Thoughts on Obama SO FAR?

[bat1]

you think he's doing a good job or not?

what would you like to see him do next?

nothing rude or dumb please!

[Mr. Sinister]

President Obama is doing the best that he can. Because of his race, he has to be careful with what he says.

Imagine if John McCain was our president. He stated that he was prepared to go to war with Iran. Many within the Republican party are filled with hate against anyone that is gay, a person of color, or a woman. Rush Limbaugh and his Republican buddies are opposed to gay marriage, but Rush has no problem having Elton John, who is an avid supporter of gay marriage,at his marriage. Why is it Rush Limbaugh can get married four times but a gay or lesbian couple can't?

Go Democrats and President Obama!

[Faldur]

http://justsimplestuff.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/ouch.png

[traLika]

From a Brit's point of view he's a breath of fresh air after Dubyer. Certainly seems to have better diplomatic skills (but then who doesn't?!). I guess we'll know for sure when we see how he handles Iran...

[hyperspace]

He will never live up to the hype surrounding his election. Not his fault of course. He was left a poisoned chalice by Clinton and Bush.
We are seeing the beginning of the end of the West's global dominance.
All the money is moving East.

[CORVETTEDUDE]

Obama is an ass, the sooner he goes away, the better. He in an economic moron. Those of you that voted him in, should be completely embarassed by your choice.

[JackBeLittle]

You can't simply keep printing money and spending more. He doesn't keep his promises, only shadows of them (i.e. his self-proclaimed health care reform victory, Guantanamo, Iraq, etc...) Mostly though, I can't support what he is doing to the country economically. It's very, very scary. I think, in the end, he turned out to be just another politician that really doesn't help things out or really have enough persuasion on the congress (who really make the rules).

[ohioguy13]

he blames bush for everything not impressed wont vote for him again. Dont like he is playing class warfare as well.

[TSCURIOUS]

He's an idiotic moron!
Piece of shit!
Apolegetic Socialist!
Embarassed he's the president of this GREAT COUNTRY.
Yes - I purposely used the small p!

Can I tell you how I REALLY feel?

[sugdaddie69]

Obama is an ass, the sooner he goes away, the better. He in an economic moron. Those of you that voted him in, should be completely embarassed by your choice.

I can't wait until the country gets Beck and Palin..or McCain and Palin.All of this "dressed up racism" thats taken place since Obama has been in office is pitiful.I've always supported our leader,regardless of whether i voted for him or not.Tea party,rallies on MLK day,guns at town hall meetings,is he christian or not,(although when he was running for office this didn't come up because of his former pastor.Dress it up,but it is what it is.The color of a mans skin has this country divided again
Can't wait til things get back to "normal".

[scubaman]

he blames bush for everything not impressed wont vote for him again. Dont like he is playing class warfare as well.

Blame game

Blame (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-29-2010/blame)

[tslvrnyc]

So far absolutely no one has said a specific thing he has done that they liked. His supporters either throw out some ill-conceived red herring about race or say something about McCain or Palin, neither of whom are or ever will be President.

I don't think the American electorate is educated enough to be able to vote.

[ed_jaxon]

He will never live up to the hype surrounding his election. Not his fault of course. He was left a poisoned chalice by Clinton and Bush.
We are seeing the beginning of the end of the West's global dominance.
All the money is moving East.


I think you nailed it.

and for many here:

Small minds talk about people
Average minds talk about events
Great minds discuss ideas

IMHO the anger we are seeing in America is as the result of economic factors. People are hurting and the media is reporting this which further stirs the anger.

The theoretical economic concepts that are being put into place are coming up against real world economics.

Before people jump all on this, understand we are just in the first quarter of the game.

[hippifried]

I don't have a problem with him. Of course I didn't ever have the same lame expectations as the lunatic fringe. I include both the left & the right because, from everything I've seen so far, both sides seem to have had the exact same unpromised expectations whether they liked them or not. Both sides of the lunatic fringe seem to be extremely pissed off because he's not a commie. Neither side has a single viable alternative idea to contribute on any issue. It's all very entertaining.

[yodajazz]

I think that he came into office facing one the most difficult situations of any president. He at least has addressed healthcare, and is keeping his word on Iraq. And hell yes Bush did leave him with some serious problems, while the erosion of the US manufacturing base has been going on for a while (I say it really started under Reagan).

Also he is face with some of the most negative support. Republicans have shown they dont care about anything but getting back in power. That is the real shame. Fighting against healthcare reform, ignoring the needs to over twenty million people, without coverage. Fighting against financial reform, when the government had to come in with a 700 billion dollar bailout. They say they are for 'responsibility', but dont want to change a financail system that almost led to a world wide collapse. That pure hypocracy. It is now admitted that the anti gay marriage movement was a tool to bring out the Republican base.

I think that Obama is limited in what he can accomplish, by "party of no" which will stop at nothing to get back in power, including being allied with the goals of Al Queda. Claiming to want to "bring back God", but using the tools of Satan, is GOP standard behavior. Promoting anti government sentiment, but only for the purpose getting back in power. They very seldom reduce any government, except to channel money at higher cost to their related friends.

My major disappointment with Obama is that he is still allowing drone attacks in Pakistan. I think they are counter productive.

Lastly the holier than tho Republicans always said, to pray for our leaders. But now that a Democrat is in office the prayers have stopped. The Bible has not changed. But hypocrites only cite the Bible when it justifies their political greed.

[THEbottom]

The man is an economic moron---runaway unemploynent ---a crashing economy---those of you who voted for change you got it----how do you like it ?

[yodajazz]

The man is an economic moron---runaway unemploynent ---a crashing economy---those of you who voted for change you got it----how do you like it ?
So when did the factors which led to runaway unemployment start?

[Crawler]

Best President of my lifetime and just in time: now the world's a far more dangerous place on all fronts - we need this guy. He's heart, brain and spirit's in the right place - and race is not any issue to me and I believe, for most thinking people.

[luv4Tgirls]

I think he is doing a piss poor job, he's health care sucks and nothing is getting done except spending money. Plus I'm sick of hearing he has to be careful what says or does because of he's race, what a crock of bullshit. He used that platform to get into office, don't make it an excuse now.

[tslvrnyc]

I think that he came into office facing one the most difficult situations of any president. He at least has addressed healthcare, and is keeping his word on Iraq. And hell yes Bush did leave him with some serious problems, while the erosion of the US manufacturing base has been going on for a while (I say it really started under Reagan).

Also he is face with some of the most negative support. Republicans have shown they dont care about anything but getting back in power. That is the real shame. Fighting against healthcare reform, ignoring the needs to over twenty million people, without coverage. Fighting against financial reform, when the government had to come in with a 700 billion dollar bailout. They say they are for 'responsibility', but dont want to change a financail system that almost led to a world wide collapse. That pure hypocracy. It is now admitted that the anti gay marriage movement was a tool to bring out the Republican base.

I think that Obama is limited in what he can accomplish, by "party of no" which will stop at nothing to get back in power, including being allied with the goals of Al Queda. Claiming to want to "bring back God", but using the tools of Satan, is GOP standard behavior. Promoting anti government sentiment, but only for the purpose getting back in power. They very seldom reduce any government, except to channel money at higher cost to their related friends.

My major disappointment with Obama is that he is still allowing drone attacks in Pakistan. I think they are counter productive.

Lastly the holier than tho Republicans always said, to pray for our leaders. But now that a Democrat is in office the prayers have stopped. The Bible has not changed. But hypocrites only cite the Bible when it justifies their political greed.


See, this is the kind of response I can't stand. No one with any sense holds up the ultra religious Conservative Republicans as the benchmark by which we should be governed. Saying that Obama is the lesser of two evils doesn't make him a good president, it makes him less bad than the alternative. The health care reform bill is AWFUL and benefits insurance companies more than the citizens. I believe we should have national health care and I also believe that this is about the worst way we could have gone about doing it.

[hippifried]

So when did the factors which led to runaway unemployment start?
August 15, 1971.
But this particular recession started showing its fangs in 2004 & 2005. That's why the republicans were swept out of power in the Congress in 2006. Remember the 2007 stimulous tax rebate? Yeah, it was kind of half hearted & didn't really work. But it did stave off the financial collapse for a year or so. Couldn't hold it off forever. By 2008, the financial industry was insolvent across the board. Oh well...

[ghbryans1]

Same old stuff. Better than Bush, but that's not saying much. Just the latest in a string of mediocrities.

[Ben]

He's an idiotic moron!
Piece of shit!
Apolegetic Socialist!
Embarassed he's the president of this GREAT COUNTRY.
Yes - I purposely used the small p!

Can I tell you how I REALLY feel?

Well, Obama isn't an idiot. (I'm not a fan of Obama. Nor was I a fan of Bush. But it's silly to label him as stupid. That's completely false.) A socialist?!?!?! Give me a break. We use that word, wrongly, to disparage people. I mean, what is socialism? What's the core and essence of socialism? Oh!, I know. It means overwhelming state power. WRONG!!!!!!! The core is democracy. Handing power over to the people. So that people can run their own lives. Now, well, either you like democracy or you don't. You decide. But at its core socialism is about deep democracy.
Not control; be it state control or corporate control. PLEASE STOP USING THE WORD socialism to describe Obama. You can certainly describe Obama as: A MODERATE NATIONALIST WITH A FIRM COMMITMENT TO THE CORPORATE STATE.
But stop misusing the word socialist or socialism.

[yodajazz]

See, this is the kind of response I can't stand. No one with any sense holds up the ultra religious Conservative Republicans as the benchmark by which we should be governed. Saying that Obama is the lesser of two evils doesn't make him a good president, it makes him less bad than the alternative. The health care reform bill is AWFUL and benefits insurance companies more than the citizens. I believe we should have national health care and I also believe that this is about the worst way we could have gone about doing it.

I cant say that I'm an expert on the Healthcare bill. So I cant say that you are right or wrong. The provisions have not taken effect yet, so how can you really judge? But if you are right about it benefiting insurance companies, I think the public health care option would have provided some honest competition for the insurance companies. But wasn't the that part of the bill killed by the strongest Republican opposition?

I have no problem with you, talking about specific laws or government actions. I think that a part of healthly debate. But you have to be honest there is a lot of undercurrent, talking about his parents, religion, etc, which has nothing to do with government policy. There is a lot of brainwashing techniques led by the conservative media talking heads. You cannot ignore that. It translates into hate and anger, all to be used to get Republicans back in power. I'll use one word as an example; "liberal". That is a very general term, yet it has been associated with the most negative, unrelated terms, such a pedophiles. I often look at the comments. No matter what the story, the comments are filled with negative comments towards Obama and towards liberals, Democrats, etc. I would say at least 95% of the negative comments are simply name calling, and address no solutions to the complex issues facing us today.

I can see that the name callers, are not using reasoned arguments, but display symtoms of brainwashing techniques, using loaded code terms, to trigger emotions. The millions of people who elected Obama President do not all think alike, and they certainly don't hate America, which is illogical, yet used by many as making sense.

I do thank you for reading my previous post, whether you liked it or not. I could relate many specific things, why I don't think that several ideas, that Republicans assume are truth are really valid. And that should be part of the public discourse. But you have to admit that there is less than ever of it these days. That's what I'm talking about.

By the way I like Obama. I do not consider him the lesser of two evils. I do feel that what he could accoplish is limited by a system which grants undue influence to those with money. That then would relate to your complaints about the healthcare bill. He's working within the established system, making compromises. So how doe that translate into "hating America", and other nonsense terms?

[yodajazz]

He's an idiotic moron!
Piece of shit!
Apolegetic Socialist!
Embarassed he's the president of this GREAT COUNTRY.
Yes - I purposely used the small p!

Can I tell you how I REALLY feel?



Well, Obama isn't an idiot. (I'm not a fan of Obama. Nor was I a fan of Bush. But it's silly to label him as stupid. That's completely false.) A socialist?!?!?! Give me a break. We use that word, wrongly, to disparage people. I mean, what is socialism? What's the core and essence of socialism? Oh!, I know. It means overwhelming state power. WRONG!!!!!!! The core is democracy. Handing power over to the people. So that people can run their own lives. Now, well, either you like democracy or you don't. You decide. But at its core socialism is about deep democracy.
Not control; be it state control or corporate control. PLEASE STOP USING THE WORD socialism to describe Obama. You can certainly describe Obama as: A MODERATE NATIONALIST WITH A FIRM COMMITMENT TO THE CORPORATE STATE.
But stop misusing the word socialist or socialism.

Thanks for responding to that other post. @tslvrnyc: That's a prime example of what I am talking. Terminology misused, by loading it was misleading meanings ('socialism'), falsehoods, (calling him and idiot), "piece of shit", when he was elected by millions of people who had ample time to judge his qualities. And how is this country supposed to be so great, if the majority of the electorate voted for a "moron, piece of shit"? So does that kind of post really lead to any intelligent debate?

BTW: There are many instances in the Bible where 'lies and deception" are said to be tools of Satan. So I'm backing what I said in a previous post, with this specific example.

[Ben]

Thanks for responding to that other post. @tslvrnyc: That's a prime example of what I am talking. Terminology misused, by loading it was misleading meanings ('socialism'), falsehoods, (calling him and idiot), "piece of shit", when he was elected by millions of people who had ample time to judge his qualities. And how is this country supposed to be so great, if the majority of the electorate voted for a "moron, piece of shit"? So does that kind of post really lead to any intelligent debate?

You're welcome yodajazz -- :) We need a thoughtful and intelligent debate. To label Obama as stupid is silly. It's untrue.
I mean, again, we need thoughtful and intelligent debate. Tantrums are pointless... and counterproductive.

[tslvrnyc]

I cant say that I'm an expert on the Healthcare bill. So I cant say that you are right or wrong. The provisions have not taken effect yet, so how can you really judge? But if you are right about it benefiting insurance companies, I think the public health care option would have provided some honest competition for the insurance companies. But wasn't the that part of the bill killed by the strongest Republican opposition?

I have no problem with you, talking about specific laws or government actions. I think that a part of healthly debate. But you have to be honest there is a lot of undercurrent, talking about his parents, religion, etc, which has nothing to do with government policy. There is a lot of brainwashing techniques led by the conservative media talking heads. You cannot ignore that. It translates into hate and anger, all to be used to get Republicans back in power. I'll use one word as an example; "liberal". That is a very general term, yet it has been associated with the most negative, unrelated terms, such a pedophiles. I often look at the comments. No matter what the story, the comments are filled with negative comments towards Obama and towards liberals, Democrats, etc. I would say at least 95% of the negative comments are simply name calling, and address no solutions to the complex issues facing us today.

I can see that the name callers, are not using reasoned arguments, but display symtoms of brainwashing techniques, using loaded code terms, to trigger emotions. The millions of people who elected Obama President do not all think alike, and they certainly don't hate America, which is illogical, yet used by many as making sense.

I do thank you for reading my previous post, whether you liked it or not. I could relate many specific things, why I don't think that several ideas, that Republicans assume are truth are really valid. And that should be part of the public discourse. But you have to admit that there is less than ever of it these days. That's what I'm talking about.

By the way I like Obama. I do not consider him the lesser of two evils. I do feel that what he could accoplish is limited by a system which grants undue influence to those with money. That then would relate to your complaints about the healthcare bill. He's working within the established system, making compromises. So how doe that translate into "hating America", and other nonsense terms?



I can't really defend comments made by someone else. I never claimed Obama hated America, I find the accusation to be absurd frankly. I also can't stand the jingoism on the right; constantly invoking God while discussing America is simply cheaply pandering to the religious right. While I agree that the Conservative media does use a certain lexicon to create fear, I think that Obama's crowd actively stokes it. Take for example the birthers, they look like complete idiots to most people. Instead of showing his long form birth certificate, he withholds it to keep all these people looking silly. In turn, others will say that they're all racists for wanting for him to prove he was born here. His actions aren't one of a leader to reaches out to both sides, they're the actions of a leader who will do anything in the name of politics.

I believe our biggest problem is the two party system. It's created a binary system where everyone is liberal or conservative. They blindly follow the jingoism they're given and don't think freely and creatively on how to approach the problems we're facing.

[bte]

I really don't have an opinion of Obama. I listen to FoxNews and Talk Radio and hear how he is bring the country down, a racist, and the mixed version of Hitler. I look at MSNBC and CNN and any other "liberal" news show and they say he is black Jesus. Time will tell what kind of impact he will make on the U.S.

I do think that he set himself up for failure. During the campaign, he made it seem like he was going to be this breath of fresh air, but it hasn't happened yet. I don't think he will get elected president again.

[bat1]

who is going to run in 2012?

[bte]

I am going to say Mitt Romney for the Republicans is going to run again. I honestly think that if Obama wants to win, then he has to get the unemployment rate under control. Isn't it like 9.6% right now and that's not even counting people who have just given up looking for work.

[tslvrnyc]

Thanks for responding to that other post. @tslvrnyc: That's a prime example of what I am talking. Terminology misused, by loading it was misleading meanings ('socialism'), falsehoods, (calling him and idiot), "piece of shit", when he was elected by millions of people who had ample time to judge his qualities. And how is this country supposed to be so great, if the majority of the electorate voted for a "moron, piece of shit"? So does that kind of post really lead to any intelligent debate?

BTW: There are many instances in the Bible where 'lies and deception" are said to be tools of Satan. So I'm backing what I said in a previous post, with this specific example.


You're right, ad hominem attacks have no place in a debate.

Regarding socialism, I don't think the term is misused as much as it's feared for silly reasons. I like to point out to people when they freak out at the word "socialism" that public schooling is socialist. Should we make parents pay tuition? Socialism works well for some things and for others the free market works better. Society benefits from certain things as a whole, like mandatory free public schooling, and without these things society would be much worse off.

[giovanni_hotel]

It's amazing to me to witness the range of emotions elicited by the Obama administration from the electorate.

I can't think of a recent President who brought out the level of vitriol and demagoguery that BHO has, and the GOP was on CLinton's ass like clockwork 24/7 for 8 straight years.

Does anyone remember the run on ammunition at gun shows a year ago because there was a rumor that Obama was going to ban the manufacture of firearm shells and shot gun ball bearings??

Sometimes I wish Obama had nixed tarp and the stimulus package just to end Right wing voodoo economic policies once and for all.
WHenever the nation is in the midst of economic stagnation, the Republicans answer is, wait for it......cut taxes(!!).

Leading economic figures from previous administrations, including Alan Greenspan, have come out and stated publicly that not allowing the Bush era tax cuts to expire to the top 2% would explode the federal deficit, but still folks like Sen. Mitch McConnell lie outright to the American people that 'raising' the tax rate of the top 2% would hurt small businesses, and stall the economy, ( problem is most small businesses gross less than $250,000 a year).

I'm reluctant to turn the Oval Office and Congress over to a party that is fundamentally opposed to the existence of the federal government, whose 'solution' to the nation's economic woes is to cut social security, medicare and the Department of Education.

Obama screwed up IMO when he believed he had willing partners on the other side of the aisle who would work with the Democrats to right the ship of State and buoy the economy. How many times did he amend the Healthcare reform bill as requested by Republicans, only to have NOT ONE vote for it??

The GOP is willing to sit on their hands for the next two years if they feel it will cripple BHO's presidency.
We should have had a public option to compete with the private health insurers. Instead we have a multi-million dollar giveaway to the HMOs because the government is going to subsidize in the billions of dollars those who can't afford to buy private health insurance.

President Obama should have started out demanding universal healthcare, then negotiated his way down to the public option. By taking the public option off the table, he removed any leverage he had with those opposed to any healthcare reform.

I agree that Obama had to pursue healthcare reform before the midterms because he needed a filibuster proof supermajority in the Senate to get it passed.

Now the focus is back on the economy, as it should be, but with a divided Congress in 2011, I don't think another significant piece of legislation will be passed until 2013.

The Republicans are willing to burn down the entire people's house in order to get back into power.

Two-thirds of U.S. corporations don't pay federal income taxes, and 68% of foreign corporations that do business in the USA don't pay federal income taxes either.

Banks and companies are sitting on trillions of dollars that aren't being loaned out or spent on business expansion...all because they say they 'fear' Obama and what his economic direction is for the country.

The system has been rigged for a very long time to benefit those at the very top, and there's no way Obama, even if he were so inclined, can be expected to be America's savior.

ANd why is it that Americans expect this economic crisis to be solved in 2 years?? Pure idiocy. If another administration is elected in 2012, they won't fix it in four years either.

WIth the lack of a manufacturing base in the USA and U.S. corporations outsourcing their production overseas, unless a new e-industry sprouts up in the near future, we are all in for a long slog.

A sick, sick part of me hopes to God that Sarah Palin runs for POTUS in 2012.

And, she wins.

Oh, and Obama has governed as a moderate conservative from his first day in office. This socialist, commie crapola is Faux news spin.

[MISTERCEE]

Aint nothing free about public schooling...

[TsVanessa69]

The fact that he is the first president to appoint a transexual to a position in the White House, he won me over, if he hadn't already.

[southern81]

what i find the most fucked up thing about him is if u disagree w/ anything he does u are labed a raciest

[tenn2008]

- Pulling resources out of Iraq and applying to Afghanistan..and now the real threat of Pakistan...basic intelligence demonstrated..unlike Bush of course. Average marks.

- He continues homeland security policies put into place by Bush such as wiretapping without due process. Low marks.

- I wish people would "Health care insurance reform" from true "Health care reform" because all we do is juggle money around on the former and don't mandate process with the latter to make health care more effective and reduce costs.

I had more hope for the man when he talked about standardizing medical records electronically. If you've been to the hospital a lot and have had to repeat your medical history ad nauseum to the umpteenth doctor in the same hospital but just a different shift you can easily see a base problem eroding the efficiency and increasing the cost of the medical industry overall.

Paper records these days are an anachronism yet that's what most hospitals still run on and they never talk to each other or trade information without an act of God.

The medical industry overall makes a profit by keeping people sick, in the system, and charging expensive appointments to further sell a tiny, portable, easily manufactured product called pills.

Watch the next time you are in the doctor's office around lunchtime and see the hot young babes the pharmas use to whore up their product and buy the doctors lunch (rolling over all normal appointments of the patients while they are at it) and you'll begin to understand what a big business and setup this really is.

I think the pharmas are now employing more pussy than Playboy, occasionally you see the hot young guy as well. They probably keep tabs on which way your doctor swings.

Overall, there is no accountability for failure and no followup on getting people out of the medical system since there is more money to be made keeping them in. These are real reforms we need, not fucking around with giving free health care to the homeless and illegal immigrants that already clog our ERs every night.

Obama is of average to high intelligence which makes him a thousand times better than Bush but we need more to get us out of the pit we're in. I enjoyed and believed in the pre-election rhetoric of comparing the medical care industry to the old meat packing industry pre-FDA but it's been all talk and no substance concerning reform so far. Having the United States community pay for the homeless and illegal immigrants to enter into this profit making system isn't going to help all the people who aren't getting cured now. I'm not saying that's wrong or undesirable it's just focusing on things that aren't the real problem.

[Solitary Brother]

Obama is an ass, the sooner he goes away, the better. He in an economic moron. Those of you that voted him in, should be completely embarassed by your choice.

I voted for him and I agree with everthing you said.
The only reason I voted for him was because of all the racist attacks he was getting...and still is....
He is a BIGGER disaster then Shrub and I never thought that possible.

[Kramer]

It turns out that Obama’s childhood
mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a communist.
In
his books, Obama admits attending “socialist conferences” and coming into
contact with Marxist literature. But he ridicules the charge of being a
“hard-core academic Marxist,” which was made by his colorful and outspoken 2004
U.S. Senate opponent, Republican Alan Keyes.
However,
through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone
who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The
record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where,
at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son,
with Davis, listening to his “poetry” and getting
advice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just “Frank.”
The
reason is apparent: Davis was a known communist
who belonged to a party subservient to the Soviet Union. In fact, the 1951
report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a
CPUSA member. What’s more, anti-communist congressional committees, including
the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), accused Davis of involvement in
several communist-front organizations.


UMMM....................just read the book. His buddy Van Jones is an admitted commie too.

[SmashysmashY]

He might be the worst back stabbing sellout I've ever seen in my life. He's an absolute disgrace. On every possible issue he has betrayed his constituency in favor of corporate interests and I can't wait to vote against him. My only regret is that I have but one vote to cast against this despicable character.

