being here in the United States to celebrate the sacrifices American soldiers, sailors and airmen have made around the world to keep the real, still-burning flame of freedom alive." This is propaganda, jingoism and makes an assumption that defies logic. Being here in the US has nothing to do with celebrating anything. That's just complete BS. What "still-burning flame of freedom"? That is such a hollow statement. Freedom for who, the countless Iraqis and Afghan civilians that have been killed? Freedom for the dictators supported by the US throughout the world? For example, freedom for Kopassus in Indonesia who are military death squads and the Indonesian Junta? Obama is mute on this subject of freedom. Hurt is well-named because journalistically he has shot himself in the foot. The Washington Insider is accurately identified since it excludes the American public by its title. The freedom to be investigated by the government if you dissent or be assassinated in a foregn country if the president decides you are an "enemy combatant"? "And here's the kicker... The folks who voted for Repubs last Tuesday are clueless about any of this because they make decisions based on emotions and not facts..." I wish it were that simple, Bobert. The Repubs are in the pockets of the big corporations who have a vested interest in cheating the American public. The attack ads paid for by unlimited corporate funds and organizations like the Chamber of Commerce have hoodwinked the Tea Party and others by selling them a line of BS so long that it extends to the US Supreme Court. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Nov 10 - 12:14 PM Bam AWOL on Vets Day Last Updated: 7:52 AM, November 11, 2010 Posted: 1:57 AM, November 11, 2010 Charles Hurt - Inside Washington WASHINGTON -- Today is Veterans Day. Do you know where your president is? With his feeble flame of "hope" thoroughly doused here in the United States by last week's elections, President Obama has set out around the globe in search of throngs still enthralled by his flowery rhetoric. He found them, of course, in Indonesia this week by telling them about how Americans must stop mistrusting Islam. So that is why your president is halfway around the world instead of being here in the United States to celebrate the sacrifices American soldiers, sailors and airmen have made around the world to keep the real, still-burning flame of freedom alive. Obama honored our veterans from afar by laying a wreath during a ceremony at an Army base in South Korea last night. That is a distance from here matched only by the chasm that has opened up between him and the voters who elected him two years ago. This aloofness of his really is becoming a problem. Not that Obama doesn't appreciate the sacrifices of veterans. He absolutely does. Just ask the Indonesians. He was in Jakarta for their Heroes Day this week to honor their veterans "who have sacrificed on behalf of this great country." "This great country," of course, being Indonesia. "When my stepfather was a boy, he watched his own father and older brother leave home to fight and die in the struggle for Indonesian independence," Obama told the audience. And the White House wonders why so many people think there is something foreign about this guy. In the same speech, Obama gave voice to a harsh criticism he has heard about freely elected governments. "Today, we sometimes hear that democracy stands in the way of economic progress," he said. The shocking statement raises the question: Where has Obama heard this fatuous claim and with whom has he been talking politics? Thankfully, your president tepidly disputed this calumny against democracy, but the alarming questions remain. He went on to tell the Indonesians, "Democracy is messy." "Not everyone likes the results of every election. You go through ups and downs," he said. At least it sounds like Obama is starting to get the message voters sent him last week. churt@nypost.com Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/bam_awol_on_vets_day_IxEoyioHbtjAsNjGmbZoIP#ixzz14zkG3Qe2 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Nov 10 - 01:31 PM They prove it EVERY time there's an election. ;-D Look, they have a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. When they are heartily sick of and disappointed with one of that esteemed pair, they vote in the other, and very little changes. The Great Oz is actually in charge of both brothers, but you don't get to vote for or against the Great Oz, because he's not on the ballot. (Yes, I'm cross-pollinating Malice in Blunderland with the Wizard of Oz. Works for me.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 05 Nov 10 - 01:18 PM Yeah? Well, they just proved it again. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 05 Nov 10 - 01:03 PM Amos, " they believe in the core American values of knee-jerk emotionalism and blind acceptance of mythological bull. " They already DID prove this- see the results of the 2008 election. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Nov 10 - 12:32 PM Yeah...actually, Bobert, it's WAY more than 20% that goes to defense. I strongly suggest you read a little book by Gore Vidal called "The Decline and Fall of the American Empire", and you will find out what the real percentage of the American budget is that goes to "Defense" (which is really Offense...) I'm serious, man. Find that book. Read it. The USA presently spends more on military stuff annually than all the other nations in the world combined. A country cannot do that without... 1. Becoming the enemy of everyone. 2. Going bankrupt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 05 Nov 10 - 12:15 PM Yeah, LH... If you take 20% of yer economy and grow it around stuff that blows up and produces nuthin' in the way of the "butter" end of the "guns or butter" equation then you will end up where we have ended up 11 times outta 10... I mean, there is a point where people just ain't gonna let you come in steal their stuff... Mighta worked a long time ago but those days are long gone... So here we are with 20% going to war, another 17% to health care (twice the national average of our competitors) so what we have is a net loss of about 30% of economy which is producing no butter what so ever... Formula for a failed state... And here's the kicker... The folks who voted for Repubs last Tuesday are clueless about any of this because they make decisions based on emotions and not facts... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Nov 10 - 12:05 PM The main thing the voters are saying is this: "THE ECONOMY SUCKS! AND I'M MAD AS HELL ABOUT IT! I'M GOING TO PUNISH WHOEVER IS PRESENTLY IN OFFICE FOR IT! I don't really care about the long term reaasons for why the economy is bad or when the trouble started it or who did it....and I wouldn't understand that stuff anyway, even if it was carefully explained to me...I just want to get even for my present state of angst, that's all. So I'm gonna punish the incumbents." It would have worked exactly the same way if there was a Republican president (like McCaine) in Washington right now. The voters would have punished the incumbents, and the Democrats would all be out celebrating their gains in Congress. ;-D Seriously, it's just damned funny, because it's sooooo predictable. But you guys get lost in your 2-party mythology and you can't step away from it far enough to see what's really going on. There's only one party in the USA. One party with 2 right wings. One of the right wings looks more to the right than the other...that's the Republicans. Whichever one is in office while the economy is bad gets punished severely at the polls....and that is really all there is to it. The ONE party always wins, because no matter who you elect, it's still in power. It's a velvet dictatorship (in the form of authoritarianism, fortunately, not totalitarianism yet...) that goes through the outward motions of a democracy every 2 years. An empty and meaningless charade. Americans are fooled by the charade, but most of the rest of the world isn't. The rest of the world, however, can only stand by and watch, because the USA is armed to the teeth. And that is why you are so far in debt. Your outrageous arms spending since the end of WWII has bankrupted your nation. Military hardward is good for only one thing: killing people. That doesn't produce prosperity, except for the arms dealers themselves who get very, very rich. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 05 Nov 10 - 11:15 AM Yeah, Greg... These morons will drive across country to seek out the very best doctor when they get sick but are perfectly willing to turn the government over to thugs??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 05 Nov 10 - 11:12 AM As regards BB's acceptance of the horsepuckey about the costs of Obama's business-generating trip to India: "While the White House has not released specifics on the cost of the trip, citing security concerns, White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage has said, "It's safe to say these numbers are wildly inflated." Those numbers, according to Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann, are: $200 million a day, $2 billion total, 34 diverted Navy ships, a 2,000-person presidential entourage, and 870 hotel rooms in India. "And these are five-star hotel rooms at the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel," Bachmann told CNN's "AC 360" Wednesday night. Pressed by Cooper to back up her numbers, Bachmann said, "These are the numbers that are coming out in the press." The press she was referring to is the Press Trust of India, one of the largest news organizations in that country. Its source for Tuesday's article on the cost of Obama's trip was based on a single anonymous source: "a top official of the Maharashtra government privy to the arrangements for the high-profile visit." The Press Trust article was picked up by The Drudge Report and other sites online and quickly made its way into conservative talk radio, sparking outrage by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and others. The White House and Pentagon have fielded questions about the Indian report and have dismissed the claims in the article. "I will take the liberty this time of dismissing as absolutely absurd this notion that somehow we're deploying 10 percent of the Navy, some 34 ships and an aircraft carrier in support of the president's trip to Asia," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told reporters this week. "That's just comical. Nothing close to that is -- is -- being done." While the exact cost of Obama's 10-day trip to Asia is not known to the public, an examination of similar presidential excursions in the past support the likelihood that the $200 million-a-day figure is exaggerated. " You should think twice before listening to Michele Bachman, Bruce. She is highly partisan, and inaccurate, and I know how sensitive you are about wanting to be fair and balanced... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Greg F. Date: 05 Nov 10 - 10:42 AM Quite simple, really. The voters - or rather a distressingly sizeable segment thereof, like our own D------, are obviously telling us that they cannot tell fact from fiction, don't care that they can't do so, and are willing to make critical decisions on the basis of lies, myth, and a river of bullshit. See? Simple. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 05 Nov 10 - 10:17 AM Yeah, Amos and the sad part about this is that Boss Hog's PR machine runs 24/7-365 days a year... Hey, they have the money to do exactly that... Karl Rove has already stated that he has no intention of stopping the negative attack ads against Dems even though the election is over... Throw in Freedom Works (Dick Armey's health insurance company lobbyist money) and they are going to keep pounding away, too... So is FOX... So are the various bogun "American's for Mom and Apple Pie" organization also funded by the big polluters and exploiters and what we are seein' is purdy much what happened in Germany in the 30's when the brown-shirts hooked up with the "industrialists"... I mean, not a whyole lot of difference... This is a lot like the early 70s after Boss Hog had the 60s scare the living crap outta him except back then Boss Hog hadn't yet corralled ownership of the media and Boss Hog wasn't drippin' with cash like he is now... So the Dems and Obama need to go on the offense and tell the American people exactly how they are being manipulated... Obama needs to pull out a play from the Ross Perot playbook and show the American people just how income is stagnant for the working class and just how much cash the rich are sittin' on... Obama also needs to challenge the Repubs to explore sane ways of informing the American people about the ins and outs of policy positions... A good start would be to appoint a commission/investigation to look into the FCC's recent decisions that have monopolized our media ownership into the hands of just a very few and bring back "public service" time, equal access, etc... And Obama needs to put forth a campaign finance bill that limits the amount of spending that parties and their proxies can spend and when they can spend it... It's all in Obama's hands now and he needs to take the thugs on... If he doesn't then Boss Hog will finish the job of taking over every last little vestige of power... Time to fight the pigs... (Animal Farm) B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 05 Nov 10 - 09:58 AM I think the voters were telling us that they believe in the core American values of knee-jerk emotionalism and blind acceptance of mythological bull. Further, that they have a God-given right to kick themselves in the nuts when they feel like it regardless of consequences. And finally, that they can by and large be manipulated by any PR campaign, no matter how fraudulent, if it is delivered with enough sound and color. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 05 Nov 10 - 08:40 AM No, Dougie, I didn't... And I am being perfectly serious... Maybe you'd like to take a stab at it... What did they tell us??? Pick from the list below: 1. They think they pay too much tax??? (lowest rates in the civilized world and lowest in the US in 5 decades...) 2. Obama raised their taxes??? (No, $300B of the Stimulus bill was a tax reduction for 95% of Americans...) 3. They hate the health care reform bill??? (What provisions, por favor) 4. They want government off their back??? (Please explain how government is on your back, Dougie...) 5. Obama wants to take yer guns away??? (Oh??? I mean, the only folks I've heard that from are folks who hate Obama... Obama, himself, has been a gun right supporter going way back...) 6. Obama is going way too fast??? ( Really??? Like in what respect????) 7. The problem with America is that the deficits need to be eliminated??? (Oh??? And your going to do this by continuing a tax policy that does not create additional revenues???) 8. The government spends too much??? (oh??? Then how come Obama cut the annual deficit by $100B in his first budget??? BTW, where do you suggest the cuts come from???) 9. The Democrats are socialists??? (Hey, we have socialized wealth to the rich but the average stiff is still getting thrown out on the streets... Seems to me that the only socialism that the Repubs like is for their rich donors...) 10. Obama is spending $100M a day on this trip to the far east??? (oh??? That's not at all factual... BTW, do you think the president should just stick his head in the sand an not stand up for American business in the global economy???) So, yeah, Dougie... I don't know what the voters said and nor do the Repubs... This is just another 9/22 PR game where everything that the Repubs have wanted going back forever are things that they say the voters want... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: DougR Date: 05 Nov 10 - 01:49 AM Greg: your use of the word INFORMED is ludicrous. You have no understanding of the meaning of the word. Bobert: My friend, if you did not understand what the voters were telling you, I worry that you do not know that 2 + 2 equals 4. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Nov 10 - 05:05 PM No, Doug, Dracula sucks! ;-) The Democrats and Republicans lie, prevaricate, and dissimulate, and if you have an ounce of faith in either one of them, I have a bridge to sell you....it's in Brooklyn, and it's a beauty! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 04 Nov 10 - 05:00 PM Yeah, Dougie??? And what exactly did the voters say??? I mean, I've heard at least a dozen things that the Repubs say the voters said so I'm kinda wonderin'??? Heard a nice piece on NPR riding home from NoVa a little while ago and a caller called with the same question that bruce has posed above about the cost of our country's president going to the other side of the world to try to help create a more favorable climate for American businesses... Anyway, first of all, this is a bogus criticism becuase: 1. The numbgers being spread around the rightie blogosphere are completely dart-boardish made up and... 2. Are the righties against the US government trying to mix it up with other national leaders in an effort to level the playing field for US business??? I mean, I thought ya'll were all for business??? Guess not... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Nov 10 - 01:20 PM http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/34-warships-sent-from-us-for-obama-visit-64459 My understanding is that this 3 day trip is costing about 2 billion- about the same as two months of combat operations in Iraq. Nice to have an Imperial Presidency again! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Greg F. Date: 04 Nov 10 - 09:03 AM Sorry Douggie- but not so; guess you missed this: No, in a DEMOCRACY the INFORMED ELECTORATE is supposed to speak. This time around, the contest was decided by uninformed ignoramuses on the basis of Republican TeaBagger lies and an Amazon-sized river of bullshit and fear. Their "view" was a delusion. How you can ge proud of that, while not surprising, passes understanding. |