[Kramer]

My only regret is that I have but one vote to cast against this despicable character

Dont worry...........im sure ACORN will count you at least twice!!! Sad...

[hippifried]

Well, I've always figured that if you have all the fringes pissed off, you're probably doing it right.

I think what really bothers me most about all this BS rhetoric is the resurection of Joe McCarthy.

[traLika]

He's an idiotic moron!



Wow - harsh words! If he is this, what was his predecessor??? lol

[giovanni_hotel]

My only regret is that I have but one vote to cast against this despicable character

Dont worry...........im sure ACORN will count you at least twice!!! Sad...

See, this is what happens when you watch too much Faux News. ACORN was guilty of having some of their workers illegally register voters, of which ACORN reported THEMSELVES.
They were not charged with assisting people to vote who weren't registered.

Subtle difference, and yet all the difference in the world.

'Despicable','back stabbing sellout','disgrace', etc..??
For all of you who decided to get 'interested' in politics because of BHO, please stay involved and informed when the re-thugs get back into office and hold them under the same microscope.

As for Kramer, turn on your brain and leave it there.
If Obama was a communist( the biggest joke about BHO's presidency there is), he wouldn't have all these corporate giveaways to the healthcare industry and Wall Street investment banks.

And trust me, knowing someone as a youth does not make you...THEM.
I've had plenty of life 'mentors' as a teen who've lived totally different life experiences than me, but their lives weren't ever mine.

A representative democracy by its very nature is 'socialist' in some sense, but that doesn't make it a totalitarian dictatorship.

The sheeple are still being led over the cliff by multi-millionaires like Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity who could give a shit if the country impodes.

Trust, is the daily gets reckless on the streets, those folks are LEAVING the country.

[tslvrnyc]

- Pulling resources out of Iraq and applying to Afghanistan..and now the real threat of Pakistan...basic intelligence demonstrated..unlike Bush of course. Average marks.

- He continues homeland security policies put into place by Bush such as wiretapping without due process. Low marks.

- I wish people would "Health care insurance reform" from true "Health care reform" because all we do is juggle money around on the former and don't mandate process with the latter to make health care more effective and reduce costs.

I had more hope for the man when he talked about standardizing medical records electronically. If you've been to the hospital a lot and have had to repeat your medical history ad nauseum to the umpteenth doctor in the same hospital but just a different shift you can easily see a base problem eroding the efficiency and increasing the cost of the medical industry overall.

Paper records these days are an anachronism yet that's what most hospitals still run on and they never talk to each other or trade information without an act of God.

The medical industry overall makes a profit by keeping people sick, in the system, and charging expensive appointments to further sell a tiny, portable, easily manufactured product called pills.

Watch the next time you are in the doctor's office around lunchtime and see the hot young babes the pharmas use to whore up their product and buy the doctors lunch (rolling over all normal appointments of the patients while they are at it) and you'll begin to understand what a big business and setup this really is.

I think the pharmas are now employing more pussy than Playboy, occasionally you see the hot young guy as well. They probably keep tabs on which way your doctor swings.

Overall, there is no accountability for failure and no followup on getting people out of the medical system since there is more money to be made keeping them in. These are real reforms we need, not fucking around with giving free health care to the homeless and illegal immigrants that already clog our ERs every night.

Obama is of average to high intelligence which makes him a thousand times better than Bush but we need more to get us out of the pit we're in. I enjoyed and believed in the pre-election rhetoric of comparing the medical care industry to the old meat packing industry pre-FDA but it's been all talk and no substance concerning reform so far. Having the United States community pay for the homeless and illegal immigrants to enter into this profit making system isn't going to help all the people who aren't getting cured now. I'm not saying that's wrong or undesirable it's just focusing on things that aren't the real problem.

Do you really think he's that much smarter than Bush? Both of them, intelligence-wise seem to be pretty average.

[giovanni_hotel]

Bush got into Exeter, Yale undegrad and Harvard Law simply because of his last name.
Not saying that Obama's race didn't play some small factor in his academic career, but for the most part what he accomplished was because of his work ethic and what God blessed him with between his ears.

If you want to see an example of the man's intelligence quotient, go take a look at Obama's healthcare summit in February attended by 36 congressman, half of whom believed they would effectively make BHO look like an ill-prepared, ignorant fool.

When it was over, the GOP decided NEVER to televise such a meeting again, because it made Obama look brilliant in comparison to his opponents who thought they could bombard him with more stats and info than he was prepared to refute.

Didn't happen.

[tslvrnyc]

Bush got into Exeter, Yale undegrad and Harvard Law simply because of his last name.
Not saying that Obama's race didn't play some small factor in his academic career, but for the most part what he accomplished was because of his work ethic and what God blessed him with between his ears.

If you want to see an example of the man's intelligence quotient, go take a look at Obama's healthcare summit in February attended by 36 congressman, half of whom believed they would effectively make BHO look like an ill-prepared, ignorant fool.

When it was over, the GOP decided NEVER to televise such a meeting again, because it made Obama look brilliant in comparison to his opponents who thought they could bombard him with more stats and info than he was prepared to refute.

Didn't happen.

Bush was a pilot and got grades in the 70s at Yale. BHO never released any of his grades so it's hard to get a real grip on his intelligence. Bush was an awful public speaker, but he didn't relay on teleprompters like BHO does. Both have intelligent parents, BHO's mother was clearly very smart just as GHWB was. I tend to believe that they're pretty similar in terms of intelligence (above average probably have IQs of 115-120) and that they're both not smart enough to be effective presidents.

[goku]

This whole thing is a joke.


The real meat of the damage was done during the Clinton admin. He is the one that signed NAFTA in 94 effectively allowing corps to relocate to Mexico and the like. His admin tweaked the Community Reinvestment Act in 95 allowing lower standards/qualifications for home buyers. He signed the WTO treaty with China, lowering tariffs, and allowing them to become the mega export giant they are today. Walmart does 30 billion in commerce annually with them alone. He is the guy whos admin passed the Glass-Steagall reform, allowing banks to swallow other banks, becoming to large to allow to fail. Clinton hired Franklin Raines to head up Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac.

Whoever told you guys that those were Republican doings is wrong. That shit happened in the 90's, and came to a boiling head in the last 5 years. Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi were at the forefront of the opposition against regulating the housing market.

YouTube- Barney Frank in 2005: What Housing Bubble? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE)

There is Frank talking about no housing bubble in 05. There is plenty more out there. Educate yourselves.

Then when the market collapsed, these guys were all pretending like they weren't in opposition of a reform prior to the fallout. The point is the Dems were largely responsible for the crumble recently, and all the news outlets hated Bush so much, they swept all this info under the rug, and that's sad.

For me, I am worried where Obama is trying to take us. We seem to be speeding towards socialism, while most countries are heading the other direction. As a guy who dated a person from a socialist country, I can tell you that it isn't all it's cracked up to be, although they don't know any better, cause they have ALWAYS been like that.

For example, if you make 52k in germany, they are gonna take 42% of your income off the top for taxes. Then the sales tax there is 19% for items that are not considered food. Think about that for a moment, and think about the fact that you would be paying 24% taxes here, and only 7-8.5% sales tax depending where you live. All you get in return is health care, for your extra layout in cash. I don't know about you, but I could buy the best healthcare policy known to man for an extra 900 a month.

[goku]

By the way. I vote independent. I am not a Dem or Repub.

[tslvrnyc]

This whole thing is a joke.


The real meat of the damage was done during the Clinton admin. He is the one that signed NAFTA in 94 effectively allowing corps to relocate to Mexico and the like. His admin tweaked the Community Reinvestment Act in 95 allowing lower standards/qualifications for home buyers. He signed the WTO treaty with China, lowering tariffs, and allowing them to become the mega export giant they are today. Walmart does 30 billion in commerce annually with them alone. He is the guy whos admin passed the Glass-Steagall reform, allowing banks to swallow other banks, becoming to large to allow to fail. Clinton hired Franklin Raines to head up Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac.

Whoever told you guys that those were Republican doings is wrong. That shit happened in the 90's, and came to a boiling head in the last 5 years. Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi were at the forefront of the opposition against regulating the housing market.

YouTube- Barney Frank in 2005: What Housing Bubble? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE)

There is Frank talking about no housing bubble in 05. There is plenty more out there. Educate yourselves.

Then when the market collapsed, these guys were all pretending like they weren't in opposition of a reform prior to the fallout. The point is the Dems were largely responsible for the crumble recently, and all the news outlets hated Bush so much, they swept all this info under the rug, and that's sad.

For me, I am worried where Obama is trying to take us. We seem to be speeding towards socialism, while most countries are heading the other direction. As a guy who dated a person from a socialist country, I can tell you that it isn't all it's cracked up to be, although they don't know any better, cause they have ALWAYS been like that.

For example, if you make 52k in germany, they are gonna take 42% of your income off the top for taxes. Then the sales tax there is 19% for items that are not considered food. Think about that for a moment, and think about the fact that you would be paying 24% taxes here, and only 7-8.5% sales tax depending where you live. All you get in return is health care, for your extra layout in cash. I don't know about you, but I could buy the best healthcare policy known to man for an extra 900 a month.

They're both complicit in our collapse. If you look at graphs showing the Reagan and Bush tax cuts you'll see that there's a corresponding reduction in federal revenue, thus an increase in the budget defecit. This means that we had to borrow in order to pay for all federal expenditures. Add a couple pointless wars, relaxed standards on mortgages, and Clinton decimating our manufacturing base and you get a complete collapse of the US economy, which we're seeing now. There will not be a recovery, ever.

[giovanni_hotel]

ALL modern presidents have used teleprompters, even the 'great communicator', Ronald Reagan. To say that Obama uses them more is just a bias against him.

IF you have a problem with teleprompters, I can't wait to see what you think of 'Mama Grizzly' who has to write talking point inside her palm to remember what she's going to say.

And BTW, being an effective President has more to do with judgement and wisdom that raw brain power.

In this regard, I can't ever give Dubya high marks.

And tell me, how many U.S. Presidents have released their academic undegrad transcripts???

As for BHO and his 'use of teleprompters', if you get a chance take a look at the 90 minute healthcare summit he held in B'more with those GOP congressman; Obama had not one note and did not read from a teleprompter and knew MORE about every aspect of the healthcare debate than all the republicans did.

Also, awful public speakers rarely become president. To think that someone who lacked one of the essential qualities needed for a politician, the ability to effectively communicate, was ever elected POTUS is still a mystery to me.
Stutters and people who butcher the English language don't usually make it to the Oval Office.

Imagine if Obama had 'grammar malfunctions' at the rate that Dubya did...??!!
He'd be impeached on general principle!lol

[giovanni_hotel]

For example, if you make 52k in germany, they are gonna take 42% of your income off the top for taxes. Then the sales tax there is 19% for items that are not considered food. Think about that for a moment, and think about the fact that you would be paying 24% taxes here, and only 7-8.5% sales tax depending where you live. All you get in return is health care, for your extra layout in cash. I don't know about you, but I could buy the best healthcare policy known to man for an extra 900 a month.

The quality of life for the average German IMO is much higher than it is in the U.S.
Healthcare AND free education through college undergrad and postgrad.

Yeah, the economic collapse started under Clinton, but Dubya poured gasoline of the fire by giving U.S. corporations tax incentives to relocate their manufacturing overseas and having the Fed lowering the funds rate to 1.75% and the key interest rate to 1%, making easy credit available to everyone.

But if we're gonna say who deserves the most blame, Dubya or Clinton, it's definitely the Clinton administration that set the table for this mess.

[goku]

The quality of life for the average German IMO is much higher than it is in the U.S.
Healthcare AND free education through college undergrad and postgrad.

Yeah, the economic collapse started under Clinton, but Dubya poured gasoline of the fire by giving U.S. corporations tax incentives to relocate their manufacturing overseas and having the Fed lowering the funds rate to 1.75% and the key interest rate to 1%, making easy credit available to everyone.

But if we're gonna say who deserves the most blame, Dubya or Clinton, it's definitely the Clinton administration that set the table for this mess.


Who told you that everything was free there? Most colleges are state funded, but the admissions qualifications for that are very difficult. There are still many schools that charge tuition, and there are others fees that have to be paid. Over there, you are just ass out if you are a mediocre student.

[tslvrnyc]

The quality of life for the average German IMO is much higher than it is in the U.S.
Healthcare AND free education through college undergrad and postgrad.

Yeah, the economic collapse started under Clinton, but Dubya poured gasoline of the fire by giving U.S. corporations tax incentives to relocate their manufacturing overseas and having the Fed lowering the funds rate to 1.75% and the key interest rate to 1%, making easy credit available to everyone.

But if we're gonna say who deserves the most blame, Dubya or Clinton, it's definitely the Clinton administration that set the table for this mess.

I agree 100%. How do you think this all ends?

[giovanni_hotel]

Personally, I think we're going to have a period like Japan in '91 when their asset prices collapsed, followed by their stock market crash and a huge debt crisis.

It took Japan nearly ten years for their economy to recover, commonly referred to as the 'Lost Decade'.

IMO it will be more than two Presidential terms before the economy rebounds.
If we don't find a way to bring back manufacturing jobs to the U.S., I don't know if we ever fully recover.

There are scary parallels to what we are currently experiencing now and what occurred to Japan in the 1990s.

The GOP is talking tough, but really, privately, I bet they don't wanna take this mess on in 2013 and have this crap sandwich shoved down their throats.

There is no 'quick fix'.

However, I keep forgetting that U.S. businesses and corporations are sitting on billions
( or is it TRILLIONS?) of dollars in assets they refuse to invest in jobs and infrastructure, apparently because they 'fear' Obama's economic direction.

If they began to spend this capital, then yeah, a full recovery could happen in about 5 years.

Maybe they're waiting until a POTUS they like, (see Republican), gets voted into office.lol

[tslvrnyc]

Personally, I think we're going to have a period like Japan in '91 when their asset prices collapsed, followed by their stock market crash and a huge debt crisis.

It took Japan nearly ten years for their economy to recover, commonly referred to as the 'Lost Decade'.

IMO it will be more than two Presidential terms before the economy rebounds.
If we don't find a way to bring back manufacturing jobs to the U.S., I don't know if we ever fully recover.

There are scary parallels to what we are currently experiencing now and what occurred to Japan in the 1990s.

The GOP is talking tough, but really, privately, I bet they don't wanna take this mess on in 2013 and have this crap sandwich shoved down their throats.

There is no 'quick fix'.

However, I keep forgetting that U.S. businesses and corporations are sitting on billions
( or is it TRILLIONS?) of dollars in assets they refuse to invest in jobs and infrastructure, apparently because they 'fear' Obama's economic direction.

If they began to spend this capital, then yeah, a full recovery could happen in about 5 years.

Maybe they're waiting until a POTUS they like, (see Republican), gets voted into office.lol

The difference though is that Japan remained a strong exporter during their lost decade. The US quality of life is linked to the availability of cheap consumer goods, which is made possible by our credit. The fact that we still have a AAA bond rating proves only how flawed the rating system is. The probability of a sovereign debit default is 100%. I think the US in 10 years will look a lot like Argentina.

[sucka4chix]

I haven't read this whole thread and I'm quite ambivalent to what Obama has/has not done, but I find it funny that some are talking about intelligence. You guys do realize that the American voter overwhelmingly does not vote for academicians, but "guys they can have a beer with"---- that's part of our problem. A truly smart guy will never get elected, unless he's from the south/has good ol' country boy roots.

[daleach]

He has done a good job so far. Not perfect but, given the disastrous situation he walked into, thanks W, things are on the right track. I do wish he would stop with all the attempts at bipartisanship, the right will never accept him so he should forget about trying to please them and get on to the business of cleaning up Bush's mess and getting this country back on track.

[SmashysmashY]

'Despicable','back stabbing sellout','disgrace', etc..??
For all of you who decided to get 'interested' in politics because of BHO, please stay involved and informed when the re-thugs get back into office and hold them under the same microscope.


I'm already quite beyond the point of accepting the false left-right paradigm that you seem to be stuck in intellectually, but thanks for the advice, pedestrian though it may be. My advice is that you learn the words tu quoque fallacy.

[yodajazz]

I'm already quite beyond the point of accepting the false left-right paradigm that you seem to be stuck in intellectually, but thanks for the advice, pedestrian though it may be. My advice is that you learn the words tu quoque fallacy.
I think the quote, you cited was mixed up with another quote. I looked up "tu quoque". But who are you saying is using these argument. And if the think the poster is stuck in a left-right paradigm, what do you think about the Limbaugh's, the Becks, and others who make livings based on this?

I do believe that there is not that much difference between the political parties, but some of that comes from the influence of lobbiests, who have direct access to our legislators.

[SmashysmashY]

I think the quote, you cited was mixed up with another quote. I looked up "tu quoque". But who are you saying is using these argument. And if the think the poster is stuck in a left-right paradigm, what do you think about the Limbaugh's, the Becks, and others who make livings based on this?

I do believe that there is not that much difference between the political parties, but some of that comes from the influence of lobbiests, who have direct access to our legislators.
What I think about those people has nothing to do with this subject and never having watched those programs, I don't know enough about them to comment on that even if I was inclined.

What he said was a fallacy of relevance because it's not an attempt to state premises that prove or disprove a conclusion, but instead appeal to one's emotions.

If I claim that the president has committed some offense and you reply by injecting into the discussion the fact that others have as well, which is exactly what he did, then it's merely a ploy. You cannot justify or defend one's wrong-doing by claiming that an opponent has committed a similar offense. Your crimes are not canceled out by the crimes of others unless we are to accept the notion that two wrongs make a right.

If that's your position then guard it, but the rationale behind it is illogical. Now if you're saying I'm wrong that's different. I very well could be. Maybe the president has not betrayed his constituency in favor of corporate interests, but no one seems to be making that argument.

[PomonaCA]

As the idiots administration goes down in flames, listen for a faint "But Bush.......!"

[Solitary Brother]

This whole thing is a joke.


The real meat of the damage was done during the Clinton admin. He is the one that signed NAFTA in 94 effectively allowing corps to relocate to Mexico and the like. His admin tweaked the Community Reinvestment Act in 95 allowing lower standards/qualifications for home buyers. He signed the WTO treaty with China, lowering tariffs, and allowing them to become the mega export giant they are today. Walmart does 30 billion in commerce annually with them alone. He is the guy whos admin passed the Glass-Steagall reform, allowing banks to swallow other banks, becoming to large to allow to fail. Clinton hired Franklin Raines to head up Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac.

Whoever told you guys that those were Republican doings is wrong. That shit happened in the 90's, and came to a boiling head in the last 5 years. Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi were at the forefront of the opposition against regulating the housing market.

YouTube- Barney Frank in 2005: What Housing Bubble? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE)

There is Frank talking about no housing bubble in 05. There is plenty more out there. Educate yourselves.

Then when the market collapsed, these guys were all pretending like they weren't in opposition of a reform prior to the fallout. The point is the Dems were largely responsible for the crumble recently, and all the news outlets hated Bush so much, they swept all this info under the rug, and that's sad.

For me, I am worried where Obama is trying to take us. We seem to be speeding towards socialism, while most countries are heading the other direction. As a guy who dated a person from a socialist country, I can tell you that it isn't all it's cracked up to be, although they don't know any better, cause they have ALWAYS been like that.

For example, if you make 52k in germany, they are gonna take 42% of your income off the top for taxes. Then the sales tax there is 19% for items that are not considered food. Think about that for a moment, and think about the fact that you would be paying 24% taxes here, and only 7-8.5% sales tax depending where you live. All you get in return is health care, for your extra layout in cash. I don't know about you, but I could buy the best healthcare policy known to man for an extra 900 a month.


Please do your research about the "housing bubble" you DONT really know what your talking about.

People that blame this whole thing on banks lending money to "minorities" are idiots.

Im so tired of hearing UNINFORMED ignorance repeated.....read a fucking book for christsakes.

[hippifried]

Again, I think you have to go back to Aug. 15, 1971 to find the real culprit here. That was the day that Richard Nixon, by executive fiat, debased the dollar. It ended 25 years of stabile growth & started the inflationary spiral that we're still caught up in, even during the recurring recessions. The purchasing power of the currency is now less than 10% of what it was, & it's all artificial. There's no standards. There's no way to judge value, & the rate of currency decline (inflation) is set by the whims of international speculators who aren't regulated by anybody. Every currency in the world is in decline, & "FOREX" is just where you bet on the rate. It's not even real money. It's all derivatives. You have to use derivatives for any kind of international trade because you don't know what the exchange rate might be tomorrow. Whenever somebody mentions "the value of a dollar" anymore, the first thing that comes to mind is "compared to what?".

What to do? Simpliify. Start negotiating a new agreement on the lines of Bretton Woods, without the gold peg. Can't go bck to a gold standard because there's no reserves. I think that was the fatal flaw in Bretton Woods to begin with. But if you fix the exchange rates by pegging the currencies to each other, inflation could become manageable. Right now, it's not, & you can blame everything that's happening today on the financial industry trying to hedge against it.

[tslvrnyc]

The quality of life for the average German IMO is much higher than it is in the U.S.
Healthcare AND free education through college undergrad and postgrad.

Yeah, the economic collapse started under Clinton, but Dubya poured gasoline of the fire by giving U.S. corporations tax incentives to relocate their manufacturing overseas and having the Fed lowering the funds rate to 1.75% and the key interest rate to 1%, making easy credit available to everyone.

But if we're gonna say who deserves the most blame, Dubya or Clinton, it's definitely the Clinton administration that set the table for this mess.

Germany is the world's second largest exporter. Yes folks, they export more stuff than we do - not per capita, but total. Their goods are like the anti-China, they're high quality stuff. My prediction is that they'll leave the EU by 2015. They simply don't need them.

[rockabilly]

http://www.gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs/517720_o.gif

[russtafa]

all the capitalists want to set up in china wich damages the west so badly and strengthens chinas economy and worst still military

[giovanni_hotel]

Again, I think you have to go back to Aug. 15, 1971 to find the real culprit here. That was the day that Richard Nixon, by executive fiat, debased the dollar. It ended 25 years of stabile growth & started the inflationary spiral that we're still caught up in, even during the recurring recessions. The purchasingt power of the currency is now less than 10% of what it was, & it's all artificial. There's no standards. There's no way to judge value, & the rate of currency decline (inflation) is set by the whims of international speculators who aren't regulated by anybody. Every currency in the world is in decline, & "FOREX" is just where you bet on the rate. It's not even real money. It's all derivatives. You have to use derivatives for any kind of international trade because you don't know what the exchange rate might be tomorrow. Whenever somebody mentions "the value of a dollar" anymore, the first thing that comes to mind is "compared to what?".

What to do? Simpliify. Start negotiating a new agreement on the lines of Bretton Woods, without the gold peg. Can't go bck to a gold standard because there's no reserves. I think that was the fatal flaw in Bretton Woods to begin with. But if you fix the exchange rates by pegging the currencies to each other, inflation could become manageable. Right now, it's not, & you can blame everything that's happening today on the financial industry trying to hedge against it.

Agreed.........

[russtafa]

if america started to stop its rich from buying expensive foriegn cars it might help and importing cheap labour

[PomonaCA]

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/square-large-gtf-black.gif

[goku]

Please do your research about the "housing bubble" you DONT really know what your talking about.

People that blame this whole thing on banks lending money to "minorities" are idiots.

Im so tired of hearing UNINFORMED ignorance repeated.....read a fucking book for christsakes.


It seems I know more than you think, because it was a combination of all of the above that got us in this mess. I just cited the bills passed, and (I believe) the years also.

The loans people drew up were the problem, but that had been going on since the 90's, and even the Bush admin tried unsuccessfully in both 03 and 05 to regulate that sector. They were met with harsh opposition from the Pelosi/Frank camp both times.

Couple that with people losing their jobs to outsourcing, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Now factor in that the banks that sold people the loans had grown to the point were they were too big to fail. You had bank after bank swallowing each other since the signing of that bill in 98.

People didn't default on their bad loans 6 months in. They had those loans for a few years, until the rates kicked up, and then they defaulted after awhile. Which means the meat of the damage started way before W got in office.

I don't think I said minorities were the problem.

[goku]

if america started to stop its rich from buying expensive foriegn cars it might help and importing cheap labour


What made America great was it didn't have to go outside of it's borders for anything. We made our own cars. Provided for our own oil. Grew our own crops, and manufactured our own products.


Slowly but surely we have signed away all of those things. When you are doing all those things it means that the country is working, and everyone is making money. Now we are a country of middle men, pushing papers around on a desk for products we don't make here.

[Kramer]

As for Kramer, turn on your brain and leave it there.
If Obama was a communist( the biggest joke about BHO's presidency there is), he wouldn't have all these corporate giveaways to the healthcare industry and Wall Street investment banks.

And trust me, knowing someone as a youth does not make you...THEM.
I've had plenty of life 'mentors' as a teen who've lived totally different life experiences than me, but their lives weren't ever mine

Hey giovanni hotel..............so you say his mentor when he was young and the fact that he was a commie means nothing? Then how about Rev Wright and the racist phony religion called "black liberation theology" that the lying bastard claims he knows nothing about because he was deaf for 20 years?! Does he get a pass in your biased eyas there too!!! Wake up and see the truth!

[Solitary Brother]

It seems I know more than you think, because it was a combination of all of the above that got us in this mess. I just cited the bills passed, and (I believe) the years also.

The loans people drew up were the problem, but that had been going on since the 90's, and even the Bush admin tried unsuccessfully in both 03 and 05 to regulate that sector. They were met with harsh opposition from the Pelosi/Frank camp both times.

Couple that with people losing their jobs to outsourcing, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Now factor in that the banks that sold people the loans had grown to the point were they were too big to fail. You had bank after bank swallowing each other since the signing of that bill in 98.

People didn't default on their bad loans 6 months in. They had those loans for a few years, until the rates kicked up, and then they defaulted after awhile. Which means the meat of the damage started way before W got in office.

I don't think I said minorities were the problem.

Please go educate yourself...please.
Thank you.

[giovanni_hotel]

I've had coaches that spent time in prison who were HUGE influences on my life, doesn't make me a future felon for knowing them.

Reverend Wright has hours upon hours of sermons on DVD, yet don't you think if he was preaching some insanity from the pulpit for decades, BHO's opponents would have been able to pull more than a snippet where he says, 'God damn America!!'??

20 such clips would have doomed Obama's presidential aspirations.

Like most fire and brimstone preachers, Rev. Wright went off the reservation sometimes, but for the most part he was a mainstream Baptist style preacher.

Oprah Winfrey for years was a member of his church, for chrissakes, and you know how she LOVES white folks to death!!lol

[PomonaCA]

Please go educate yourself...please.
Thank you.


Hello friend,

I just wanted to point out that you say the same thing every time someone says something you don't agree with.


Yours Truly,

PomonaCA

[Kramer]

I've had coaches that spent time in prison who were HUGE influences on my life, doesn't make me a future felon for knowing them.

Reverend Wright has hours upon hours of sermons on DVD, yet don't you think if he was preaching some insanity from the pulpit for decades, BHO's opponents would have been able to pull more than a snippet where he says, 'God damn America!!'??

20 such clips would have doomed Obama's presidential aspirations.

Like most fire and brimstone preachers, Rev. Wright went off the reservation sometimes, but for the most part he was a mainstream Baptist style preacher.

Oprah Winfrey for years was a member of his church, for chrissakes, and you know how she LOVES white folks to death!!lol


The liberal media hid everything about the bum so most voters didnt know what they were getting. Now he and congress pass bills without telling us everything that in it.

And I know Oprah is a phony that hates whites as much as any black person does. She is a phony too, but the media loves her act!

[goku]

Please go educate yourself...please.
Thank you.


lol


I can tell you don't get the big picture. You need to do your own homework. Meanwhile China is the old US, and getting richer by the minute. Meanwhile we will keep making bullshit excuses as to why we can't get the job done, and keep building on our "sense of entitlement" society.

I gave you the raw reasons as to why our society continues on a decline, and you say go educate yourself. Thanks for clearing that up. Notice you are the only one arguing this. I am a college graduate, and I have traveled abroad. I see what other countries are doing, what works, and what doesn't.

As old fashioned as it sounds, America needs to go back to building American and buying American. It's the reason wars always made us a richer country. Now that we are even getting our defense products/weapons from overseas, not even starting a war will pull us out of a recession. I think YOU need to do your homework SB, real talk.

[giovanni_hotel]

The liberal media hid everything about the bum so most voters didnt know what they were getting. Now he and congress pass bills without telling us everything that in it.

And I know Oprah is a phony that hates whites as much as any black person does. She is a phony too, but the media loves her act!

It was the liberal media that kept replaying those clips of Rev. Wright. You think Faux would have sat on more damning video of Rev. Wright just to benefit BHO's campaign??


But you are right, ALL Black folks HATE all white, brown, Asian, Euro and Spanish people.

Please don't tell anybody.:praying:

[flabbybody]

The man is an economic moron---runaway unemploynent ---a crashing economy---those of you who voted for change you got it----how do you like it ?

a crashing economy occurred during the prior administration.
runaway unemployment began 14 months before Obama was sworn in.
You have every right to call him whatever you want, but if we're going to debate his record we need to get the right sequence of events

[Norma]

Again, I think you have to go back to Aug. 15, 1971 to find the real culprit here. That was the day that Richard Nixon, by executive fiat, debased the dollar. It ended 25 years of stabile growth & started the inflationary spiral that we're still caught up in, even during the recurring recessions. The purchasing power of the currency is now less than 10% of what it was, & it's all artificial. There's no standards. There's no way to judge value, & the rate of currency decline (inflation) is set by the whims of international speculators who aren't regulated by anybody. Every currency in the world is in decline, & "FOREX" is just where you bet on the rate. It's not even real money. It's all derivatives. You have to use derivatives for any kind of international trade because you don't know what the exchange rate might be tomorrow. Whenever somebody mentions "the value of a dollar" anymore, the first thing that comes to mind is "compared to what?".

What to do? Simpliify. Start negotiating a new agreement on the lines of Bretton Woods, without the gold peg. Can't go bck to a gold standard because there's no reserves. I think that was the fatal flaw in Bretton Woods to begin with. But if you fix the exchange rates by pegging the currencies to each other, inflation could become manageable. Right now, it's not, & you can blame everything that's happening today on the financial industry trying to hedge against it.


Exactly , all this unemployment and the economy slowly but surely going down the tubes goes back that far.

Except most people think it was Bush's or Obama's doing or ineptitude. Trouble is, most people can not see more than 5 feet in front of them or more than 5 minutes ahead, Everything is about NOW NOW NOW or fairly recent.

America's adherence to an outdated capitalistic system is actually what has been causing the gradual decline since the seventies, Factories have been going overseas since that time.

The American Way has actually become very Un-American for the current/future generations of America. A company surviving has actually become more important than keeping the jobs in the states. Exactly how American capitalism states it should be. Make your competition fail, and you do whatever you have to for survival.

That stuff was good when the USA was riding the high wave of a ruined economic japan, germany, europe, and china after ww2, but now it's redundant and came back to bite us in the ass. The glory days are over.

America is going to fall harder, before Obama or any president within a 10 year period (just guessing) really fixes anything. Right now everything is just patch ups.

Obama is not better or worse than anyone recently. McCain would've looked the same, If clinton had run again, it would've been the same.

The root of it goes back to the 70's , like hippifried said. Good call man.

[PomonaCA]

The cause of the recession is clear; People signing up for loans they couldn't pay.

[traLika]

Exactly , all this unemployment and the economy slowly but surely going down the tubes goes back that far.

Except most people think it was Bush's or Obama's doing or ineptitude. Trouble is, most people can not see more than 5 feet in front of them or more than 5 minutes ahead, Everything is about NOW NOW NOW or fairly recent.

America's adherence to an outdated capitalistic system is actually what has been causing the gradual decline since the seventies, Factories have been going overseas since that time.

The American Way has actually become very Un-American for the current/future generations of America. A company surviving has actually become more important than keeping the jobs in the states. Exactly how American capitalism states it should be. Make your competition fail, and you do whatever you have to for survival.

That stuff was good when the USA was riding the high wave of a ruined economic japan, germany, europe, and china after ww2, but now it's redundant and came back to bite us in the ass. The glory days are over.

America is going to fall harder, before Obama or any president within a 10 year period (just guessing) really fixes anything. Right now everything is just patch ups.

Obama is not better or worse than anyone recently. McCain would've looked the same, If clinton had run again, it would've been the same.

The root of it goes back to the 70's , like hippifried said. Good call man.


Yeah, I'm amazed at all of the people who seem to be blaming Obama or even Bush for what's going on right now. That shows a staggering level of short-sightedness...

And I agree, the US and the UK (and other countries) are likely to fall harder before things get better...

[bat1]

nixon was the best of all...

[trish]

The cause of the recession is clear; a trillion dollars of war debt to China that wasn't even considered part of budget, the almost complete deregulation of the banking system and unchecked profiteering on bundled debt sold as derivatives.

[PomonaCA]

The cause of the recession is clear; a trillion dollars of war debt to China that wasn't even considered part of budget, the almost complete deregulation of the banking system and unchecked profiteering on bundled debt sold as derivatives.


And how do you explain away all those loans that people got that they couldn't afford to pay?

[JerseyMike]

And how do you explain away all those loans that people got that they couldn't afford to pay?

Because the Dems in the house believe houses are a right when it really is up to people to go and find housing for themselves.

[PomonaCA]

Because the Dems in the house believe houses are a right when it really is up to people to go and find housing for themselves.


Sir, you are a racist for saying that! I don't know why you are, you just are.

[giovanni_hotel]

You are a dumbass commercial banker if you give a man earning 15 Gs a home loan for a half million dollar home.
Except the bankers didn't really care if Joe Broke couldn't pay off his mortgage or not because they were all going to be bundled and sold by Wall Street as AAA securities.

The smartest guys in the room always cry 'ignorance' when one of their scams gets found out after the fact.

[trish]

You are a dumbass commercial banker if you give a man earning 15 Gs a home loan for a half million dollar home.
Except the bankers didn't really care if Joe Broke couldn't pay off his mortgage or not because they were all going to be bundled and sold by Wall Street as AAA securities.

The smartest guys in the room always cry 'ignorance' when one of their scams gets found out after the fact.EXACTLY. Were the appropriate regulations in place, Joe Broke would not have been approved for such a loan, and there would have been no incentive to give him one in the first place.

[PomonaCA]

EXACTLY. Were the appropriate regulations in place, Joe Broke would not have been approved for such a loan, and there would have been no incentive to give him one in the first place.


The question is why is Joe Broke going for such a loan? Or is it better I ask "How will you paint Joe Broke as the victim in all this?"

[trish]

Joe Broke goes to the real estate agent, who wants to make a big commission, and who given the current banking practices convinces Joe Broke this is the smart move to make. Joe consults the bank, and the bank says, "Yeah, you can afford this loan, easy. We approve you." Is Joe being snowed? Yes. Is he being stupid? Yes, but most first time home buyers are by definition inexperienced in these matters and rely heavily on what the experts tell them. Is Joe a victim? I don't care if you paint him as a victim or not. Is Joe the culprit? Certainly not. The banks are the culprits and those deregulators on the dole of banking lobbyists are the culprits.

[PomonaCA]

Joe Broke goes to the real estate agent, who wants to make a big commission, and who given the current banking practices convinces Joe Broke this is the smart move to make. Joe consults the bank, and the bank says, "Yeah, you can afford this loan, easy. We approve you." Is Joe being snowed? Yes. Is he being stupid? Yes, but most first time home buyers are by definition inexperienced in these matters and rely heavily on what the experts tell them. Is Joe a victim? I don't care if you paint him as a victim or not. Is Joe the culprit? Certainly not. The banks are the culprits and those deregulators on the dole of banking lobbyists are the culprits.


So Joe Broke signs the loan that he knows he won't be able to live up to.

Who's running the scam?

[trish]

So Joe Broke signs the loan that he knows he won't be able to live up to.No. Where did I give you that impression? Joe has been snowed.


Who's running the scam? I didn't say it was a scam, though I do confirm the gist of Giovanni's post. It was all perfectly legal. Though if you ask who expected to profit from the situation, I'd say just about everyone involved thought they were going to profit. Joe thought he was buying a nice house. The real estate agent got her commission. The bank bundled the debt and sold it for a profit. The broker who bought the derivative thought it was a worthwhile risk. That's the way bubbles work in a deregulated market.

[PomonaCA]

No. Where did I give you that impression? Joe has been snowed.

I didn't say it was a scam. It was all perfectly legal. Though if you ask who expected to profit from the situation, I'd say just about everyone involved thought they were going to profit. Joe thought he was buying a nice house. The real estate agent got her commission. The bank bundled the debt and sold it for a profit. The broker who bought the derivative thought it was a worthwhile risk. That's the way bubbles work in a deregulated market.

So the guy gets a house that he can't afford. This is how the world works when morality is relative. And when new regulatory controls are in the hands of immoral politicians, you will have your empty victory. Political capital.

[Solitary Brother]

So Joe Broke signs the loan that he knows he won't be able to live up to.

Who's running the scam?

This recession has NOTHING to do with "Joe Broke".
This recession has EVERYTHING to do with monetary policy,The Fed and Wall Street.

[trish]

So the guy gets a house that he can't afford.No. Joe loses the house and his equity because he can't afford it.


And when new regulatory controls are in the hands of immoral politicians...Banking regulations need neither be moral nor immoral. They are simply needed to govern the stability of the banking and economic system; just as a steam governor is neither moral nor immoral but regulates the stability of the engine.


you will have your empty victory.What victory? I not at war with anyone, I simply want a healthy and stable economy.

[PomonaCA]

No. Joe loses the house and his equity because he can't afford it.

Banking regulations need neither be moral nor immoral. They are simply needed to govern the stability of the banking and economic system; just as a steam governor is neither moral nor immoral but regulates the stability of the engine.

What victory? I not at war with anyone, I simply want a healthy and stable economy.


Banking regulations in the hands of immoral politicians. That's what the left is screaming for, strict government control of the economy. And when you have that, you will have your empty victory. Political capital.

[trish]

Now you're just repeating points that have already been answered.

[hippifried]

We went through a major housing bubble in the '80s. When it burst, it crashed the entire savings & loan industry.There was an S&L on every corner, but when the smoke cleared, there probably wasn't a half dozen in the country with open doors.

There was one in the '70s too. It didn't get bad enough to crash the financials because the "stagflation" slowed it down & the oddball baloon loans were exposed early for the scam they were.

I guess my point is that this isn't a recent or 'right now' problem. It's just minor tweaks on the same crap over & over. Everybody's forced to jack up profit margins by whatever means because they're hedging against inflation. Stable margins don't work when everything's unstable. The problem isn't politics or any of the other crap that most of the bitching's about. The problem's inflation. The only ones charged with the fight against inflation are the Fed, & all they can do tighten credit. We already have tight credit, & you see what that does. The economic templates don't work because this inflation is artificial. The currency market is a skimming operation, & there's a direct corelation between the amount being skimmed & the rate of decline. Shut it down. You do that by pegging the currencies to each other & fixing the exchange rates.

Housing didn't crash the banks. It was a major factor, but they were leveraged way beyond solvency. Still are. The CDOs were a fraud, & it really needs to be prosecuted. The problem is that all this junk paper is still floating around out there & nobody knows exactly how to clear it off the books. It's going to take a while.

[hyperspace]

if america started to stop its rich from buying expensive foriegn cars it might help and importing cheap labour

Actually most of the " foreign" cars in the US market are actually built in the USA.

They are also built to higher quality standards and have more advanced technology and systems.

[TSCURIOUS]

Back into this thread after being out of town-
All your comments were read and welcomed. It's what makes this a great country in that we can have these debates openly and freely.
He'll NEVER get re-elected, so we just have to deal with him for another couple years.
We need to send a message in the next elections - change the power and hoipe he doesn't screw it up anymore!
Peace!

[Ben]

Journalist John Pilger has an interesting take on Obama:
YouTube- John Pilger Obama Is A Corporate Marketing Creation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Eg34ze5TJo)

[yodajazz]

EXACTLY. Were the appropriate regulations in place, Joe Broke would not have been approved for such a loan, and there would have been no incentive to give him one in the first place.

I think the regulations have long been in place. Banks and financial houses were required to have cash reserves equal to a certain percerntage of their loans. Over a period of time the requirements were relaxed. I think that during Bush II some were not enforced, and direct permission was given that it was not nescessary to have cash reserves, to major players like Bears and Stearns.

Subprime crisis impact timeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Lehman_Brothers_Times_Square_by_David_Shankbo ne.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Lehman_Brothers_Times_Square_by_David_Shankbone.jp g/220px-Lehman_Brothers_Times_Square_by_David_Shankbone.jp g"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/5/53/Lehman_Brothers_Times_Square_by_David_Shankbone.jp g/220px-Lehman_Brothers_Times_Square_by_David_Shankbone.jp g (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_crisis_impact_timeline)



2004: U.S. homeownership rate peaks with an all time high of 69.2 percent.[62] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-census_rvh-61)

Following example of Countrywide Financial (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Countrywide_Financial), the largest U.S. mortgage lender, many lenders adopt automated loan approvals that critics argued were not subjected to appropriate review and documentation according to good mortgage underwriting (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Mortgage_underwriting) standards.[63] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-62) In 2007, 40% of all subprime loans resulted from automated underwriting.[64] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-63)[65] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-64)Mortgage fraud (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Mortgage_fraud) by borrowers increases.[66] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-65)
October:SEC effectively suspends net capital rule for five firms—Goldman Sachs (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Goldman_Sachs), Merrill Lynch (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Merrill_Lynch), Lehman Brothers (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Lehman_Brothers), Bear Stearns (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Bear_Stearns) and Morgan Stanley (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Morgan_Stanley). Freed from government imposed limits on the debt they can assume, they levered up 20, 30 and even 40 to 1, buying massive amounts of mortgage-backed securities and other risky investments.[67] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-suspend-net-capital-rule-66)
One major point is the the Republican mantra that government regulation is only restricting business from making profits is proven wrong here.

[yodajazz]

As for Kramer, turn on your brain and leave it there.
If Obama was a communist( the biggest joke about BHO's presidency there is), he wouldn't have all these corporate giveaways to the healthcare industry and Wall Street investment banks.

And trust me, knowing someone as a youth does not make you...THEM.
I've had plenty of life 'mentors' as a teen who've lived totally different life experiences than me, but their lives weren't ever mine

Hey giovanni hotel..............so you say his mentor when he was young and the fact that he was a commie means nothing? Then how about Rev Wright and the racist phony religion called "black liberation theology" that the lying bastard claims he knows nothing about because he was deaf for 20 years?! Does he get a pass in your biased eyas there too!!! Wake up and see the truth!

I think that which you call a "racist phony religion" is called Christianity. It is my understanding that "Black Liberation Theology" is/was encouraging US Black to indentify with the stories of the children Israel, in the Bible. And in fact all Christians are taught the lessons Israel in the Bible. Taking Chirstianity to the gentiles was a major factor in making this happen.

I do believe that the Rev Wright was showing signs of an age related mental condition at the end. And I believe that is why he retired. But to say that Obama and others listened to racist theolgy for twenty years, is only wishful thinking for those who want to take power, and their sympathizers.

[yodajazz]

Banking regulations in the hands of immoral politicians. That's what the left is screaming for, strict government control of the economy. And when you have that, you will have your empty victory. Political capital.

One question: Politicians are immoral' in relation to whom; religious minsters, bank presidents, atheletes, or whom? And what about you? Have you ever been to a party, and excepted free refresments? Or have you ever paid a woman's way, in what we call a 'date', in anticipation of expected rewards?

I do believe that there needs to to be more reform, however to prevent undue influence of our legislators.

[hippifried]

Banking regulations in the hands of immoral politicians. That's what the left is screaming for, strict government control of the economy. And when you have that, you will have your empty victory. Political capital.
& you would put those regulations in the hands of whom?

Irrespective of what you might think of the government, there isn't anybody else, & I mean nobody, to look out for the interests of the general public. Who else is going to do it? You? Some Wall St banker or stock trader? Why don't we just turn the rules over to the hedge funds or insurance companies? I'm sure AIG would jump at the chance to take control. They were handling everything just fine until the government stepped in, right?

Get a grip.

[PomonaCA]

& you would put those regulations in the hands of whom?

Irrespective of what you might think of the government, there isn't anybody else, & I mean nobody, to look out for the interests of the general public. Who else is going to do it? You? Some Wall St banker or stock trader? Why don't we just turn the rules over to the hedge funds or insurance companies? I'm sure AIG would jump at the chance to take control. They were handling everything just fine until the government stepped in, right?

Get a grip.


The problem is both politicians and bankers are human and prone to the same shortcomings that the general public are prone to. The difference is that the government can enforce it's policy shortcomings with GUNS. Add in that society seems to be getting less honest and you can see what our problem is.

The declining morality of our civilization that is the problem. It's not strictly the banks or the politicians or society. It's a lack of integrity in all 3.

A society governed solely by laws is a poor society. A society government by a static sense of right and wrong and laws is a better society.

What we've developed in the west is a tacit belief that if it's not illegal, it's OK. As we can see, taking and making bad loans is not illegal, so people think it's OK.... and in the case of the borrowers, they are being told that they are the VICTIMS of "predatory lenders" when in fact they are just as guilty.

The government role here is a necessary evil but if I have to chose, I'd take reckless business over reckless government anyday.

[trish]

Me too, that's why we need responsible banking laws to check reckless banking practices. You can always "fire" your representatives; it's not so easy to fire the greedy and the reckless working on Wall Street.

[Mizredhead]

He's an idiotic moron!
Piece of shit!
Apolegetic Socialist!
Embarassed he's the president of this GREAT COUNTRY.
Yes - I purposely used the small p!

Can I tell you how I REALLY feel?

WHY do 56% of Americans think he is doing a horrible job ? Its a CBS poll.

Freaking Communist that needs to be shipped to Siberia ASAP .

Oh and his wife stays in $2500.00 a nite hotel rooms in europe to go shopping. Thats his economic stimulus . How about a cow poker up the ass.

[hippifried]

The problem is both politicians and bankers are human and prone to the same shortcomings that the general public are prone to. The difference is that the government can enforce it's policy shortcomings with GUNS. Add in that society seems to be getting less honest and you can see what our problem is.
The honesty ratio is the same as it's always been. When you turn a bunch of people loose with unlimited money & no rules, they crash the system every time. The government is under constant scrutiny, & we have the opportunity to turn the whole thing inside out every 2 years. We don't have to trust the government. It's a fishbowl, & anybody can look. When was the last time you had a say in, or a peek at, what your banker or even your 401K was doing? The problem? The problem is that we keep turning a bunch of compulsive gamblers loose with other people's money.


The declining morality of our civilization that is the problem. It's not strictly the banks or the politicians or society. It's a lack of integrity in all 3.
Everybody likes to talk a bunch of morality, but what is it? As far as I can figure, morality is nothing more than adherence to the universal code of human interaction, AKA the principle or ethic of reciprosity, AKA the "golden rule". Everything else is arbitrary. But we're innundated with religious, philosophical, & ideological bullshit that just confuses the issue. As far as I'm concerned, morality is a real simple concept, & I actually agree with your statement to an extent. But there's so much confusion that I don't know exactly what you're talking about.


A society governed solely by laws is a poor society. A society government by a static sense of right and wrong and laws is a better society.
Agreed, & again, it all comes back to reciprocity. We don't stress the concept enough.


What we've developed in the west is a tacit belief that if it's not illegal, it's OK. As we can see, taking and making bad loans is not illegal, so people think it's OK.... and in the case of the borrowers, they are being told that they are the VICTIMS of "predatory lenders" when in fact they are just as guilty.
Everybody's playing the hedge. Inflation favors the long term borrower, unless the income source dries up. ARMs are a hedge against that, in favor of the lender. If you're late on a payment, your rate goes up & so does your payment. Sub-prime teasers are predatory because the lender knows full well that the rate the loan was based on is temporary, & that the chances are good that the borrower is going to get into trouble as soon as the payment goes up. A few percentage points can double the payment on a 30 year loan. The initial lender doesn't care because they're going to palm it off on somebody else as quick as possible, & the borrowers don't understand the potential pitfalls. We gripe about the ignorant borrowers, & that's ok, but can you figure compound interest? Most people can't, & don't have one of those specialty calculators that the realtors & car salesmen carry around in their pockets.

I fail to see the difference between some guy going down to the payday lender to keep his lights from going out & the banker that goes to the discount window or LIBOR to balance out their overnights & hang onto their AAA rating. Well... The obvious difference is the margin of course, but it's the same principle. Short term borrowing covers the lag time between money out & money in. It's a shuffle game & it works if you're careful. Credit cards & equity lines work the same way. It's easy to get into trouble though. This is what got all those banks, non-banks, & wannabe banks into trouble. They were over leveraged & constantly borrowing on the overnights through LIBOR. Investment banks couldn't borrow from the Fed if they'd wanted to, & none of them wanted to get audited. These guys had already blown through your money & were just living on a borrowed dime. It got completely out of hand, they all knew it, & nobody cared because the money was roling in on a right now basis. It's all about the dailies anymore.


The government role here is a necessary evil but if I have to chose, I'd take reckless business over reckless government anyday.
No way. The money industry has crashe twice in as many decades, & that crashes everything else. There's no self restraint at all because these guys don't really have any skin in the game. None of it's their money. If any of them were personally responsible for their actions, there wouldn't be any of this recklessness. The most reckless things the government has done, other than starting wars to misdirect attention, was to lift the regulations. It doesn't work. There's over 300 million people here, & you can't govern by ideology. Everybody has their own.

[PomonaCA]

The honesty ratio is the same as it's always been. When you turn a bunch of people loose with unlimited money & no rules, they crash the system every time. The government is under constant scrutiny, & we have the opportunity to turn the whole thing inside out every 2 years. We don't have to trust the government. It's a fishbowl, & anybody can look. When was the last time you had a say in, or a peek at, what your banker or even your 401K was doing? The problem? The problem is that we keep turning a bunch of compulsive gamblers loose with other people's money.

Compulsive gamblers? Who's that? Because the term "gamble" better describes people who were takings stated income and interest only loans. You know? The people who were betting other peoples money on rising property values. It's not just the bankers, it's both sides of the credit markets. Blaming only the bankers is typical, non-productive class warfare plain and simple.


Everybody likes to talk a bunch of morality, but what is it? As far as I can figure, morality is nothing more than adherence to the universal code of human interaction, AKA the principle or ethic of reciprosity, AKA the "golden rule". Everything else is arbitrary. But we're innundated with religious, philosophical, & ideological bullshit that just confuses the issue. As far as I'm concerned, morality is a real simple concept, & I actually agree with your statement to an extent. But there's so much confusion that I don't know exactly what you're talking about.

This is just more religious intolerance from you. You disagree with religion in general so you can't help but make savage attacks on it because, afterall, according to your beliefs, humans are animal.


Everybody's playing the hedge. Inflation favors the long term borrower, unless the income source dries up. ARMs are a hedge against that, in favor of the lender. If you're late on a payment, your rate goes up & so does your payment. Sub-prime teasers are predatory because the lender knows full well that the rate the loan was based on is temporary, & that the chances are good that the borrower is going to get into trouble as soon as the payment goes up.

Ok, I fail to see who's to blame here. The banker or the guy who TOOK THE LOAN and owed it to himself to understand it to the best of his ability and perform as agreed on it. Or wait, are you arguing that the general public is incapable of reading and therefore needs nanny to step in and govern private business?



A few percentage points can double the payment on a 30 year loan. The initial lender doesn't care because they're going to palm it off on somebody else as quick as possible, & the borrowers don't understand the potential pitfalls. We gripe about the ignorant borrowers, & that's ok, but can you figure compound interest? Most people can't, & don't have one of those specialty calculators that the realtors & car salesmen carry around in their pockets.

Yes you are. You are arguing that people are incapable of understanding the terms on documents they are signing. Thanks. I guess this is how you convince yourself that we're all just a bunch of helpless citizens waiting for the government to come save us. For someone who doesn't believe in a God, you sure want to make the government yours.


I fail to see the difference between some guy going down to the payday lender to keep his lights from going out & the banker that goes to the discount window or LIBOR to balance out their overnights & hang onto their AAA rating. Well... The obvious difference is the margin of course, but it's the same principle. Short term borrowing covers the lag time between money out & money in. It's a shuffle game & it works if you're careful. Credit cards & equity lines work the same way. It's easy to get into trouble though. This is what got all those banks, non-banks, & wannabe banks into trouble. They were over leveraged & constantly borrowing on the overnights through LIBOR. Investment banks couldn't borrow from the Fed if they'd wanted to, & none of them wanted to get audited. These guys had already blown through your money & were just living on a borrowed dime. It got completely out of hand, they all knew it, & nobody cared because the money was roling in on a right now basis. It's all about the dailies anymore.

I don't know what your point here was except to point out to many that you're just another guy with novice real estate exposure plagiarizing from Andrew Murfin. Banks and near-banks? This shit is 25 years old. Borrow from someone who's actually relevant these days, will you?


No way. The money industry has crashe twice in as many decades, & that crashes everything else. There's no self restraint at all because these guys don't really have any skin in the game. None of it's their money. If any of them were personally responsible for their actions, there wouldn't be any of this recklessness. The most reckless things the government has done, other than starting wars to misdirect attention, was to lift the regulations. It doesn't work. There's over 300 million people here, & you can't govern by ideology. Everybody has their own.


The government didn't lift regulations so much as replaced regulation with a political ideology. This is what I'm talking about when I use the term "Political capital". If you put the power of money in the hands of a politician, especially a politician with an axe to grind, they will use that power to, as they say "Level the playing field". Well, they leveled the playing field and we're worse off for it.

[hippifried]

Wow spud. You sure like to jump to a lot of misguided conclusions.


Compulsive gamblers? Who's that? Because the term "gamble" better describes people who were takings stated income and interest only loans. You know? The people who were betting other peoples money on rising property values. It's not just the bankers, it's both sides of the credit markets. Blaming only the bankers is typical, non-productive class warfare plain and simple.
Where do you come up with all this silly rhetoric. You an adherent of bugeyed Becky the new age prophet, or just another dittohead?

When all this crashed, there was over $50 trillion in credit default swaps floating around just in the US. That dwarfs the US GDP. Not really sure, but that may be more than the planetary GDP. These aren't the bundled mortgage CDOs. These are just naked bets on whether the CDOs & other weird financial products would pay or fail. No skin in the game. Don't own the bundles. Just laying a bet with markers, partially backed by the investments of actual people who have no idea that any of this is going on. It's really not about housing. The "foreclosure crisis" that hit in 2006 just turned the lights on so people could see what was happening. These guys were just creating money out of thin air. It took 2 years for the press to analyze this nonsense. It's still unclear, but very little of it paid off. How do you clear the books? You don't know what you're talking about.



This is just more religious intolerance from you. You disagree with religion in general so you can't help but make savage attacks on it because, afterall, according to your beliefs, humans are animal.
??????? Well gee, it must be quite an edge to be able to read minds & be so sure of what somebody else thinks. Can your ouija board see the powerball numbers?

What does religion have to do with morality?

You don't know what you're talking about.



Ok, I fail to see who's to blame here. The banker or the guy who TOOK THE LOAN and owed it to himself to understand it to the best of his ability and perform as agreed on it. Or wait, are you arguing that the general public is incapable of reading and therefore needs nanny to step in and govern private business?
You fail to see because you're looking to affix blame to fit into this McCarthyesque "class warfare" fantasy your're trying to promote. It's pretty easy to see that you've never taken out a home loan. This isn't private business. It's other people's money. Without all those bank accounts, retirement accounts, brokerage accounts, & whatnot, the capitalist system collapses. People shouldn't have to rely on trust. We have the federal government to make sure these guys are on the up & up. That's one of the reasons they exist. You don't know what you're talking about.




Yes you are. You are arguing that people are incapable of understanding the terms on documents they are signing. Thanks. I guess this is how you convince yourself that we're all just a bunch of helpless citizens waiting for the government to come save us. For someone who doesn't believe in a God, you sure want to make the government yours.
Reality check. Nobody's dealing with the lenders. You can't get past the broker who's selling that financial product. You don't even see the final papers until you go in to sign. If you're experienced & have the extra cash, you take a lawyer with you Most people don't understand this shit. They think they're buying a home & taking out a mortgage, like Mom & Dad did, when they're really signing on to a trust deed. The more complicated the product, the less likely it is that the lendee will understand the details. First time buyers are at the mercy of whoever's explaining the legalese & bank jargon to them. You don't know what you're talking about.



I don't know what your point here was except to point out to many that you're just another guy with novice real estate exposure plagiarizing from Andrew Murfin. Banks and near-banks? This shit is 25 years old. Borrow from someone who's actually relevant these days, will you?
I have no earthly idea who Andrew Murfin is, & I don't care enough to look him up. You don't know what you're talking about.




The government didn't lift regulations so much as replaced regulation with a political ideology. This is what I'm talking about when I use the term "Political capital". If you put the power of money in the hands of a politician, especially a politician with an axe to grind, they will use that power to, as they say "Level the playing field". Well, they leveled the playing field and we're worse off for it.
You're just a parrot. You don't know what you're talking about.

[yodajazz]

Compulsive gamblers? Who's that? Because the term "gamble" better describes people who were takings stated income and interest only loans. You know? The people who were betting other peoples money on rising property values. It's not just the bankers, it's both sides of the credit markets. Blaming only the bankers is typical, non-productive class warfare plain and simple.



This is just more religious intolerance from you. You disagree with religion in general so you can't help but make savage attacks on it because, afterall, according to your beliefs, humans are animal.



Ok, I fail to see who's to blame here. The banker or the guy who TOOK THE LOAN and owed it to himself to understand it to the best of his ability and perform as agreed on it. Or wait, are you arguing that the general public is incapable of reading and therefore needs nanny to step in and govern private business?




Yes you are. You are arguing that people are incapable of understanding the terms on documents they are signing. Thanks. I guess this is how you convince yourself that we're all just a bunch of helpless citizens waiting for the government to come save us. For someone who doesn't believe in a God, you sure want to make the government yours.



I don't know what your point here was except to point out to many that you're just another guy with novice real estate exposure plagiarizing from Andrew Murfin. Banks and near-banks? This shit is 25 years old. Borrow from someone who's actually relevant these days, will you?




The government didn't lift regulations so much as replaced regulation with a political ideology. This is what I'm talking about when I use the term "Political capital". If you put the power of money in the hands of a politician, especially a politician with an axe to grind, they will use that power to, as they say "Level the playing field". Well, they leveled the playing field and we're worse off for it.

1. A "60 Minutes" piece describes the practice of credit default swaps, also know as CDO's and 'derrivatives' as legalized gambling. Since 1999 when the practice became legal some has estimated that there are trillions of dollars of obligations out there. But since the practice was entirely unregulated, there are only estimates. This also contributed to the financial crisis when companies like Bears and Stearns were not able to 'pay off their bets'. So point is that it was gambling on a large scale.

2. I disagree that morality is getting worse. I think were just getting more news about people's behaviors. Plus there are more ways to do traditional things like stealing money. It's the same behavior, just a new way of doing it.

3. "Level the playing field"? Studies have shown the the top percentage of wealth now own more of the total wealth. There has been a consistant theme since Reagan, that letting the wealth pay less taxes would be good for the economy. I argue that polictician have favored things which help the weathiest rather than 'level the playing field'. Bush's tax cut, while waging war, was a big increase on the federal deficit. Has this created more jobs? I think the governments suspending of regulations to such firms as Goldman Sachs, in 2004, (as I have quoted in previous post in this thread), does fit into your definition of "political capital". However this is another example of politicians helping big money interest, just the opposite of 'leveling the playing field'.

And the the spin doctors say taxes are being raised, when the reality is that tax cuts are due to expire. The working class pays a good percentage of their income to the government for social security. The framing of information is a important tool to manipultate public opinion.

[thombergeron]

2. I disagree that morality is getting worse. I think were just getting more news about people's behaviors. Plus there are more ways to do traditional things like stealing money. It's the same behavior, just a new way of doing it.

I think this is the key point in discussing policy, and is dramatically misunderstood by the overwhelming majority of commenters.

By literally every objective measure of the human condition, we are better off now than at any time in human history. People live longer, are healthier, have more wealth, are better educated, are safer, and enjoy greater degrees of civic equality and political freedom than ever before.

Those making the "moral" argument will ignore all this evidence because "morality" is not an objective measure. I say morality is increasing, PomonaCA says it's decreasing, and we're both correct because one's system of morals is inherently subjective.

But in terms of things like freedom, equality, and justice, human beings across the globe are unquestionably better off now than 1,000, 100, 50, or even 10 years ago.

[hippifried]

I think this is the key point in discussing policy, and is dramatically misunderstood by the overwhelming majority of commenters.

By literally every objective measure of the human condition, we are better off now than at any time in human history. People live longer, are healthier, have more wealth, are better educated, are safer, and enjoy greater degrees of civic equality and political freedom than ever before.

Those making the "moral" argument will ignore all this evidence because "morality" is not an objective measure. I say morality is increasing, PomonaCA says it's decreasing, and we're both correct because one's system of morals is inherently subjective.

But in terms of things like freedom, equality, and justice, human beings across the globe are unquestionably better off now than 1,000, 100, 50, or even 10 years ago.
I agree that things are better overall & getting better as we speak. Each generation loses some of the xenophobic fears & brings the world a little closer together, to make life just a bit easier for the next one. That's not just the American dream. Every human being (sans a few jerks) strives for that & has since prehistory.

However: I disagree that morality is necessarily subjective. The problem is that too many people claim the authority to dictate morality. Morality isn't about arbitrary rules, & can't be dictated by people who claim to speak for the omniscient, or that they've designed the ultimate ideology, or that they have a philosophical edge by reading libraries full of mumbo jumbo. Morality's about how we treat each other on a personal level. The principle/ethic of reciprosity, or the "golden rule" the universal code. Look at all those philosophers & prophets. What are they talking about other than the code? The discussion always comes back to that because that's the basis of the behavioral concept of right & wrong. Our conscience kicks in by our asking ourselves how we would feel if we were on the other side of the contemplated action. If you can't relate it to the code, it's not a moral issue. Arbitrary rules have nothing to do with morality. It's all quite simple, despite the continual efforts to make it complicated.

The Rabbi Hillel the elder (circa 100 BCE), when asked to state the law to settle an argument, said:
"What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn"
Can't get much simpler or authoritative than that.

[PomonaCA]

I think this is the key point in discussing policy, and is dramatically misunderstood by the overwhelming majority of commenters.

By literally every objective measure of the human condition, we are better off now than at any time in human history. People live longer, are healthier, have more wealth, are better educated, are safer, and enjoy greater degrees of civic equality and political freedom than ever before.

Those making the "moral" argument will ignore all this evidence because "morality" is not an objective measure. I say morality is increasing, PomonaCA says it's decreasing, and we're both correct because one's system of morals is inherently subjective.

But in terms of things like freedom, equality, and justice, human beings across the globe are unquestionably better off now than 1,000, 100, 50, or even 10 years ago.


How moral are we if the 'civil equality' you talk about is mandated by federal law? That's not morality, that's FEAR of governments and the repression of free speech. Is it moral if a black guy applies for a job, is hired and every time he turns the corner, someone calls him a nigger?

Are we more moral in a society that enforce gay rights at the point of a gun or lawsuit? That's not morality, that's fear.

And is safety a barometer of freedom and safety? Is it moral to demand that bikers wear helmets? Is that real freedom? You laugh now but give it time. Soon the government will dictate how many calories you take in, how much alcohol you take in, when you go to sleep and how much electricity you use. After all, we have to keep you SAFE from all that fossil fuel pollution.

[yodajazz]

How moral are we if the 'civil equality' you talk about is mandated by federal law? That's not morality, that's FEAR of governments and the repression of free speech. Is it moral if a black guy applies for a job, is hired and every time he turns the corner, someone calls him a nigger?

Are we more moral in a society that enforce gay rights at the point of a gun or lawsuit? That's not morality, that's fear.

And is safety a barometer of freedom and safety? Is it moral to demand that bikers wear helmets? Is that real freedom? You laugh now but give it time. Soon the government will dictate how many calories you take in, how much alcohol you take in, when you go to sleep and how much electricity you use. After all, we have to keep you SAFE from all that fossil fuel pollution.

I argue that laws reflect the will of the majority of people. It is only fear for the minority of people who disagree. Perhaps the people do not agree with the specific penalties for the law, but they agree that something should be done to promote safety, (In the case of bike helmets), and the law adresses that issue. Even nations we think of as dictatorships, usually have legislators who are responsibles for common laws that their people live by.

I must point out that freedom and morality are two different things. It would be freedom to shoot people, who disagree with us, or to drive home after having 8 drinks at a bar. I say concepts of safety and rights are based moral concepts. Now personally think our seatbelt laws do more harm in penalties than good. But in my state laws which required motorcyclists to wear helmets, was repealed. Freedom prevailed oever saftey in that case.

[yodajazz]

Wow spud. You sure like to jump to a lot of misguided conclusions.


Where do you come up with all this silly rhetoric. You an adherent of bugeyed Becky the new age prophet, or just another dittohead?

When all this crashed, there was over $50 trillion in credit default swaps floating around just in the US. That dwarfs the US GDP. Not really sure, but that may be more than the planetary GDP. These aren't the bundled mortgage CDOs. These are just naked bets on whether the CDOs & other weird financial products would pay or fail. No skin in the game. Don't own the bundles. Just laying a bet with markers, partially backed by the investments of actual people who have no idea that any of this is going on. It's really not about housing. The "foreclosure crisis" that hit in 2006 just turned the lights on so people could see what was happening. These guys were just creating money out of thin air. It took 2 years for the press to analyze this nonsense. It's still unclear, but very little of it paid off. How do you clear the books? You don't know what you're talking about.

...

Sorry I missed this part of your post, before I made a related post. I want to add that it's amazing to me that credit default swaps were illegal until 1999 or 2000, but there was 50 trillion of them out there within, say 7 years. Most people give credit to Republican sponsor Phil Gramm for writing the the bill. Bill Clinton did sign it. My point is it was the perfect experiment for the Republican philosophy that non government interference would create prosperity. I think it just created volitility. That exchange of money did not end up creating productive goods which would benefit the general public as manufacture labor, etc.

Do you know anything about how the new finance law affects these transactions? I agree with mostly all of what you have written in this thread.

[hippifried]

Do you know anything about how the new finance law affects these transactions? I agree with mostly all of what you have written in this thread.
I haven't gone through all the details of the new law yet. I don't think CDSs are outlawed though. I'm not sure it's possible to put the genie back in the bottle with so much junk paper floating around out there, without a systemic recrash. I know there's new rules on what the banks can issue, & selling naked bets could very well be a big no no for them under the new law, but I'm not sure what it does to regulate the insurance industry. The CDS, in its current form, was a creation of AIG, & most of it ran through them. It was sold as insurance & risk abatement. Very few people fully understand how these things actually work. The people I've seen who do, regardless of party affiliation or political bent, all agree on one thing: That the attempt at risk abatement didn't work & actually added to the risk.

It wasn't just them of course. Over the course of a decade, Congress systematically gutted financial regulations. Especially the antitrust provisions that disappeared under Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Everybody likes to talk a bunch of free market capitalism, but monopolies & even mega-consolidations are really anathema to a free market. Stifling competition & creating a "too big to fail" situation makes it impossible for the markets to regulate themselves through competition. Kinda makes you wonder who the real commies are.

[thombergeron]

How moral are we if the 'civil equality' you talk about is mandated by federal law? That's not morality, that's FEAR of governments and the repression of free speech. Is it moral if a black guy applies for a job, is hired and every time he turns the corner, someone calls him a nigger?

You're quite confused here. In a democratic republic, like we have right here, the authority of the state derives from the consent of the governed. That's what's commonly referred to as "elections." A state's legitimacy is based, in part, on a monopoly of the use of violence, that is, it's ability to protect its citizens from both without and within.

All this stuff is written down. Try John Locke, Max Weber, etc.

It's not altogether surprising that a fearful little bigot interprets everything around him in the context of fear, but that's not actually how things work here. Law is based on the social compact, the desire of a polity to cooperate for the collective benefit of all. If you only obey the law because you're afraid of the government's guns, then you're a sociopath, and your earlier reference to "morals" is all the more confusing.

[PomonaCA]

You're quite confused here. In a democratic republic, like we have right here, the authority of the state derives from the consent of the governed. That's what's commonly referred to as "elections." A state's legitimacy is based, in part, on a monopoly of the use of violence, that is, it's ability to protect its citizens from both without and within.

All this stuff is written down. Try John Locke, Max Weber, etc.

It's not altogether surprising that a fearful little bigot interprets everything around him in the context of fear, but that's not actually how things work here. Law is based on the social compact, the desire of a polity to cooperate for the collective benefit of all. If you only obey the law because you're afraid of the government's guns, then you're a sociopath, and your earlier reference to "morals" is all the more confusing.


Really? The GOVERNED voted for gay-marriage in California? Not that I'm for or against that but let's not kid ourselves into believing that the majority of Californians voted for gay marriage.

[hippifried]

Really? The GOVERNED voted for gay-marriage in California? Not that I'm for or against that but let's not kid ourselves into believing that the majority of Californians voted for gay marriage.
Yeah... Well the 14th Amendment was ratified 142 years ago by at least 3/4 of the States. I'm pretty sure that takes precedent over a who can we hate this week referendum in California.

This is a constitutional republic. If anyone wants to live in a theocracy, they can move to Iran. If they would prefer there be no government at all, Somalia could use some more people to make up for the ones that are being murdered. Last I heard, anybody's free to leave the country (except those locked up for being too stupid to live with other people).

[PomonaCA]

Yeah... Well the 14th Amendment was ratified 142 years ago by at least 3/4 of the States. I'm pretty sure that takes precedent over a who can we hate this week referendum in California.

This is a constitutional republic. If anyone wants to live in a theocracy, they can move to Iran. If they would prefer there be no government at all, Somalia could use some more people to make up for the ones that are being murdered. Last I heard, anybody's free to leave the country (except those locked up for being too stupid to live with other people).

The 14th amendment can never and will never stop hate. And all the "civil equality" with all the teeth you can legislate into it, will never stop hate because laws can never change a mans heart.

Short of changing hearts, you will never have meaningful civil equality. Only civil equality, technically.

Like you can't force hookers to see black clients, you can't force people to treat you like an equal. No matter what penalties you impose or what power you give to the politicians.

[hippifried]

The 14th amendment can never and will never stop hate. And all the "civil equality" with all the teeth you can legislate into it, will never stop hate because laws can never change a mans heart.

Short of changing hearts, you will never have meaningful civil equality. Only civil equality, technically.

Like you can't force hookers to see black clients, you can't force people to treat you like an equal. No matter what penalties you impose or what power you give to the politicians.
What the hell are you talking about? I don't give a shit who you hate & neither does anyone else. Being an asshole's a personal problem, but not illegal. This isn't Europe. This is America, where even the klan/nazis get their rights respected. The laws (& the Constitution is the supreme law of the land) merely say that there can't be discrimination in hiring or business open to the public, & that government/s can't make discriminatory laws. "technically" is all the government can ever do. Nobody can fix stupid.

[PomonaCA]

What the hell are you talking about? I don't give a shit who you hate & neither does anyone else. Being an asshole's a personal problem, but not illegal. This isn't Europe. This is America, where even the klan/nazis get their rights respected. The laws (& the Constitution is the supreme law of the land) merely say that there can't be discrimination in hiring or business open to the public, & that government/s can't make discriminatory laws. "technically" is all the government can ever do. Nobody can fix stupid.

And in the case of so called "civil equality", technically is all you'll get. And that pisses a lot of people off to the point of angry rebuttals lol

[hippifried]

And in the case of so called "civil equality", technically is all you'll get. And that pisses a lot of people off to the point of angry rebuttals lol
Well that's a personal problem too.

[trish]

What the hell are you talking about? I don't give a shit who you hate & neither does anyone else. Being an asshole's a personal problem, but not illegal. This isn't Europe. This is America, where even the klan/nazis get their rights respected. The laws (& the Constitution is the supreme law of the land) merely say that there can't be discrimination in hiring or business open to the public, & that government/s can't make discriminatory laws. "technically" is all the government can ever do. Nobody can fix stupid. ___hippiefried

Worth reposting. ;)

[thombergeron]

Really? The GOVERNED voted for gay-marriage in California? Not that I'm for or against that but let's not kid ourselves into believing that the majority of Californians voted for gay marriage.

The governed consented to live according to the principle of equal treatment before the law. Presuming you're a U.S. citizen living in Pomona (shocking), you continue to affirm your assent to this principle by retaining your citizenship and participating as a member of the U.S. polity.

Now, I know this is a complicated distinction, so pay close attention:
You are absolutely free to be a bigoted little closet case.
You are not free to use the mechanisms of the state to oppress other people.

Even if you get a bunch of your bigoted little buddies together and all run down to the polling place and vote en mass to disenfranchise faggots/brown people/women, the law is the final word.

Again, this stuff is really not that complicated, and it's all been written down. You just have to find the time to educate yourself. Good luck!

[Deja Vu]

The guy is doing his job better than the former, so I'm cool with it.

[Ben]

The guy is doing his job better than the former, so I'm cool with it.

No criticism whatsoever? No criticism of: state secrets, targeted killings, indefinite detention, renditions, the opposition to extending the right of habeas corpus to prisoners at Bagram???
So, nothing.
So, we shouldn't critique state actors and state power. As Glenn Greewald has stated: WE'VE BEEN INCULCATED TO THINK THAT POLITICIANS ARE ABOVE THE LAW.
It is sooo true. We think and feel that politicians can do anything they feel like. It's amazing to me.

[Ben]

YouTube - Jamie Kilsteins Anti-War Rant (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAqRFz8p2kE)

[Ben]

Glenn Greenwald: What Obama Could Do Now (http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/10/15/glenn-greenwald-what-obama-could-do-now/)

By: Jane Hamsher (http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/author/Jane-2/) Friday October 15, 2010 7:05 am
I’ve been asking people what Obama could do now (http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/10/15/2010/10/12/2010/10/11/question-what-things-can-obama-do-now/), without needing the approval of Congress, to address many of the serious problems facing the country.

Glenn Greenwald:


Announce that all War on Terror detainees in Guantanamo will be entitled to a speedy trial or be released, and all detainees seized outside of active war zones shall be entitled to prompt habeas corpus review.
Direct the DOJ that the “state secrets privilege” will no longer be used to shield executive conduct from allegations of lawbreaking and judicial review, but instead will be used only for its traditional purpose: to prevent specific secrets documents from being used in litigation.
Cease targeting American citizens for assassination who have had no due process and are not on an actual battlefield.
Instruct the Attorney General that the White House does not wish for any Bush-era War on Terror crimes to be immunized from the rule of law, including prosecution if warranted.
Refrain from prosecuting whistle-blowers and journalists who have exposed government corruption and lawbreaking except in cases where serious national security harm has resulted.
Announce a definitive timetable for full withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, and scrap plans (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/21/97915/state-dept-planning-to-field-a.html) for a large State Department private army to be assembled to be stationed in Iraq for the indefinite future.
Order the State Department and Defense Department to cease awarding contracts to Blackwater/Xe based on past abuses and the dangers that relationship creates in the Muslim world.

Glenn Greenwald was a constitutional law and civil rights litigator and is currently a contributing writer at Salon (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/). He has also contributed to other newspapers and political news magazines, including The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The American Conservative, The National Interest, and In These Times. He is the author of two New York Times bestselling books: How Would a Patriot Act (a critique of Bush executive power theories) and A Tragic Legacy (examining the Bush legacy)

[Ben]

More of Glenn Greenwald:

YouTube - Glenn Greenwald on Obama, the War On Drugs, gay rights, third parties, and adopting dogs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYF37i_EPAk)

[hippifried]

More rants from "the professional left". Not a bad label. A little too polite from my view.

If the President caved in to the YouTube & blogosphere pundits, I'd be calling for his ouster.

[Ben]

James Galbraith: What Obama Could Do Now (http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/10/15/james-galbraith-what-obama-could-do-now/)

By: Jane Hamsher (http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/author/Jane-2/) Friday October 15, 2010 7:36 am

Jamie Galbraith responds to the question: What can Obama do now (http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/10/12/2010/10/11/question-what-things-can-obama-do-now/), without the need of 60 votes in the Senate, to address our current problems?


The President should announce that cuts in Social Security and Medicare benefits are off the table for the lame-duck session, and thereafter. He should point out that the mandate of the Bowles-Simpson Commission, which is published on their web-site, did not authorize it to opine on the finances of the Social Security or Medicare systems. For this reason alone, should the Commission include recommendations to cut Social Security benefits (such as by increasing the nominal retirement age) for the alleged purpose of maintaining balance in Social Security finances, the President should urge Congress to refuse to take up such a recommendation.
The President should name a commission of independent experts to recommend within three months concrete steps to reduce unemployment significantly by 2012 — that is to say, practically immediately — including jobs/investment programs and steps to reduce the size of the labor force, including through work-sharing, increased vacation time, more attractive early retirement under Social Security and access to Medicare at a younger age.
The President should direct Jacob Lew, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, to suspend the use of the present baseline macroeconomic forecasts and to impanel a commission of inquiry into the models and methods underlying medium-range forecasts, to best determine how those models and methods should be modified (a) to take account of the experience of the financial crisis, and (b) to correct major inconsistencies and mutually improbable assumptions in the long-term forecasts.
The President should name Damon Silvers to the position shortly to be vacated by Larry Summers.

James K. Galbraith holds the Lloyd M. Bentsen Jr. Chair in Government/Business Relations and is a professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin. He was executive director of the Congressional Joint Economic Committee in the early 1980s. He is the author of six books and several hundred scholarly and policy articles, as well as a stinging critique of President Obama’s deficit commission: Why the Fiscal Commission Does Not Serve the American People (http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/58695).

[Ben]

More rants from "the professional left". Not a bad label. A little too polite from my view.

If the President caved in to the YouTube & blogosphere pundits, I'd be calling for his ouster.

Well, Obama should simply pay attention and serve the people. In a democracy... in a meaningful democracy the people and government are identical. Simple. So, Obama simply, again, serves the people. (OK. So-called conservatives believe the ignorant masses are too stupid to govern themselves. And the people shouldn't -- and can't -- govern their own affairs. So, we've gotta leave it up to the smart ones like Obama, like Lieberman, like Harry Reid. I mean, why should pig farmers have a say in public policy? Why? Again, the ignorant masses should have no say in how the affairs of THEIR country are run. They, the majority, do not own the country. It's the people that OWN the country should run it. Like Blankfein and company.)

[hippifried]

OK. So-called conservatives believe the ignorant masses are too stupid to govern themselves. And the people shouldn't -- and can't -- govern their own affairs. So, we've gotta leave it up to the smart ones like...

That's always a problem with wings, from any angle.

The "professional left" isn't "the people" any more than the teabaggers are. President Obama is not an ideologue, & never promised to turn into some raving "progressive" upon election. These You Tubers aren't "the people". The fringes are the only ones who ever expected the nation to turn around overnight, whether for good or ill to their point of view. Barack Obama has been more effective at pushing his agenda through Congress than any of his predecessors since LBJ, & he's been there less than 2 years. Exactly what is it that you whiners want?

You don't know what you're talking about.

[Ben]

That's always a problem with wings, from any angle.

The "professional left" isn't "the people" any more than the teabaggers are. President Obama is not an ideologue, & never promised to turn into some raving "progressive" upon election. These You Tubers aren't "the people". The fringes are the only ones who ever expected the nation to turn around overnight, whether for good or ill to their point of view. Barack Obama has been more effective at pushing his agenda through Congress than any of his predecessors since LBJ, & he's been there less than 2 years. Exactly what is it that you whiners want?

You don't know what you're talking about.

I'm merely talking about the essence of government and centralized authority.... Well, the entire framework of a system, as it were.
People do not govern their own affairs. People do not participate in the decision-making process. Yes! We have elections. But we do not have meaningful democracy. Never have. (Ya gotta go back to Spain in the 1930s when libertarian socialism was sorta making a breakthrough.)
Most Americans want single-payer health care. Why don't we have it? Because it's not what corporate power wants.
America is a business-run society. There is no meaningful democracy. I mean, if politicians actually served the people (hence: democracy) they would enact policies that people want. Take military expenditures. That, right there, is a daily attack on democracy. Not having single-payer. Another attack on democracy. Handing trillions to the banks. Another attack on democracy. Should we continue? It depends whether or not you want to live in a democratic society? Some people don't. I mean, ya think Oprah or Bill Gates wants a democracy? Most Americans want increased taxes on corporations.... But the nexus of corporate and government power work to undercut democracy. (Again, it isn't very relevant what the so-called professional wants. It's what the people want. And by and large the majority of Americans are social democratic. So: we should have a government that reflects those interests.)
Obama is a moderate nationalist with a firm commitment to the corporate state. How do ya think he got so far in Illinois politics? By being a social democrat... like the majority of Americans -- ha!ha!ha!

[hippifried]

I'm merely talking about the essence of government and centralized authority.... Well, the entire framework of a system, as it were.
People do not govern their own affairs. People do not participate in the decision-making process. Yes! We have elections. But we do not have meaningful democracy. Never have. (Ya gotta go back to Spain in the 1930s when libertarian socialism was sorta making a breakthrough.)
Most Americans want single-payer health care. Why don't we have it? Because it's not what corporate power wants.
America is a business-run society. There is no meaningful democracy. I mean, if politicians actually served the people (hence: democracy) they would enact policies that people want. Take military expenditures. That, right there, is a daily attack on democracy. Not having single-payer. Another attack on democracy. Handing trillions to the banks. Another attack on democracy. Should we continue? It depends whether or not you want to live in a democratic society? Some people don't. I mean, ya think Oprah or Bill Gates wants a democracy? Most Americans want increased taxes on corporations.... But the nexus of corporate and government power work to undercut democracy. (Again, it isn't very relevant what the so-called professional wants. It's what the people want. And by and large the majority of Americans are social democratic. So: we should have a government that reflects those interests.)
Obama is a moderate nationalist with a firm commitment to the corporate state. How do ya think he got so far in Illinois politics? By being a social democrat... like the majority of Americans -- ha!ha!ha!
(I really like this quote system better than the old one, where you could end up with the entire thread in a single post. Neatness counts.)


Sorry Ben, but you're just another commie, & America isn't going to toss out the capitalist system any time soon. Marx was a crackpot. The cold war was bullshit. The Soviets just collapsed under their own weight. President Obama isn't a commie, never claimed to be one, & never promised to move the country in that direction. The American dream isn't about buying a house. It's about having the opportunity to strike it rich. What 'tax the corporations'? Corporations don't pay taxes. Taxes are just another expense that's added into the pricing structure. All corporate taxes are paid by consumers. On top of that, 100,000,000 Americans (that's 1/3 of the population) own stocks. Corporations aren't the enemy. They're the equalizer. Capitalism is just privatized socialism. It's how we go about pooling our resources to get what we want. Not everybody wants the same things.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the government has no role. I think you're right about the single payer health system. People want it because they know it'll save them boatloads of cash. There's no reason not to roll healthcare into the general infrastructure. I'm pretty sure that's what the President would prefer too, but he doesn't make law. The president proposes, but the Congress disposes. Ya gotta understand how the system works. The Congress is a committee of 535 who all get their say, & government power in the US lies with the Congress. Unrealistic expectations always lead to disappointment. Naivity breeds radicalism. The fringe around the political sphere does not represent the sphere as a whole. Right now I can't tell the difference between the whiny left & the teabaggers.

Oh by the way: What "libertarian socialism" in 1930s Spain? The Popular Front held power for all of 2 months before they found themselves embroiled in a 3 year bloody civil war that they lost, making Franco into history's only successful fascist. Seems like a pretty major OOPS to me.

[russtafa]

Go Franco a truly good guy

[hippifried]

Oh yeah, right. He turned Spain into such a shining example of how the modern world should work. Let's all follow his lead & take a giant step backward. Maybe in another century or so, we could invent the electric light.

[Ben]

Me... a commie -- ha!ha!
Yes! Libertarian socialism did thrive for 2 months in Spain. Isn't that a long time in capitalist circles -- ha!ha!
I'd call myself a conservative. Meaning I believe in morality and traditional values and don't believe in centralized control. And, well, I like Ron Paul. Albeit some of his ideas are wacky -- ha!ha! (I think you'd agree that capitalism isn't bailing out the ZOMBIE banks and using taxpayer or tax-sucker money to build sports stadiums. Investors, that is private, should assume the COST and the RISK. Not the taxpayers.)
Obama was never in favor of the public option. The public option would've injected competition into the so-called capitalist system. Again, give people the option. (But the last thing ya want when running a company is competition. Ya wanna crush/demolish the competition.
Monopolies are great from a rational mindset, to accrue profit. And corporations HAVE TO increase their profits. No choice. CEOs are obligated -- by law. I feel empathy for a CEO. Because HE or SHE or the T-GIRL CAN'T act from a moral or ethical standpoint. Sad really. But that isn't the corporate goal. It's understandable. Because it's rational.)
Obama isn't left-leaning. Never has been. (His mom was a neoliberal. Not sure about his economist dad. But that's beside the point.) Obama doesn't care about issues and has no core beliefs. That's my viewpoint. One should disagree with that... cause I'm a commie -- ha!ha! (Commie is the new fag. It's pointless, I think, to put people into a box. T-Girls reject labelling. As do most guys on this site.
Communism was and is the opposite of democracy. I'm talking about democracy.
Lenin created a labor army. It was totally top-down control, state control. I find that disgusting. Again, state communism isn't democracy. Capitalism isn't democracy. Now, one can either favor democracy or not. Your choice. If you're against it, well, that's fine.) BUT I prefer Obama to Bush. (And Bush was NOT a conservative from a spending standpoint.) But he's more hawkish than Bush. And, too, his robot war is coming along nicely -- ha!ha!
I believe in, well, deep democracy. I'm against centralized control, whether it be state or corporate. (I thought capitalism was about competition. Isn't it?) And bailing out the banks, again, is not capitalism. And corporatism is not capitalism. Read Ron Paul. (Oil companies having absolute control is not capitalism. It's a monopoly. MONOPOLY capitalism is not capitalism.)
Capitalism doesn't address the issue of externalities. An externality is the cost to others. Milton Friedman described it as the effect of a transaction between two individuals. Whereby a third party hasn't consented to or played any role in. It's a big problem. Take, say, a car. I and the person selling me a car are looking to get the best deal possible. What doesn't factor into the transaction is you. You have to deal with the ramifications of that transaction: pollution, a rise in gas prices etc.
Capitalism is about the state NOT intervening... except in enforcing contracts. (Or are there varying degrees of so-called capitalism. If so, well, there's no succinct definition of capitalism.) Meaning practically everything should be private. We've state capitalism. Meaning the state plays a pretty big part. Meaning the state/corporate nexus control what gets planned, produced and invested. (Again, what does corporate power have to do with democracy? And some people say: in a market economy ya vote with your dollars. But that isn't democracy. Democracy is one person, one vote. Not one dollar, one vote.)
Capitalism is about investing money to make money by those who have money. It's antithetical to democracy.
Democracy can be a frightening thing. I mean, the majority of people on the planet are women. That means women would rule. Pretty frightening. (Milton Friedman pointed out the downside of democracy. What if 51 percent agreed that the other 49 percent should be killed -- ha!ha!ha! I think people, by and large, are decent and moral. Caring. And this would reshape our institutions..)
And Reagan changed the notion of the American Dream. The American Dream was to be middle class. Reagan said, Yes! You, too, can be rich. What's the justification for, say, Britney Spears making gobs of cash? Well, rationality. (Yes! One's sole pursuit, and it's very rational, is wealth maximization. That should be your sole goal. I mean, why should I care about anybody else? That certainly isn't rational. It isn't. But gaining wealth is. It's very rational. Love, sex is extremely irrational. But gaining wealth is rational. As a rational being you should maximize your own wealth.)
I do not believe that everyone should be paid the same salary. (Sorry, ain't a commie.) But, then, again, what should a soldier be paid? Hmmm... quite a lot if ya ask me.

[thombergeron]

What's the justification for, say, Britney Spears making gobs of cash? Well, rationality. (Yes! One's sole pursuit, and it's very rational, is wealth maximization. That should be your sole goal. I mean, why should I care about anybody else? That certainly isn't rational. It isn't. But gaining wealth is. It's very rational. Love, sex is extremely irrational. But gaining wealth is rational. As a rational being you should maximize your own wealth.)


I think it's important for you to recognize that this perspective arises from your specific cultural context: You simply happen to have been socialized in a political, economic, and cultural milieu that places a high value on the accumulation of wealth. There are and have been many successful human societies that do not value the accumulation of wealth. From the perspective of, say, an indigenous Amazonian, wealth/surplus has no value, so wealth maximization would be irrational. From a biological perspective, love is an adaptive trait that maximizes procreative sex, thus propagating the species: a highly rational behavior.

And the dichotomy between communism and democracy is not as stark as you state. Marxist theory predicts that the consolidation that occurs under state socialism will eradicate class divisions, then the state will "wither away" because it's redundant, and direct rule by the people, or communism, will result. Therefore, according to theory, "communist state" is a contradiction in terms, and Lenin/Stalin/etc. did not preside over the implementation of communism, but rather of state socialism.

The accuracy, success, and ultimate desirability of Marx's theory is certainly problematic, but it's not accurate to say that communism is the opposite of democracy. Marx would argue that communism is pure democracy.

[south ov da border]

thoughts on Obama?

YouTube - Fall of the Republic HQ full length version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU)

...

[thombergeron]

Too bad they didn't wait for some actual data before making that "documentary."

TARP More Profitable Than Treasury Bonds (http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/tarp-more-profitable-than-treasury-bonds/)

[hippifried]

Ben,

Capitalism is about financing. It's not a design & it's not a social system. It evolved to replace the feudal system of having everything controlled by hereditary power. The reality of evolution is that it never stops & produces more failure than success. This holds true with any kind of system, whether it's social, economic, biological, or whatever. There's only 2 kinds of things that ever get done. The kind that you can do all by yourself & the kind that you need help with. The bigger the project, the more help you need. Unless somebody can come up with a way to get labor & materials for free (& we've pretty much rejected the use of slavery & having all the gold sitting in the king's vault), you need a way to put the financing together.

Capitalism isn't about competition. It's just about gathering money, without regard to who's doing what or why, or how many people are trying to do the same thing. The free market system is really a separate conversation, but it fits well with with the private finance system. None of it's about social systems, although everything's interconnected. It's all democracy because people can vote with their purse. People get too hung up on trying to equate varying isms. There's no reason why you can't mix & match any way you like. In the grand socio-economic evolutionary scheme of things, that's exactly what happens.

In a perfect world, the government would never have to interfere with financing. Nice pipe dream, but far from reality. The purpose of our government is stated in the preamble to the Constitution. The rest is details. Capitalism is the pooling of financial resources, so by default, it's all other people's money. The very idea that you can turn that many people loose with all that cash & trust them all to be honest is just crazy, or naive at best. Yet that's what we've been doing, & the purist ideologues still argue that we should continue in that vein, Meanwhile, we have the purist ideologues from another part of the political-economic sphere arguing that we should scrap the private system in favor of who knows what. & here I sit, glassy eyed, while all the purists insipidly decry the centralization of power. I just want the government to enforce the rules to protect most of the population that has some kind of skin in this game, even if it's just a Christmas club account at the local credit union. Hell, damn near everybody with a job relies on the system for their paycheck when you think about it. I don't want to be forced to trust people I don't know & have no way of controlling. The government is all I have.

If you want to see an interesting take on the 2008 bank panic & resulting collapse, check out this interview with Maria Bartiromo:
http://www.booktv.org/Watch/11843/After+Words+Maria+Bartiromo+The+Weekend+That+Chang ed+Wall+Street+hosted+by+Yves+Smith+creator+of+nak ed+capitalism.aspx
There's some real interesting information on TARP starting at about the 21 or 22 minute mark.


I really think the "left" (& I include you) has President Obama pegged wrong. In fact, I can't really tell the difference between the "left" & the "right" when I listen to the vitriol aimed his way. This gives me hope. The way I figure it; If the whole loud shrieking fringe of the political sphere is pissed off at the same focal point, then that must be the center & doing fine.

[south ov da border]

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/banking-financial-institutions/124183-report-fannie-freddie-paid-millions-to-help-run-tarp
Tarp and fannie and Freddy
...

[yodajazz]

thoughts on Obama?

YouTube - Fall of the Republic HQ full length version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU)

...
I wish I had time to watch this, but I don't. But from the little I saw, I think the "new world order" fears, are entirely unfounded. I don't see failing suburbs megering with other entities, let alone a nation, giving up any of its power to another entity. And even if there was theorectically some government official who wanted this, would people really just go along and accept it? No.

south ov da border Do you have time to say something on what this movie is about? Looks to me like it is a fear-mongering fest. Then fear does seem to be the major tatic of conservatives. Someone here posted a pic of Obama with darkened skin, in Arab garb. Straight BS. Nothing to do with any real issues. Comparing Obama to Hitler, like I saw on vids about Limbaugh and Beck, straight BS. Obama met separately with Republicans, to try to get their input on the healthcare bill. Obama is basically a mdoerate, for God's sake.

I did get a chance to watch a segement related to credit default swaps. I do think they are disasterous. However, I saw they are only talking about Democrats, when the the bill that made them legal was written, by Republican Phil Gramm. It passed in 1999 Unaminously in the Republican controlled Senate. According to Wikipedia, he lead a fight in 2001, to keep derivatives unregulated. And it is an official Republican stance to seek less regulation, and smaller government.

Also according the source in Hippifried's video, the reason why they did not reveal who needed bailout, to prevent a run on those needing it the most.

[south ov da border]

Republican...Democrat all the same, 2 sides of the same coin. I feel the next prez willbe even worse...

[hippifried]

It's just more rambling bullshit from Alex Jones.

[yodajazz]

Republican...Democrat all the same, 2 sides of the same coin. I feel the next prez willbe even worse...

I personally feel the Democrats are the lesser of two evils. But this is why, I question why the parts I saw, only mentioned or displayed Democrats. They mentioned about someone in Obama's administration being from a big Wall Street firm, but it happens all the time, from the private sector of big corporations to goverment, and back and forth. Look at Dick Cheney. In the video, I saw them mention person from Clinton and Obama's adminstration, but not the fact that the credit default swaps were made legal in a bill sponsored by Republican Phill Graham. One article I read said he was the brainchild behind the bill which was also co-sposored by others. In the past 30 years there have been 20 years of Republican presidents and 24 years of Republican controled Congress. Phil Gramm was John McCain's top financial advisor in his campaign, until he resigned after making a controversial remark about 'whiners'.

But it sounds like you would agree that a major problem with government is structural and not nescessarily a particular party. But speaking of Phil Gramm, his wife Wendy, was the chairman of The Commodities and Futures Trading Commission, under both Reagan and Bush Sr. An article I read, accused her of helping to push through some legislation, and then going to work for a private firm which benefited from it, three months later. My understanding is that this is not illegal. High government offices are most often, just stepping stones to higher paying Corporate jobs.

Republican's have the reputation of being pro-business. From what I saw fo the movie, I question its credibility, although it does make some good points, about the dangers of credit default swaps.

[DL_NL]

As long as the right wing religious fanatics still outnumber any reasonable politicians in the US, you're going to have to live with a narrow-minded society where no Democrats can ever achieve anything. Also, politics are only useful if you can make long-term plans but the voters are so dumb (everywhere in the world, actually) that they tend to punish their government by voting for someone else, thus not giving the current government any time to implement a decent long-term strategy. The result is more damage, because all changes get undone... costs lots of money and nothing much is achieved.

[El Nino]

Two wings of the same bird, my friends...

[trish]

The American Eagle

[El Nino]

Exactamundo

[south ov da border]

I don't agree with either party, I don't agree with the healthcare bill and that idea of cap and trade is a horrible idea in my opinion. The structure is the problem, way to big of a government to do much good. Problem is I don't see how things can change with the structure we have right now.

We don't produce goods anymore only consume, so how do we get out of the financial mess if we have nothing going out to bring funds back in???

[south ov da border]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/5-Campaign-Fibs-About-the-usnews-2615553179.html?x=0

intertesting link...

[trish]

We don't produce goods anymore only consume, ... Because we outsource production, in spite of the fact that American workers more productive than ever. Of course we could destroy all the unions, get rid of the minimum wage and take the next turn in the road toward becoming a third world country. Once the American laborer is reduced to working for a pittance perhaps corporations will see fit to produce their goods here again.

I agree that "cap and trade" is far from ideal. It's the only conservation compromise corporations were willing to make and that's because it provides ample opportunity to cheat. We need real emissions regulation.

There's a lot that wrong with the health-care bill, again because it's a compromise bill. It should be single payer. It's not. On the other hand, it prevents insurance companies from dropping your coverage because of pre-existing conditions. You can now cover your child up until he or she is 26, which is a good deal in these days when what jobs they can get are likely to be without benefits.

A lot of democrats are unhappy because Obama wasn't tough enough and didn't push a progressive agenda. A lot of republicans are saying they won't vote for anyone who'll compromise. The trouble with compromise is nobody ever gets exactly what they want. But without compromise, nobody gets anything.


Problem is I don't see how things can change with the structure we have right now.Don't pass legislation that gives incentives to corporations that outsource jobs. Spend more on infrastructure which will create jobs in various areas of construction. Let the tax breaks run out for those making over a quarter of million dollars annually. Even even we do the latter they will not pay taxes on their first quarter of a million dollars. Even without this 95% of Americans got a tax break just last year.

[yodajazz]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/5-Campaign-Fibs-About-the-usnews-2615553179.html?x=0

intertesting link...
I ran across this article myself. One scary thing is that when confronted by facts, many people are attacking the sources. Its like they cant take in any information that might challenge their beliefs. The article did state that the healthcare bill has provisions to make money as well as spend, and the money made is supposed pay for the cost. Whereas Republicans only mention the cost. I myself, forgot that the 1.2 trillion cost is spread out over 10 years. That makes a difference.

My family has recently run into major issues because of not having healthcare. It's a nightmare when someone who has life threatening illnesses cannot get medications. One more thing, I am a religious person, but I have not heard one Christian leader, talk about the compassion of helping those who have healthcare needs. With all the hatred and disrespect out in this election season, I have not heard anyone reminding us that Christ said to "love thy neighbor, as thyself." In the Bible greed is a sin, but many are not thinking about some of the financial skullduggery in a spiritual context.

More later.

[south ov da border]

I ran across this article myself. One scary thing is that when confronted by facts, many people are attacking the sources. Its like they cant take in any information that might challenge their beliefs. The article did state that the healthcare bill has provisions to make money as well as spend, and the money made is supposed pay for the cost. Whereas Republicans only mention the cost. I myself, forgot that the 1.2 trillion cost is spread out over 10 years. That makes a difference.

My family has recently run into major issues because of not having healthcare. It's a nightmare when someone who has life threatening illnesses cannot get medications. One more thing, I am a religious person, but I have not heard one Christian leader, talk about the compassion of helping those who have healthcare needs. With all the hatred and disrespect out in this election season, I have not heard anyone reminding us that Christ said to "love thy neighbor, as thyself." In the Bible greed is a sin, but many are not thinking about some of the financial skullduggery in a spiritual context.


More later.

I agree. Repubs fear monger the dollars spent, but just throw out the sum and not how it's calculated, I still am not sure about the healthcare bill because of the many things in the bill not mentioned, Seen and read about them but it's scary what is supposedly in it...

[yodajazz]

Two wings of the same bird, my friends...

If you want to know exactly what is wrong with Government today, revisit Dwight D Eisenhower's farewell speech.
YouTube - Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY)

Only I would say today it's the military-financial-political complex. The military has won, as they have an perpetual open checkbook. I'm thinking about how corporations can not only control government policy, but in many cases is the same as the government; as people go back and forth being employed by the private sector, who they were supposed to be overseeing.

Here's a classic example of what I am talking about. Wendy Gramm is the wife of former Republican Senator, Phil Gramm:

"In an apparent response to a 1992 plea from Enron, Dr. Wendy Gramm, then chair of the federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission, moved to exempt the company's energy-swap operation from government oversight. By then, the Houston-based Enron was a major contributor to Senator Gramm's campaign.

A few days after she got the ball rolling on the exemption, Wendy Gramm resigned from the commission. Enron soon appointed her to its board of directors, where she served on the audit committee, which oversees the inner financial workings of the corporation. For this, the company paid her between $915,000 and $1.85 million in stocks and dividends, as much as $50,000 in annual salary, and $176,000 in attendance fees, according to a report by Public Citizen, a group that has relentlessly tracked Enron, which in turn has called the report unfair.

Meanwhile Enron had become Phil Gramm's largest corporate contributor—and according to Public Citizen, the largest across-the board donor in its industry. Between 1989 and 2001, the company tossed Gramm just under $100,000."

http://www.selectsmart.com/DISCUSS/read.php?16,654671,654711

And there's a lot more to the story, here. They basically ripped off the California public, as well as their own employees, and investors. The ironic thing was that it was government intervention of re-inserting price controls that brought their house down. This points out what is the true purpose of government; to protect the general interests of the people.

My conclusion, is that I believe the real reason behind the Republican mantra of small government, and diminished oversight, is in order to let corporations/money take comeplete control. Republican in Congress are talking about trying to repeal the new financial reform law. I read in another article, that the same Phill Graham, fought successfully to keep the financial instrument, credit default swaps, free from government oversight. The practice only become legal in the 1999-2000 bill that Graham co-sponsored. Now there are reported to be multi-trillions of dollars of these instruments out there. Many say that, they greatly increase market volitility, and was the main cause of the collapse of Bear Stearns.

[badpreston577]

Lets say that i am a Obama supporter but I caution you that i was Hillary supporter first so a Demorcratic loyalist i supported the partys candidate. I see him as a strong willed, smart man who has 8 years of Bush's pollicies to overcome. Its very hard to do anything concrete in four years. I have a few points to make fisrt on the war front, it was Bush's war planned and executed by him the war would go on with whoever was in the white house. There are contractors in place doing the dirty work along with our fighting men and women there. Besides I still question the reasoning of executing the war in the first place. Alot of political capital was spent convincing us that the war was just, I digress we are there now lets finish what we got ourselves into and exit gracefully. The private sector is making a ton of money on war lets not kid ourselves. Any political candidate promising a quick end to this quagmire got bad advice, I falt Obama for that and I fault the liberals on unrealistic expectations. One the war I give Obama a INC-incomplete

The Ecomony, this was inherited from Bush and made worse by Obama and ill concieved deficeit spending. It will be 2 more years before we recover and make gains on the jobs front but I think washington must hold spending down and let the private sector create the jobs, govenment jobs are a dead end and the govenment cant really create jobs. grade C

I firmly agree that the conservatives have an agenda had one to unseat Obama since election night, anything i hear from them i have to say are they for the good of the nation or a personal vendetta?:yingyang:

[yodajazz]

@Badpreston577
The reason for the war in Iraq, short version; oil. Iraq has the second largest supply of oil reserves. 2. A group of Conservatives, felt that since the Soviet Union had fallen, the US had no real challenger for power and had the ability, to "reshape the world" to suit American interests. The US is the world's biggest user of oil. Look at the ideas of this think tank, calling itself, Project for a New American Century, sometimes referred to as PNAC.

Project for the New American Century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:PNAC.png" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a3/PNAC.png/300px-PNAC.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/a/a3/PNAC.png/300px-PNAC.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century)

They called for the ouster of Saddam Hussein publicly in 1998. Some key people from this group joined the Bush administration. Read the article and you will see that their ideas prevailed in the Bush II, adminstration. Look a the list of people who urged "regime change" in Iraq in 1998, in an open letter, who later had key positions within the Bush Administration: Donald Rumsfeld (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld), Paul Wolfowitz (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz), Richard Perle (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Richard_Perle), John Bolton (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/John_R._Bolton), Richard Armitage (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Richard_Armitage_(politician)), and Elliott Abrams (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Elliott_Abrams).[26] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-Reynolds1-25)[34] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-Pitt-33)[37] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-HijDem-36)[48] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-FrontlineIraqWarChron-47)
Former Secretary of the Treasury, John W Simon, after a controversial departure, stated that the invasion of Iraq was discussed at the very first cabinet meeting of George W Bush. This was before 9/11 as Bush took office in January 2001. The adminstration said, "he wasn't reliable." However, his name is on a lot of money. Check for his name, on bills in your wallet with the old format.

One position paper, issued by PNAC, said that the process of changing the world was likely to be a slow unless, their was a "new Pearl Harbor". Here is the paragraph in the Wiki article that states this:

Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" (51).[13] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-RAD2000-12)
Though not arguing that Bush administration PNAC members were complicit in those attacks, other social critics such as commentator Manuel Valenzuela (http://www.hungangels.com/w/index.php?title=Manuel_Valenzuela&action=edit&redlink=1) and journalist Mark Danner (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Mark_Danner),[37] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-HijDem-36)[38] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-Valenzuela1-37)[39] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-Valenzuela2-38) investigative journalist John Pilger (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/John_Pilger), in New Statesman (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/New_Statesman),[40] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-Pilger-39) and former editor of The San Francisco Chronicle (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/The_San_Francisco_Chronicle)Bernard Weiner (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Bernard_Weiner), in CounterPunch (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/CounterPunch),[41] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-Weiner-40) all argue that PNAC members used the events of 9/11 as the "Pearl Harbor" that they needed––that is, as an "opportunity" to "capitalize on" (in Pilger's words), in order to enact long-desired plans.

By the way, welcome to the board, BadPreston577.

[Niccolo]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/bowing%20to%20Saudi%20King.jpg

[south ov da border]

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific_business/view/1083758/1/.html

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2010/10/26/Russian-China-swap-loans-for-coal/UPI-19911288101528/






I don't hear people talking about things like China and Russia have an energy agreement. Russia supplies the most crude oil in the world and that means bad news for our economy. I think they are bumping out the dollar as the standard, which in my eyes is the start of something very ugly. Get ready for prices to rise rise rise and a possible middle east conflict. Is it gold time???

[hippifried]

Is it gold time???
No it's not. The only value of gold, other than its properties as a conductor, is mystique. It's scattered all over, in private hands. There's no gold reserve. Ergo, you can't have a gold standard. The gold standard was a myth to start with anyway. There was never enough in reserve. The peg to gold was the flaw of Bretton Woods. The attack on the dollar in the late '60s was merely an offer of more than $32 an oz for gold on the world markets by big European banks, especially the bank of England. The Nixon shock of '71 abrogated the treaty, ended 25 years of stable worldwide growth, & began the inflationary spiral that's still screwing with us. Think gold has value? Take a krugerrand, libertad, or gold eagle down to the grocery store & see what you can buy with it.

I think the worry over Russia & China is misplaced. What're the chances of the ruble becoming the world reserve currency, or the default petroleum exchange medium? I'm thinking somewhere between slim & none on a good day for them. As big a producer as they are, they're not OPEC. Russia's an economic basket case. Yeltsin's fascist policies screwed them good for a long time.

The yuan is pegged to the dollar, & the Chinese have no desire to change that, despite the Euro-American pressure to float their currency. They don't want to deal with hyperinflation. They have energy aggreements with everbody who produces fuels. Nigeria, Sudan, all the OPECers including Venezuela & Iran, Ecuador, Mexico, UK, Russia, VietNam, & even the US, etc... Everybody has their own agenda. Anybody can cut their own deals. If, somehow, that's not allowed, then we might as well capitulate to the commies, or fascists, or whatever fringe nutcase ideologues, stop lying to ourselves about free market capitalism, & toss the whole system in the round file. Personally, I'd rather not at this point in time.

If you're really worried about the dollar losing its clout & status as the default reserve through currency manipulation, you should be looking at Europe, & especially the UK. Irrespective of the daily or quarterly currency exchange sillies & gambling odds, the euro isn't going anywhere & will continue as relatively strong & stable. The weakness of the EU right now is its structure as a confederacy. I really don't think they can handle the responsibility of being the world's reserve, or want to at this point. The pound is propped up by mystique & hubris. That's a little scary since monetary power is the only way left to hold on to any semblance of the British empire. They can afford to gamble too, becase they're the only ones who actually use the pound as money, & the option of shifting to the euro is still open to them.

Everybody's nationalistic to an extent, but nobody's as stupid about it as the Europeans, eurocentric (including much of the common thought process in the US), & Japanese. So here's my prediction:

In the next few decades, 2 generations tops, there will be a common currency, similar to the euro, throughout southern Asia, sans Japan. This may pave the way for Korean reunification too. Same goes for South America. They may even do it quicker. Last holdouts there will be Columbia (US pressure) & Suriname (still under Dutch rule).

[yodajazz]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/bowing%20to%20Saudi%20King.jpg
Why do people make a big deal out of trival gestures. He was probably bending down in order to grab him by the balls. The meaning of the gesture has more symbolism meaning that US does not hate Muslims, that Bin Laden's msessage is wrong; That we are not at war with Islam. But we have waged war with nations that have predominate Muslim populations. But US policy should not be help radical Islam accomplish its goals. Making friends is near the top of important war strategies.

[giovanni_hotel]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/bowing%20to%20Saudi%20King.jpg

Right, BHO should have handled his bidnez like Dubya!!

http://www.treehugger.com/bush-abdullah-holding-hands.jpg

[giovanni_hotel]

We went through a major housing bubble in the '80s. When it burst, it crashed the entire savings & loan industry.There was an S&L on every corner, but when the smoke cleared, there probably wasn't a half dozen in the country with open doors.

There was one in the '70s too. It didn't get bad enough to crash the financials because the "stagflation" slowed it down & the oddball baloon loans were exposed early for the scam they were.

I guess my point is that this isn't a recent or 'right now' problem. It's just minor tweaks on the same crap over & over. Everybody's forced to jack up profit margins by whatever means because they're hedging against inflation. Stable margins don't work when everything's unstable. The problem isn't politics or any of the other crap that most of the bitching's about. The problem's inflation. The only ones charged with the fight against inflation are the Fed, & all they can do tighten credit. We already have tight credit, & you see what that does. The economic templates don't work because this inflation is artificial. The currency market is a skimming operation, & there's a direct corelation between the amount being skimmed & the rate of decline. Shut it down. You do that by pegging the currencies to each other & fixing the exchange rates.

Housing didn't crash the banks. It was a major factor, but they were leveraged way beyond solvency. Still are. The CDOs were a fraud, & it really needs to be prosecuted. The problem is that all this junk paper is still floating around out there & nobody knows exactly how to clear it off the books. It's going to take a while.

Excellent post, among many others posted by everyone in this thread.
Sometimes I'm still taken aback by the level of economic/political discussions being held on a tranny porn board!!:fuckin:

Just sayin'!

[Cuchulain]

@Badpreston577
The reason for the war in Iraq, short version; oil. Iraq has the second largest supply of oil reserves. 2. A group of Conservatives, felt that since the Soviet Union had fallen, the US had no real challenger for power and had the ability, to "reshape the world" to suit American interests.

Hello yodajazz and everyone else. I see the politics section is still on life support.

I agree with your reasoning yodajazz, but feel there's more to it. Here's a golden article from Harper's back in '04 that I always point to when discussing the reason for the occupation.

'The honey theory of Iraqi reconstruction stems from the most cherished belief of the war's ideological architects: that greed is good. Not good just for them and their friends but good for humanity, and certainly good for Iraqis. Greed creates profit, which creates growth, which creates jobs and products and services and everything else anyone could possibly need or want. The role of good government, then, is to create the optimal conditions for corporations to pursue their bottomless greed, so that they in turn can meet the needs of the society. The problem is that governments, even neoconservative governments, rarely get the chance to prove their sacred theory right: despite their enormous ideological advances, even George Bush's Republicans are, in their own minds, perennially sabotaged by meddling Democrats, intractable unions, and alarmist environmentalists.
Iraq was going to change all that. In one place on Earth, the theory would finally be put into practice in its most perfect and uncompromised form. A country of 25 million would not be rebuilt as it was before the war; it would be erased, disappeared. In its place would spring forth a gleaming showroom for laissez-faire economics, a utopia such as the world had never seen. Every policy that liberates multinational corporations to pursue their quest for profit would be put into place: a shrunken state, a flexible workforce, open borders, minimal taxes, no tariffs, no ownership restrictions. The people of Iraq would, of course, have to endure some short-term pain: assets, previously owned by the state, would have to be given up to create new opportunities for growth and investment. Jobs would have to be lost and, as foreign products flooded across the border, local businesses and family farms would, unfortunately, be unable to compete. But to the authors of this plan, these would be small prices to pay for the economic boom that would surely explode once the proper conditions were in place, a boom so powerful the country would practically rebuild itself'
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197

Seems the honey plan wasn't so sweet after all.

I enjoyed the 'Ike' clip in your earlier post as well, yodajazz.

Ok, this is where hippifried jumps in and accuses me of hyperbole (although this has been a pretty tame post for me - I didn't even use the term REICHwing).

[hippifried]

Ok, this is where hippifried jumps in and accuses me of hyperbole (although this has been a pretty tame post for me - I didn't even use the term REICHwing).

Moi??? :shock:
Oh perish the thought. (where'd I put that damned halo?)

Actually, I think the Harpers piece has a pretty good handle on some of the thought process that went into making the decisions that were made. I just think they give these guys waaaay too much credit for ideological purity. The deal with ideologues is that they get pushed in front to make the academic arguments in public, but nobody in their right mind would ever actually put them in charge of anything. Bill Kristol (with the kool-aid grin) is forever in some pundit's chair or another, talking up the simplistic beauty of neoconishness, but he has no clout when it comes to decisive action. GW Bush played the dumb hick role brilliantly, but nobody should ever be lulled into thinking that he really was. Ronald Reagan talked a bunch of "fiscal conservative", but when pressed on the outrageous deficits getting run up to handle his policies, he merely said "debt doesn't matter". These guys were all just straight up crooks. That automatically raises the amount of cynic points.

I don't think any of it was so high minded as to give 2 shits about the Iraqis. Aside from the nationalized oil, they already had a laissez faire economy. Prior to & even during the sanctions, they had thriving middle & merchant classes. They had a high literacy rate, including women. (believe it or not, Shia is actually the liberal wing of Islam) They had unionized trades, including the oil workers. They had a well organized bureaucracy & an efficient police force. They weren't commies. Of course the entire society had to be destroyed. We just HAD to. How else could we spend billions training amateurs to do the jobs of all the professionals we fired? But hey, the objective was reached. All that oil is now in the hands of private industry without all that OPEC interference. Gimme gimme gimme...

[beandip]

He's the Banksters bitch, just like Shrub before him. Everything else after that doesn't matter.

Same as the last asshole, just different skin pigment.

[beandip]

Giovanni Hotel: "Sometimes I wish Obama had nixed tarp and the stimulus package just to end Right wing voodoo economic policies once and for all."

Now that's some funny shit there... who was it again that signed "Glas-Ste" That got us into this mess?

I'll give ya a hint there slappy... he wasn't "right wing".

[beandip]

Dayum Goku....finally someone with a clue (and then some).

Rock on.

[beandip]

Hippifried: "Housing didn't crash the banks. It was a major factor, but they were leveraged way beyond solvency. Still are. The CDOs were a fraud, & it really needs to be prosecuted. The problem is that all this junk paper is still floating around out there & nobody knows exactly how to clear it off the books. It's going to take a while."

Wow you fucking pompous asshole, you sure changed your tune in 2 years...
hahahahahahahahaha

You sure were slow to come round though.

We have laws that can "clear the books". Being that the FED (member banks) are insolvent, as I pointed out to you 2 years ago, they need to be dissolved, their bones picked clean. Then and only then can our economy begin to heal. The problem is that all the member banks of the FED have in fact "shorted" each other... so when the first one goes (likely BoA), all the rest go down too, which I also pointed out to you before.

It must suck living with a two year time lag.

[yodajazz]

Hippifried: "Housing didn't crash the banks. It was a major factor, but they were leveraged way beyond solvency. Still are. The CDOs were a fraud, & it really needs to be prosecuted. The problem is that all this junk paper is still floating around out there & nobody knows exactly how to clear it off the books. It's going to take a while."

Wow you fucking pompous asshole, you sure changed your tune in 2 years...
hahahahahahahahaha

You sure were slow to come round though.

We have laws that can "clear the books". Being that the FED (member banks) are insolvent, as I pointed out to you 2 years ago, they need to be dissolved, their bones picked clean. Then and only then can our economy begin to heal. The problem is that all the member banks of the FED have in fact "shorted" each other... so when the first one goes (likely BoA), all the rest go down too, which I also pointed out to you before.

It must suck living with a two year time lag.

I'm not so sure that having mega banks gooble up more smaller banks is the solution. It was better when banks had a stake in the communities where they were located. Once mega banking took over, it was all about pushing paper, (loans). Whether they were sound or not did not matter much, cause they were selling them off to other investors. And they could cover their risk with CDO's. I was in housing court, and one man was there, representing his father, who lives in China. I'm sure they did not tell that Chineese man, that he was buying, a ghetto property with numerous code violations.

The bigger the entity is, it seems the less it matters about people. I tend to trust government more than private corporations, because at least government has some accountablity to the people.

[beandip]

I'm not so sure that having mega banks gooble up more smaller banks is the solution.

With all due respect, you have it backwards, or misread what I posted.

It is not the solution. The MEGA banks are tits up. There is a legal mechanism to rectify this problem. It's called bankruptcy. Let the smaller SOLVENT regional banks who have played by the rules and have been more conservative in their business model strip the big banks of their (very few) legit assets. That is the only way for this economy to heal. It is mathamatically impossible for us to "grow" our way out of this debt. Not even with 10% "growth". Not even with 30% tax hikes across the board for EVERYONE + 10% growth. The numbers do not add up. As I stated 2 years ago, this is mainly a battle between the bigger Banking institutions....and to a lesser extent a battle between the Yuan, Euro and the Dollar. We are fucked. But Europe is more fucked than we are. The EU will crumble before the US. Do you really think Merkel and the Germans want to bail out Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece? Nope.

Now think about this. We've had two missiles launched off of our coasts in the last two weeks. There are 5 country's with that capability. US, France, Russa , China and the US. Notice how much shit paper (UST) China currently holds. Notice what Bernanke has started to do (QE2). How would you like being China....holding billions and billions of US debt, knowing that the US can NEVER pay it back....and then watch as Bernanke devalues that debt into oblivion.

So those 2 pretty little displays of fireworks....were for the benefit of US to see.

Notice how Obama is taking more road trips outside the country? It's for a reason.

But again.... as I was blabbing two years ago in this forum, there is no political will to do the right thing.


So
we're
all
going
down.

Hang on. You can not argue simple mathematics.

Within 6 to 9 months you'll see fighting in the streets. J6P will largely be on the sidelines. It will be the Government Union Leachfucks and thugs....against the Banksters.

See all you fukkers in another two years......if we're still here....

[hippifried]

Wow, Benie. You should wear your water wings when going off the deep end.

[PomonaCA]

With all due respect, you have it backwards, or misread what I posted.

It is not the solution. The MEGA banks are tits up. There is a legal mechanism to rectify this problem. It's called bankruptcy. Let the smaller SOLVENT regional banks who have played by the rules and have been more conservative in their business model strip the big banks of their (very few) legit assets. That is the only way for this economy to heal. It is mathamatically impossible for us to "grow" our way out of this debt. Not even with 10% "growth". Not even with 30% tax hikes across the board for EVERYONE + 10% growth. The numbers do not add up. As I stated 2 years ago, this is mainly a battle between the bigger Banking institutions....and to a lesser extent a battle between the Yuan, Euro and the Dollar. We are fucked. But Europe is more fucked than we are. The EU will crumble before the US. Do you really think Merkel and the Germans want to bail out Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece? Nope.

Now think about this. We've had two missiles launched off of our coasts in the last two weeks. There are 5 country's with that capability. US, France, Russa , China and the US. Notice how much shit paper (UST) China currently holds. Notice what Bernanke has started to do (QE2). How would you like being China....holding billions and billions of US debt, knowing that the US can NEVER pay it back....and then watch as Bernanke devalues that debt into oblivion.

So those 2 pretty little displays of fireworks....were for the benefit of US to see.

Notice how Obama is taking more road trips outside the country? It's for a reason.

But again.... as I was blabbing two years ago in this forum, there is no political will to do the right thing.


So
we're
all
going
down.

Hang on. You can not argue simple mathematics.

Within 6 to 9 months you'll see fighting in the streets. J6P will largely be on the sidelines. It will be the Government Union Leachfucks and thugs....against the Banksters.

See all you fukkers in another two years......if we're still here....


We have more guns so we'll win. I'm using the term "we" quite loosely.

Because I support my local shop owners, I have more guns than every liberal I know. So on a local level, my neighborhood will be liberal free come Armageddon time.

[hippifried]

We have more guns so we'll win. I'm using the term "we" quite loosely.

Because I support my local shop owners, I have more guns than every liberal I know. So on a local level, my neighborhood will be liberal free come Armageddon time.
Punk-speak...

Translation:
"gee I hope nobody sees me."

[PomonaCA]

Punk-speak...



So now you're going to try talk street? What happened to your alleged intelligence? LOL

[hippifried]

So now you're going to try talk street? What happened to your alleged intelligence? LOL
I'm from the streets & you're clueless. Sniveling wimps like you who talk shit about guns don't impress anybody but other sniveling wimps.

Intellect is merely the ability to process information. I don't need talking points.

You ain't nothing but a punk.

[south ov da border]

I'd like to not be here right now. I don't feel good about our direction as a nation...

[beandip]

So now you're going to try talk street? What happened to your alleged intelligence? LOL

Why waste it on you?

[beandip]

We have more guns so we'll win. I'm using the term "we" quite loosely.

Because I support my local shop owners, I have more guns than every liberal I know. So on a local level, my neighborhood will be liberal free come Armageddon time.


I hope so.... he's a little look at "Progressives" and their agenda.


This should scare the shit out of everyone.

It probably deserves it's own thread.

Woah!… Soros Group Says Obama Can Use Armed Forces to Push “Progressive” Agenda

Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, November 18, 2010, 12:15 PM

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/wp-content/themes/Gateway-Pundit-Wordpress-Theme/images/btn-prev-post.jpg (http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2010/11/counsel-recommends-censuring-democrat-charlie-rangel/)
http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/wp-content/themes/Gateway-Pundit-Wordpress-Theme/images/btn-next-post.jpg (http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2010/11/arab-americans-counter-protest-westboro-freaks-in-dearbornistan/)

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/goosestep-e1290105053527.jpg (http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/goosestep.jpg)
John Podesta from the Center for American Progress released a report this week that, among other things, suggested that Obama can use the US Military to push the president’s radical totalitarian agenda.
The Blaze (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/podesta-obama-can-use-armed-forces-to-push-progressive-agenda/) reported:

The liberal Center for American Progress doesn’t believe significant GOP gains in the House and Senate should stop the President from implementing more of his polices. The group released a report Tuesday suggesting ways Obama can bypass Congress to accomplish a progressive agenda, and it cites the president’s power as commander-in-chief to make its point.
“I think most of the conversation since the election has been about how President Obama adjusts to the new situation on Capitol Hill,” Center for American Progress head and former Bill Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta told the Daily Caller. “While that’s an important conversation, it simply ignores the president’s ability to use all levels of his power and authority to move the country forward.”
How does one “move the country forward”? In the center’s report, Podesta explains that Obama can use executive orders, rulemaking, and even the armed forces “to accomplish important change” and that such means “should not be underestimated.”
What exactly does Podesta think the president should use such powers to “accomplish”? Among others, the report suggests “job creation,“ ”quality affordable health care,“ ”sustainable security,“ and ”a clean energy future.”
The report cites specific goals such as mitigating the effects of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, supporting a Palestinian state, and reducing greenhouse gasses by 17 percent by 2020.
The Center for American Progress was given a 3-year $3,000,000 grant (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_American_Progress) by George Soros’ Open Society Institute in 2006.
Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org/), the communication wing of the Center for American Progress, was given a $1,000,000 grant (http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/1010/Soros_gives_1_million_to_Media_Matters.html) by George Soros in October.




http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2010/11/woah-soros-group-says-obama-can-use-armed-forces-to-push-progressive-agenda/

[trish]

Hey, what's a little second amendment remedy among friends?

[PomonaCA]

I'm from the streets


LOL what street are you from? LMAO!!

[hippifried]

LOL what street are you from? LMAO!!
I don't need to explain anything about myself to punks. (& I don't say that with an Ashton Kutcherish twist) You're easily recognizable. It's been my experience throught the years that those who talk about being badass are most likely just pussies.



So Beandip,
Who, exactly, are the bad guys? Is there a Koch/Soros conglomerated plot to take over the world? Have they already succeded? Are the teabag progressives their PR army?

One more question: If somebody has the entire fringe of the political sphere pissed off, isn't that a sign that they're doing something right?

[south ov da border]

I'n my Riley Freeman voice -- Cuz I be in the Streets, ya know...

[Odelay]

I still think Barack Obama is a pretty cool dude

I know many of my friends on the Left consider him a sell out. A year ago, former co-workers of mine bitched and complained that he wasn't doing enough to increase jobs. Then I was laid off 6 months later. Ha ha. But still, even though I'm looking for work, I am optimistic that we're on a better track than we were before. I'll get another job soon enough.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/220013

This Rolling Stone piece outlines many of Obama's accomplishments, and I have to say it's impressive. We all know about the health care bill, but when you get right down to the bank and auto bailouts, those actions will ultimately pay for themselves as the government recoups money directly from the banks and auto companies. Granted, many of the tea partiers hate the bailouts on principle, but 2 yrs ago I was very worried about what would happen if we let the US Auto Industry and the State of Michigan to go belly up. The ripple effects would have creamed the economy. Basically, there is no mechanism in private industry to prevent disastrous industry collapses from occurring that subsequently destroy the economy for all. You can't get IBM to pony up billions to save GM. Or Merck to pony up billions to save Citi. Obama, and his predecessor GW Bush, intervened with the US government in a way that private industry was incapable of doing. Thank God for that.

I still think it's way cool that we elected a black (or half white/half black) person as President. It's progress. I think in some ways, the criticism he gets from Beck, Limbaugh and others is natural. People have a hard time with radical changes from the status quo. People get a chance to speak their mind freely in this country during these changes. Eventually it won't be a big deal when we elect a non-white, or a woman, or even a GBLT to the top office.

Hopefully he'll get re-elected in 2012. But even if he doesn't, he'll have done a pretty good job under difficult circumstances. Not bad, in my opinion.

Odelay

[beandip]

Obama, Nobel Peace Prize winner:


The Obama administration has quietly forged ahead with its proposal to sell $60 billion worth of fighter jets and attack helicopters to Saudi Arabia unhampered by Congress, despite questions raised in legislative inquiries and in an internal congressional report about the wisdom of the deal.

The massive arms deal would be the single largest sale of weapons to a foreign nation in the history of the U.S., outfitting Saudi Arabia with a fully modernized, potent new air force.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/critics-slam-obama-administration-hiding-massive-saudi-arms/story?id=12192558

[beandip]

This Rolling Stone piece outlines many of Obama's accomplishments, and I have to say it's impressive. We all know about the health care bill, but when you get right down to the bank and auto bailouts, those actions will ultimately pay for themselves as the government recoups money directly from the banks and auto companies.You mean the health care bill that saddles every individual with a new $2600.00 a year tax? The health care bill that puts that tax monies into the general slush fund?
The health care bill that has no health care kicking in until 2014?

Bank Bail outs?

Are you aware of the fact that the 5 private banks that make up the FED are completely insolvent? Are you aware of the fact that the bail out money did NOT go towards providing liquidity in the markets?

Holy fucking shit, what ever you're smoking... put it the fuck down.



Granted, many of the tea partiers hate the bailouts on principle, but 2 yrs ago I was very worried about what would happen if we let the US Auto Industry and the State of Michigan to go belly up. The ripple effects would have creamed the economy.You are bat-shit crazy.

YouTube - Markets, inflation, China, Buffett, GM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_HQjDr72FU&feature=player_embedded)

GM fucked the US taxpayer 16 ways to Sunday. They're closing down plants here in the US and using your tax money to build plants in China.


Basically, there is no mechanism in private industry to prevent disastrous industry collapses from occurring that subsequently destroy the economy for all.Yes there is you stupid fucker. It's legal, and it's called corporate bankruptcy. You do NOT reward failed business models. You let them go tits up and let SOLVENT businesses who know how to run a damned business pick their bones clean. At no cost to the tax payer I might add.

[Odelay]

Well, the title of the thread asked people how they thought Obama was doing. I said my piece. You resorted to calling me a "stupid fucker". I wonder who truly looks smarter in this exchange.

[yodajazz]

Well, the title of the thread asked people how they thought Obama was doing. I said my piece. You resorted to calling me a "stupid fucker". I wonder who truly looks smarter in this exchange.

I have noticed a lack of civility among many those expressing conservative, or anti-Obama views lately. Thier views of humanity seem to be pretty bleak.

[beandip]

I call it like I see it. If you're going to post something and have a position, at least get your fucking facts straight. I do not care if I look smarter or not. It's not about ME, and it's not about YOU, it's about the fact that this country is a turd circling the fucking bowl now because of complete ineptitude and corruption at the top. Argue the facts asshole, ok? As far as "conservatism" goes... I am a fiscal conservative, but actually quite liberal in my social views. I'm just so sick of stupid motherfuckers who can not grasp how government actually works....and can not deal with simple 3rd grade arithmetic.

Shrub was every bit of a scumbucket corrupt asshole as Nobama is. If we do not tackle the crony-ism and corruption in this country...all these bullshit arguments about God, Gays and Guns aren't gonna mean shit. If you can't get your fat fucking skull around the fact that the PTB at the top all work for the same masters... then you don't have a prayer to survive in the shit storm headed down the pike.

Sorry if I hurt your feeeeelings but some of you need a really good kick upside your fucking heads to knock the dust out of your cranium.

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/11/19.... (http://spectator.org/archives/2010/11/19/who-owns-whom)


Bestselling investigative reporter Charles Gasparino's latest tome Bought and Paid For: The Unholy Alliance Between Barack Obama and Wall Street commences not with a scene from the much-ballyhooed first one hundred days of the new Administration, but at a hush-hush 2007 pow-wow at Johnny's Half Shell in Washington, D.C. between then-Senator Barack Obama and executives from Wall Street's top firms -- Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns -- which went so swimmingly the only warm fuzzy it lacked was the ghost of Humphrey Bogart intoning, "Barry, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."

From there the Fox Business Network senior correspondent and Daily Beast columnist lays out in gobstopping detail just how well both sides have since profited from this extended dalliance, combining fiery outsider indignation with hard-won insider knowledge, narrative prowess, and a true knack for the telling anecdote -- disgraced Bear Stearns hedge fund manager Warren Spector spending his days knocking on Florida doors as a volunteer Obama campaign worker and nights bedded down at luxury hotels while his preferred candidate ceaselessly derides Republicans as the party of Wall Street is but one among many doozies.

Bought and Paid For is, in short, required reading for anyone interested in the obscured behind the scenes machinations of the economic maelstrom we currently find ourselves mired in. Gasparino was recently kind enough to speak with TAS about his book.

TAS: What compelled you to write Bought and Paid For?

Charles Gasparino: The notion of Big Government and Big Wall Street colluding to do bad things is something I've covered for a long time. I've always been interested in the conflicts between public policy and finance. What I've seen over the years is this seemingly bizarre anomaly of how Wall Street, which is allegedly the epicenter of capitalism, in reality thrived on something that is very anti-capitalist, which is Big Government. Crony capitalism. And these guys aren't doing it just to make money on fees selling government bonds to finance the deficit or government programs. The people at the top have political beliefs that are strongly aligned with progressivism.

TAS: Reading your book I was surprised to learn how kindred a spirit the big players of Big Finance saw in Barack Obama, particularly at first. They weren't supporting him simply as a pragmatic, strategic move. David Axelrod joked about Obama having a "man crush" on JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon and you write financial executives saw the future president as "a guy who could have easily worked at a big Wall Street law firm if he hadn't gone into community organizing first."

Gasparino: I think a lot of the country was projecting something onto Obama they wanted to see but maybe wasn't there. Here was one of the most far left politicians I have ever seen -- based on his record, based on his associations, everything. People forget Reverend Wright, aside from his racially charged language, taught liberation theology, which basically says the Bible is infused with Marxism. That's his spiritual mentor. And all these Wall Street guys were lining up to support him.

TAS: Why?

Gasparino: Well, first, McCain couldn't stand them. It was oil and water. He screamed at Hank Paulson any chance he got. He'd spent five years in a prisoner-of-war camp, crashed a couple planes -- not exactly the type of guy who's gonna kiss a banker's ass. McCain was foreign to them and his campaign doubled down on that foreign-ness by picking Sarah Palin. When they looked at Obama they saw a guy who went to their schools, who shared their manners, who didn't break their chops. Obama was just so personally charming that something like Reverend Wright or Bill Ayers didn't have any effect. They believed at heart Obama was a moderate who understood them. And it panned out. If you look at one line of work that's done very well under Obama it isn't construction, it isn't small business or entrepreneurship. It's all the big banks that started making a ton of money the minute they got bailed out, and all those bailout mechanisms Bush put in place have been carried over and doubled down on under Obama.

TAS: Do you think the difference between the media caricature of Wall Street as a militant free-market bastion and its limousine liberal reality will ever be cleared up in the general public's mind?

Gasparino: I think it already has been. That's why the President started attacking Wall Street like a minute after Scott Brown won Teddy Kennedy's seat. The public has definitely started to put it all together. I'm not a member of the Tea Party by any stretch of the imagination, but I will say one of the good things about that movement is that they understand this inside game, they don't like it, and they want it to end. They understand how corrupting it is for the entire system when Big Business can exploit the growth of Big Government. They instinctively know there is huge hypocrisy in Obama calling these guys fat cats when Wall Street is just exploiting what he presented them to exploit. Now, Wall Street shouldn't be commended for that, but let's be honest about it: this was a partnership…. This country is in desperate, desperate straits because government has skewed the incentives. The free market, which has been demonized, wouldn't have given these guys a bonus. It would have destroyed all of their businesses.

TAS: Could there be Big Government on the scale we've recently seen it without the complicity of Big Finance and Wall Street?

Gasparino: They feed off each other. If there were no bailout, I guess you could say there'd be no opportunity to make money off the bailout. But what we can say is you need someone to underwrite Obamacare. Wall Street is there to do that. BlackRock managed all the toxic assets of Bear Stearns. When they do cap-and-trade, they'll be creating a new commodity to be traded on some exchange somewhere. The Fed, urged on by the White House, went in and bought $1.3 trillion mortgage backed securities, artificially propping up the market with taxpayer money. All the Wall Street firms that bought for pennies on the dollar are benefiting from the appreciation of a market that is only appreciating because of taxpayer money. Forget financial reform. The banks have made a killing since the bailout. And the average American? They're stuck with the wonderful stimulus package that gave us 9.6 percent unemployment.

TAS: The last chapter of your book sums up this collusion between Big Finance and Big Government, sarcastically, as "Money Well Spent." Does the failure of recent government intervention -- diehard, never-could-be-convinced-otherwise defenders notwithstanding -- signal that we're on the verge of this sort of alliance no longer being money well spent?

Gasparino: Look, I think crony capitalism hurts the system. It basically allows a few privileged, wealthy, connected people to do well exploiting the spoils of government that the rest of us can't. It's getting worse, it ain't getting better. The small business lobby is not as strong as the fat cat lobby in Washington. The bailouts of the last 30 years are how Wall Street got used to taking so much risk, and the latest bailouts? The government thought by creating a market of mortgage-backed securities somehow that whole shadow banking system that allowed the banks to make those loans in the first place would come back, but it never did because banks think logically about this: "Why should we be extending loans when we can just make money off this one program?"

Unintended consequences. That's the problem when government gets involved in this stuff. When will banks start making loans again? Well, you need the mortgage market to deflate. It'll only deflate when we have more pain. Now, there was no easy answer. But if you let natural forces take control in the financial crisis…firms go under, they stop lending, prices of securities drop dramatically, lots of losses. A tremendous amount of pain. And then the ones that survive pick up the pieces. But look what happens when you bail them out. They limp along for two years. Instead of the immediate pain you have a dead man walking. That's what we have right now. The bailouts just postpone the inevitable.

[hippifried]

I call it like I see it.

No you don't. You just parrot the Birchers.
You claim that facts are on your side, but all I see from you is innuendo based opinion, & a blind willingness to believe anything that supports your crusade without question.

Who are these "masters" you talk about? Let me guess: The CFR, Trilateral Commission, David Rockefeller, the Rothchilds, etc... Illuminati maybe? The foreign "owners" of the Fed? Anybody who's figured out the system & made money off of it? I've been hearing this same story fo over 40 years (since I started paying attention) with the same cast of characters, & when I looked a little farther, that was just warmed over McCarthyism.

What I've noticed from the extremes around the political sphere, regardless of bent, is the same theme & proposed solution, with the same cast of characters. The proposed solution from all sides is to destroy the system or let it collapse. Sorry. Can't buy the doom & gloom or the no-win scenario. I don't want to live in a third world country.

[Ben]

Saturday, November 20, 2010 by Agence France-Presse (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/natosummitobamatransportenvironmentoffbeat/print) Obama's 'Beast' of a Limo Stands Out at Green NATO Summit

LISBON - The Portuguese hosts of Friday's NATO summit hoped to use the event to promote clean-energy and electric cars, but all eyes were on US President Barack Obama's diesel-guzzling "Beast" instead.
http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/obamas-beast.jpgPresident Barack Obama steps out of his eight-ton armored behemoth of a limousine and is welcomed by his Portuguese counterpart Anibal Antonio Cavaco Silva (C) in Lisbon on Friday. The Portugese hosts of Friday's NATO summit hoped to use the event to promote the clean-living electric car, but all eyes were on Obama's diesel-guzzling "Beast" instead. (AFP/Pierre-Philippe Marcou)


As is usual when he travels, Obama's eight-ton armored behemoth of a limousine was flown out to Lisbon before the US leader's arrival, and it ferried him from the airport tarmac to his first meetings of the weekend.Doubtless he didn't intend the Beast's roar to drown out his hosts' green message, but a US presidential motorcade and its attendant escort of Secret Service SUVs do attract attention, even at the most elite gatherings.
Earlier, Prime Minister Jose Socrates and his fellow Portuguese, the president of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso, had arrived at the summit in quiet, zero-emission electric cars.
"I'd like to underline the priority both our countries assign to renewable energy and electric vehicles," Socrates said, after meeting Obama, amid amused sniping from the Portuguese press at the mixed messages.
Portugal is proud of the lead it has taken in introducing what it says is the world's first national electric vehicle charging network, with 100 power outlets in 25 towns and plans to install 1,300 by next year.
The government was particularly keen for the press covering the summit to underline this, and a news release describing the recharging network was already on each of the tables in the media center as the global pack arrived.
Within the highly secure summit site, electric buses were put on to ferry journalists between venues.
In theory, at least, Obama was on side with the plan, remarking: "An area where I want to congratulate the prime minister and the Portuguese people is for the extraordinary leadership that you've shown in clean energy.
"The prime minister's leadership on electric cars will create new opportunities for American companies here in Portugal ... and this is an example of what Portugal and America can achieve together."
But there was no immediate reaction from the White House to criticism of Obama's rather less green form of transport, and the administration has in the past said that the president's security arrangements are non-negotiable.
© 2010 Agence France-Presse

[Kunzy]

He's an Idiot!!

big spending ass kissing feminists man hating idiot

[beandip]

No you don't. You just parrot the Birchers.
You claim that facts are on your side, but all I see from you is innuendo based opinion, & a blind willingness to believe anything that supports your crusade without question.

Who are these "masters" you talk about? Let me guess: The CFR, Trilateral Commission, David Rockefeller, the Rothchilds, etc... Illuminati maybe? The foreign "owners" of the Fed? Anybody who's figured out the system & made money off of it? I've been hearing this same story fo over 40 years (since I started paying attention) with the same cast of characters, & when I looked a little farther, that was just warmed over McCarthyism.

What I've noticed from the extremes around the political sphere, regardless of bent, is the same theme & proposed solution, with the same cast of characters. The proposed solution from all sides is to destroy the system or let it collapse. Sorry. Can't buy the doom & gloom or the no-win scenario. I don't want to live in a third world country.You stupid fucking useless excuse for a human being.


I've been hearing this same story for over 40 years (since I started paying attention) with the same cast of charactersObviously you're not paying enough attention. Where there is smoke there is fire,

You've been baking fatties for 40 years. Must be just something typical of your useless generation (fried).


What I've noticed from the extremes around the political sphere, regardless of bent, is the same theme & proposed solution, with the same cast of characters.Here is the voice of fraud.

YouTube - 2010-11-09 Greenspan Admission.mp4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=731G71Sahok&feature=player_embedded)

Are you arguing that there is no fraud here?

Don't take my word for it. There are many voices of reason"

Chris Whalen:

When I am speaking on the banking industry, I tell the audience that the task ahead is like cutting off a few fingers with a kitchen knife. The bad news is that it will hurt like hell. The good news is that the fingers, eventually, will grow back. The Obama Administration needs to change direction and to embrace restructuring and national renewal instead of the current policy of extend and pretend. The same factors that drove Ambac into bankruptcy are working on Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JPMorganChase and will eventually force a restructuring. The sooner we start the process, the sooner the U.S. economy will recover.
Indeed, I expect that the Obama Administration will eventually, reluctantly be forced to invoke the powers under the Dodd-Frank law and restructure the top-three U.S. banks. This will be near-total losses for equity holders and haircuts for creditors, but the end result will be a solvent bank that is smaller, profitable and able to again lend. http://blogs.reuters.com/christopher-whalen/2010/11/18/standing-on-the-brink-of-a-fresh-financial-start/


Want proof of what's coming down the pike? Want more names?

Need charts?

YouTube - 2010-11-07 Remove Bernanke.mp4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK4dxacv7jY&feature=player_embedded)

Just how fucking stupid are you?

So voices from both the left and the right do not matter? Be specific please. What cast of characters upset you? With what people asking for social justice and fiscal sanity do you have a bone to pick?

Here are just a few that are asking for this nonsense and outright robbery of American wealth to stop.



We believe the Federal Reserve’s large-scale asset purchase plan (so-called “quantitative easing”) should be reconsidered and discontinued. We do not believe such a plan is necessary or advisable under current circumstances. The planned asset purchases risk currency debasement and inflation, and we do not think they will achieve the Fed’s objective of promoting employment.
We subscribe to your statement in the Washington Post on November 4 that “the Federal Reserve cannot solve all the economy’s problems on its own.” In this case, we think improvements in tax, spending and regulatory policies must take precedence in a national growth program, not further monetary stimulus.
We disagree with the view that inflation needs to be pushed higher, and worry that another round of asset purchases, with interest rates still near zero over a year into the recovery, will distort financial markets and greatly complicate future Fed efforts to normalize monetary policy.
The Fed’s purchase program has also met broad opposition from other central banks and we share their concerns that quantitative easing by the Fed is neither warranted nor helpful in addressing either U.S. or global economic problems.
Cliff Asness
AQR Capital
Michael J. Boskin
Stanford University
Former Chairman, President’s Council of Economic Advisors (George H.W. Bush Administration)
Richard X. Bove
Rochdale Securities
Charles W. Calomiris
Columbia University Graduate School of Business
Jim Chanos
Kynikos Associates
John F. Cogan
Stanford University
Former Associate Director, U.S. Office of Management and Budget (Reagan Administration)
Niall Ferguson
Harvard University
Author, The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World
Nicole Gelinas
Manhattan Institute & e21
Author, After the Fall: Saving Capitalism from Wall Street—and Washington
James Grant
Grant’s Interest Rate Observer
Kevin A. Hassett
American Enterprise Institute
Former Senior Economist, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
Roger Hertog
The Hertog Foundation
Gregory Hess
Claremont McKenna College
Douglas Holtz-Eakin
Former Director, Congressional Budget Office
Seth Klarman
Baupost Group
William Kristol
Editor, The Weekly Standard
David Malpass
GroPac
Former Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary (Reagan Administration)
Ronald I. McKinnon
Stanford University
Dan Senor
Council on Foreign Relations
Co-Author, Start-Up Nation: The Story of Israel’s Economic Miracle
Amity Shlaes
Council on Foreign Relations
Author, The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression
Paul E. Singer
Elliott Associates
John B. Taylor
Stanford University
Former Undersecretary of Treasury for International Affairs (George W. Bush Administration)
Peter J. Wallison
American Enterprise Institute
Former Treasury and White House Counsel (Reagan Administration)
Geoffrey Wood
Cass Business School at City University London http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/11/15/open-letter-to-ben-bernanke/

You fucking loser, read who signed the above statement, notice there are CFR members there...and even a former senior FED member.

So your bullshit theory about trying to blow this off as a conspiracy...is just that, more total bullshit from loser Hippifried.

Looky here...start at about the 5 minute spot:

YouTube - BILL MOYERS JOURNAL | William K. Black on Fraud | PBS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhO--P_tVBQ)


You don't trust Reuters? WSJ? Bill Moyers / PBS?

You complete fucking retard. Do you see any innuendo above?



What I've noticed from the extremes around the political sphere, regardless of bent, is the same theme & proposed solution,..You haven't noticed anything you useless shit bag.


The proposed solution from all sides is to destroy the system or let it collapse.Wrong again you fucking mental midget.

There are legal mechanisms for solving this problem. It takes political balls, of which Nobama (or Shrub before him) has none. It takes action. It will fuck up everyones "program" for a few months at least... but the medicine , although painful is better than dying a slow, violent death. That's where we're all headed if we sit on our collective asses like Hippifried and just bake another fatty for the next few years.


So shit-for-(fried) brains. You've admittedly been "watching" this for 40 years and have done nothing. Again, so typical of your useless leach fuck generation. By doing nothing for 40 years we can all clearly see what choice you have made, to let it collapse.


Can't buy the doom & gloom or the no-win scenario. I don't want to live in a third world country.You dont' have to buy anything asshole....just keep on sitting here and watch doom and gloom ass rape you sideways.


I don't want to live in a third world country.Well it sucks being you, cause a third world country is where we're all headed.

Do
The
Math.

The fucking FED is the prime buyer of T-bonds now. That's the rest of the world telling USA "fuck off" just like I told you two years ago.

With bernanke wheezing every US citizen with QEII, with Nobama putting a freeze on SS increases for the next two years, do you have even the slightest fucking clue what that will do to the social fabric of this country?

But..I digress, it's all about "you" and not wanting to live in a third world country.

How about the seniors, old and frail who live on a fixed income. How do you think they'll handle a 30% rise in food cost in the next 12 months. How bad must it suck to have to make a choice between life saving medication....or food?

But hey you fuck-stick, as long as everything is ok on your "street".

You see the recent ramp in commodities in the last two weeks? That's just a start.

What kind of a douche-bag are you? Can you do 4th grade math? Can you see that by ramping commodities up like this worldwide condemns literally tens of millions of people around the world (in third world countries I might add) to starvation?

But hey... Hippifried is just concerned about him in his little hood.

All in the name of "saving the banks".


Fuck you, fuck your obfuscation of cold hard facts... fuck your arrogance, shit-bag.

[yodajazz]

You stupid fucking useless excuse for a human being.

.......

You haven't noticed anything you useless shit bag.



This is a simple argument. If you cannot see that every human being has some intrinsic worth, the rest of your argument is invalid.

[PomonaCA]

This is a simple argument. If you cannot see that every human being has some intrinsic worth, the rest of your argument is invalid.


Every life has meaning? Try telling that to the pro-abortion liberals that pollute this rock. Or wait "Pro-Choice" <chuckle>

Every life has meaning, but that meaning is subject to intellectual choice.

Let's start over. Every life has meaning but less meaning than choice.

[hippifried]

Done with your tangent, Beanie boy?

None of that diatribe backs your claim that the entire government is owned & controlled by "masters", or that the same policies are in place now that were in place then.

We already know what happens with systemic bankrupsy. It's called depression. Last time that happened, the depression lasted over a decade & we only got out of it by our involvement in WWII, AKA massive government spending & takover of all vital industries. We gave every able bodied man a job & shipped as many as possible overseas, then brought as many women as possible into the workforce. It was all done on a borrowed dime. But we got out of it & paid off the debt.

I've never been a fan of Greenspan & you should already know that. As far as I'm concerned, all that Ayn Rand egoist theology he & the rest of the supply siders ascribe to is a bunch of crackpot nonsense. That's why I'm disinterested in the opinions of the supply siders who signed that "open letter to the Fed". Those are the same people that Bill Black was bitching about on Moyers, show. The ideology driven policies of deregulating financials gave us the last 2 panics in '89 & '08. Greenspan was also involved in the decision of Richard Nixon to debase the dollar & put currencies on the open speculator market like commodities. Then he designed the half-baked wage & price control scheme when that backfired. I've been a critic of Greenspan since '73. So what? I still don't ascribe to the Bircher conspiracy theories.

Chris Whalen is wrong. The fingers don't grow back. Neither does your nose when you cut it off to spite your face. BofA, Wells Fargo, & Morgan Chase are solvent. They never needed TARP. Turns out that Paulsen's spreading TARP around to the other banks was originally a ruse to avoid a run on Citigroup. They needed a bailout. Something like 80% of credit cards in this country were running through them at the time. If they wen't down then, consumer spending would have come to a screeching halt, & that's over 70% of the economy. Since then, Citi's been wound down from #2 to #4 & card issuers are finding other underwriters or doing it themselves if they're big enough & solvent. Merril Lynch was a kingpin in retirement accounts & countrywide had mortgage trust deeds, & there were others, so the government paid the bigs to take them over even though they were worthless so their customers wouldn't be left in a lurch or at the mercy of foreign financiers who wouldn't be bound by contracts of a defunct company that they picked up in a liquidation sale. Change direction? I think not. We're in a restructuring. Restructuring away from bullshit "Austrian school" Friedmanomics that don't work. Whalen's just another republican.

QE2 just went into effect last week. The reactionary youtube video was made a week earlier & was just whining over what the speculators were doing trying to predict what was going to happen. Oops! The dollar strengthened & inflation did nothing. All they're doing is buying up treasuries with money that they forced the banks to fork over. If the Fed buys the treasuries, the money goes into circulation & the debt stays within the the government. The Treasury's just borrowing from itself. I'm not a big Bernanke fan, but I have differences with everybody. He's doing his job under the dual mandate. I'd rather not toss in a newbie right now.

I've been calling for fraud investigations since all this started. Before that actually. All the way back to the shock. Black can name names all he wants, but he's wrong that the President or the AG should shoot their mouths off in public. That's how you ruin & lose a case. Prosecutions aren't politics or academic economic arguments, & fraud is a crime. They're going to get Goldman. There's no way to know who else they're going after until the indictments come down. This ain't over. But you have to have sustainable proof before you can make a court case. You gotta have your ducks in a row, & you can't do that if you have to fight the politics too.

So far, you haven't shown me anything to make your case that the President is a crook. Nothing in that entire thread was any kind of evidence to that effect. I don't want to change course. We don't have another big event like WWII on the horizon to pull our fat out of the fire if everything collapses, & that's what you're advocating. A depression would just keep going until somebody like China or India becomes the dominant world market. I don't buy that it's inevitable. Economics is a man made abstract & we can change it. I'm all for going back to a tweaked form of Bretton Woods sans the gold peg. Money's not a commodity, & it seems that the only ones who understand that are the Chinese. Everything's global whether anybody likes it or not. If we don't stabilize currencies, this shit'll just keep happening. We need a rethink on everything when time allows.

[yodajazz]

Good post Hippifried! I only recently been made aware about Citigroup's importance in te bailout. And you further clarified the reason for me.

[yodajazz]

With all due respect, you have it backwards, or misread what I posted.

It is not the solution. The MEGA banks are tits up. There is a legal mechanism to rectify this problem. It's called bankruptcy. Let the smaller SOLVENT regional banks who have played by the rules and have been more conservative in their business model strip the big banks of their (very few) legit assets. That is the only way for this economy to heal. It is mathamatically impossible for us to "grow" our way out of this debt. Not even with 10% "growth". Not even with 30% tax hikes across the board for EVERYONE + 10% growth. The numbers do not add up. As I stated 2 years ago, this is mainly a battle between the bigger Banking institutions....and to a lesser extent a battle between the Yuan, Euro and the Dollar. We are fucked. But Europe is more fucked than we are. The EU will crumble before the US. Do you really think Merkel and the Germans want to bail out Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece? Nope.

Now think about this. We've had two missiles launched off of our coasts in the last two weeks. There are 5 country's with that capability. US, France, Russa , China and the US. Notice how much shit paper (UST) China currently holds. Notice what Bernanke has started to do (QE2). How would you like being China....holding billions and billions of US debt, knowing that the US can NEVER pay it back....and then watch as Bernanke devalues that debt into oblivion.

So those 2 pretty little displays of fireworks....were for the benefit of US to see.

Notice how Obama is taking more road trips outside the country? It's for a reason.

But again.... as I was blabbing two years ago in this forum, there is no political will to do the right thing.


So
we're
all
going
down.

Hang on. You can not argue simple mathematics.

Within 6 to 9 months you'll see fighting in the streets. J6P will largely be on the sidelines. It will be the Government Union Leachfucks and thugs....against the Banksters.

See all you fukkers in another two years......if we're still here....

Here's one where I would agree with you; if it were a true life scenario. That is, smaller regional banks, 'stripping' the bigger insolvent banks. But it seems to me in recent years, its mainly bigger corporations gobbling up the smaller ones, across the board. They are the only ones with enough spare cash/credit to make major aquisitions. But perhaps you have seen more things on the financial market than I.

[bat1]

Obana needs to ..go

6 Dec 2010....
The Obama administration has warned Oakland over the licensing of four giant pot farms, saying the plan is in violation of state and federal law and could trigger multiple legal actions against the city.
Officials from the Justice Department’s civil division and the U.S. attorney’s office in San Francisco delivered the blunt message to Oakland City Attorney John Russo, according to two officials who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to talk about the meetings.
“The warning is clear: These are illegal, large-scale pot growing operations, with Oakland planning to get a cut of the illicit profits,” said one official.
City Attorney Russo confirmed that Justice Department officials raised objections to Oakland’s marijuana cultivation ordinance in separate meetings last month.
“They've expressed their concerns that the path Oakland is taking is in violation of the law,” Russo said in a statement.
He declined to discuss details of the meetings or disclose the identities of the other participants. A spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in San Francisco did not respond to phone messages.
At issue is a controversial ordinance, approved by the Oakland City Council last July, to license four “industrial” facilities to cultivate and process marijuana and sell the product to medical marijuana dispensaries around the state. If Oakland issues permits and the facilities are built, they could be the largest of their kind in the world.
In November, Oakland voters approved a measure that imposes a 5-percent business tax on all medical marijuana operators, including future pot farms, opening a potentially lucrative revenue stream for the city.
Supporters say the plan is carefully crafted to comply with Proposition 215 and subsequent legislation, which allow for marijuana to be cultivated “collectively or cooperatively” by patients with a doctor’s recommendation.
More recent guidelines drawn up by Attorney General Jerry Brown call for a closed-circuit cycle of “marijuana cultivation and consumption with no purchases or sales to or from non-members.”
Even though pot remains illegal under federal law, the Obama Administration has taken a hands-off approach to California's medical marijuana operators so long as they are in unambiguous compliance with state law.
However, after closely studying the Oakland plan some federal officials have concluded the ordinance violates state law because it treats pot farms as distinct business entities for tax purposes, thus severing the direct connection between cultivator and patient that underpins the legal standing of a medical marijuana collective or cooperative.
“Oakland would be on the hook for violating state and federal law,” said one official who foresees possible civil and criminal litigation if the pot farms go into operation early next year as planned.
The Obama administration’s challenge to Oakland over large-scale marijuana cultivation appears to be part of a broader federal effort to bring order to California’s booming medical marijuana industry following last month’s defeat of Proposition 19, the initiative to legalize recreational pot.
Eight days after the vote California’s four U.S. attorneys met with DEA and Justice Department officials to develop a plan to deal with some of the loopholes and gray areas in the state’s medical marijuana program, according to two officials briefed on the discussions.
U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner said the Nov. 10 meeting focused on a "state-wide federal enforcement strategy" for marijuana but declined to provide details.
“My responsibility is not to enforce state law. But I do have a responsibility to enforce federal law, which means putting an end to people who use the cover of 215 to try to violate federal law. And there are efforts underway to try to tighten that up,” Wagner said.
Federal officials are particularly concerned about operators who are using medical marijuana as a cover for money laundering and illegal shipments to other states.
Wagner cited a recent case [PDF] in which several Fresno-based growers are accused of cultivating thousands of pounds of pot under the state’s medical marijuana program, then shipping the product illegally to drug dealers in Boston.
“We are working hard to send a clear message to law enforcement authorities, federal and state and local, that we are determined to go after this kind of activity and bring more cases,” he said.
Wagner declined to say whether targeting Oakland’s pot farms was part of the new federal strategy. But two sources said the city ordinance was discussed in detail at the Nov. 10 meeting.

[Niccolo]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100067261/why-barack-obama-doesnt-much-care-for-britain/

[Ben]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&hl=uk&v=mm1KOBMg1Y8

[Ben]

Obama: No Whistleblowing on My Watch

The US Military Should Be Ashamed of Its Treatment of Pfc. Bradley Manning

by Ann Wright

Candidate Obama said "Government whistleblowers are part of a healthy democracy and must be protected from reprisal."
As a U.S. presidential candidate in 2008, in referring to the Bush Administration's use of phone companies to illegally spy on Americans, Barack Obama said, "We only know these crimes took place because insiders blew the whistle at great personal risk ... Government whistleblowers are part of a healthy democracy and must be protected from reprisal." Candidate Obama was referring to the Bush Administration's use of phone companies to illegally spy on Americans.

President Obama says No whistleblowing on my watch!
Yet, Obama, as he has on so many issues as President, is taking a 180 degree turn from his comments as a candidate, comments on which the American people relied and elected him.
Now, the Obama administration's warning to Bradley Manning and to other whistle blowers is this: blow the whistle on government criminal actions and we will put you in solitary confinement before you are charged, much less go to trial. You will be treated as an "enemy combatant," in America's ongoing wars on about everything, including the truth.
Evidence of Murder of Civilians in Iraq by US military helicopter pilots
Bradley Manning, a U.S. Army Private First Class (PFC) intelligence analyst who turned 23 years old in late December, allegedly leaked a video of a US helicopter attack that killed at least eleven Iraqi civilians, including two Reuters reporters, to the website Wikileaks. Two Iraqi children were also severely wounded in the attack.
PFC Manning's alleged actions are just as important as those of the whistleblowers who informed us of the Bush administration's use of phone companies to illegally spy on Americans. The video taken from the U.S. military helicopter that fired the killing rounds of ammunition, graphically showed US military pilots firing on and killing innocent civilians in Iraq. In addition to this "Collateral Murder" video, PFC Manning is suspected by the government of leaking the "Afghan War Diaries" - tens of thousands of battlefield reports that explicitly describe civilian deaths and cover-ups, corrupt officials, collusion with warlords, and a failing US/NATO war effort.
Manning had the legal responsibility to disclose evidence, even classified evidence, of criminal actions conducted by government officials
If indeed, Manning did give the video to Wikileaks, his actions show clearly that he reasonably believed that war crimes were being covered up, and that he took action based on that belief. Exposing criminal actions done under the cover of government orders is a responsibility and duty of military personnel as codified in the Uniform Code of Military Justice as well as the Geneva conventions and the Nuremberg Principles.
Nuremberg Principle I
Principle I states, "Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment."
Principle II
Principle II states, "The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law."
Principle III
Principle III states, "The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law."
Principle IV
Principle IV states: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him".
This principle could be paraphrased as follows: "It is not an acceptable excuse to say 'I was just following my superior's orders'".
Classifying the evidence of criminal actions does not make the actions untouchable
Reporting criminal actions done by others and providing evidence of those criminal actions, especially when the evidence of criminal actions have been covered up by "classifying" the evidence, is not illegal, but in fact, is a very brave response.
Punishment before the Trial-Solitary Confinement
Manning has now been in prison in solitary confinement for 7 months and still neither the U.S. military nor the U.S. government has indicted him for any offense. Manning essentially is being treated by the U.S. government as an American citizen "enemy combatant."
Manning's treatment in detention, pre-trial confinement in prison is cruel and unusual. He is being kept in solitary confinement, alone in a cell for 23 hours a day. He is forbidden to exercise in his cell. He is deprived of sleep. He is not given a pillow or sheets for his steel bed, although recently after publicity (http://www.salon.com/news/wikileaks/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/12/14/manning) about he conditions in the prison, he was given a mattress for the bed. Prison medical personnel now "administer regular doses of anti-depressants to Manning to prevent his brain from snapping from the effects of this isolation."

US Soldier Treated as Those Detained in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo
The U.S. military's treatment of Manning is tragically consistent with its treatment of persons detained in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo. America's military uses harsh conditions and torture, physical or mental, for those who have not been convicted of any crimes used to break the person to provide whatever information the military wants to receive. This type of treatment is inhumane, immoral and wrong for those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo and is wrong for Bradley Manning.
Nothing to be Proud of
Nothing in this to be proud of, President Obama. Nothing in this to be proud of, US Military.
If you, the reader, are offended by this, please -- Raise Hell for Bradley, the undeclared American "enemy combatant."

Contribute to Manning's defense fund at www.couragetoresist.org (http://www.couragetoresist.org/)

Ann Wright is a 29 year US Army/Army Reserves veteran who retired as a Colonel and a former US diplomat who resigned in March, 2003 in opposition to the war on Iraq. She served in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Mongolia. In December, 2001 she was on the small team that reopened the US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. She is the co-author of the book "Dissent: Voices of Conscience."

[ohioguy13]

Manning isnt even in solitary confinement he gets tv and three square meals a day. When you break your oath and every person weighs whether they want to follow an order or not were not going to have a very good military. He knew the laws he was breaking. Dont do the crime if you dont want the time.

[Ben]

Published on Wednesday, January 19, 2011 by TruthDig.com (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/obama_pulls_a_clinton_20110118/)
Obama Pulls a Clinton
by Robert Scheer

Here we go again. When Bill Clinton suffered an electoral reversal after his first two years in office, he abruptly embraced the corporate money guys who had financed his congressional opposition in an effort to purchase a second term.
On Tuesday in his Wall Street Journal Op-Ed piece, Barack Obama veered sharply down that same course, trumpeting his executive order " ... to remove outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive. ..."
He employed the same "creating a 21st-century regulatory system" rationalization used by Clinton when he signed off on the sweeping deregulation legislation that unleashed the Wall Street greed that ended up being the biggest job-killer since the Great Depression. "Over the (past) seven years, we have tried to modernize the economy," Clinton enthused as he signed the Financial Services Modernization Act that repealed key New Deal legislation, adding, "And today what we are doing is modernizing the financial services industry, tearing down those antiquated laws and granting banks significant new authority." Modernizing was the propaganda constant, as in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act that Clinton signed, thus shielding financial derivatives from any government regulation.
That deregulation, as Obama concedes in his WSJ column, led to "a lack of proper oversight and transparency (that) nearly led to the collapse of the financial markets and a full-scale depression." But Obama now promises that his deregulation efforts will be more sensibly targeted and will "bring order to regulations that have become a patchwork of overlapping rules, the result of tinkering by administrations and legislatures of both parties and influence of special interests in Washington over decades."
When he wrote that he intends to accomplish this revamp "with more input from experts, businesses and ordinary citizens," did he have in mind his two new key White House advisers who were the most effective advocates for those special interests? Tom Donilon, Obama's national security adviser, was the Washington lobbyist for the housing behemoth Fannie Mae, which will cost taxpayers $700 billion because of its marketing of toxic derivatives. Obama's new Chief of Staff William Daley was the lead Washington representative for a similarly afflicted JPMorgan Chase. These are the folks, along with many other Wall Street alums in this administration, who will oversee the latest update of already weakened regulations.
The first target will be the administration's puny efforts to protect consumers: "The move is the latest effort by the White House to repair relations with corporate America," the Wall Street Journal's report on Obama's column stated, "Business leaders say an explosion in new regulations stemming from the president's health-care and financial regulatory overhauls has, along with the sluggish economy, made them reluctant to spend on expansion and hiring. Companies are sitting on nearly $2 trillion in cash and liquid assets, the most since World War II."
This is a case of corporate blackmail pure and simple. The economy is sluggish because of a housing crisis that shows no sign of improvement. It stands history on its head to blame government financial regulations that had worked splendidly for six decades for the meltdown or the failure to fix a housing market that is the key to improved consumer spending.
Fixing housing would require efforts to keep the 50 million Americans whose mortgages are underwater in their homes. But the government bailouts under both George W. Bush and Obama have not required any significant cramp-down or reappraisal of mortgages by banks to enable people to stay in their homes. Instead the Fed and Treasury have flooded the banks and top corporations with cheap money and bailouts but, in the classic problem of pushing on a string, the corporate ingrates are hoarding that money.
Obama, and the party he heads, failed to provide a progressive narrative during November's election holding the financial elite that created this mess responsible. The key issue is not big government or onerous regulation but rather transparency and fraud prevention. When you are evicted, it is a government agent, a marshal or sheriff, who will force you out, so shouldn't the government also be involved in assuring that the consumer is protected by a properly vetted contract? Instead the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spearheaded the marketing of an alternative narrative, as successful as it was devious, by Republican candidates that held regulation-rather than deregulation-responsible for the mess. Now Obama seems poised to join their ranks. As the WSJ reported:
"On Feb. 7, Mr. Obama will visit the U.S. Chamber of Commerce-a chief opponent to his administration's regulatory approach-for a discussion on how the White House can work with the group to create jobs. The efforts are designed to give companies more confidence in the president's stewardship of the economy, and bolster his re-election prospects among a wealthy constituency not traditionally allied with Democrats."
A constituency that Daley, Obama's new chief of staff, can faithfully represent, having received $5 million a year from JPMorgan Chase. And so ends the season of hope for the less wealthy constituency traditionally allied with Democrats.

© 2011 TruthDig.com

[Ben]

Two hot chicks talking politics. What could be hotter -- :dancing:

YouTube - Obama's New BFF, Dick Cheney!? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZr26adzuMM)

[Ben]

Monday, June 13, 2011 by The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/us/politics/13donor.html) Obama Seeks to Win Back Wall St. Cash


by Nicholas Confessore

WASHINGTON — A few weeks before announcing his re-election campaign, President Obama convened two dozen Wall Street executives, many of them longtime donors, in the White House’s Blue Room.
http://www.commondreams.org/sites/commondreams.org/files/imagecache/headline_image/article_images/obama_wall_street.jpg US President Barack Obama has returned to where the money is as the US heads for campaign season. The question is not how much he may or may not raise from Wall Street 'fat cats'. The question is, what do they get in return? (AP file)

The guests were asked for their thoughts on how to speed the economic recovery, then the president opened the floor for over an hour on hot issues like hedge fund regulation and the deficit.
Mr. Obama, who enraged many financial industry executives a year and a half ago by labeling them “fat cats” and criticizing their bonuses, followed up the meeting with phone calls to those who could not attend.
The event, organized by the Democratic National Committee, kicked off an aggressive push by Mr. Obama to win back the allegiance of one of his most vital sources of campaign cash — in part by trying to convince Wall Street that his policies, far from undercutting the investor class, have helped bring banks and financial markets back to health.
Last month, Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, Jim Messina, traveled to New York for back-to-back meetings with Wall Street donors, ending at the home of Marc Lasry, a prominent hedge fund manager, to court donors close to Mr. Obama’s onetime rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton. And Mr. Obama will return to New York this month to dine with bankers, hedge fund executives and private equity investors at the Upper East Side restaurant Daniel.
“The first goal was to get recognition that the administration has led the economy from an unimaginably difficult place to where we are today,” said Blair W. Effron, an investment banker closely involved in Mr. Obama’s fund-raising efforts. “Now the second goal is to turn that into support.”
The president’s top financial industry supporters say they are confident that the support Mr. Obama needs will ultimately be there, despite the financial industry’s unhappiness over his efforts to tighten regulation of their businesses. But it is clear that those supporters will have to work much harder to win over the financial services industry than they did in 2008, before Wall Street’s bust, the subsequent clashes over policy and the sometimes bitter personal differences that lingered afterward.
Executives at large investment banks, a group that gave generously to Mr. Obama in his last campaign, are remaining on the sidelines for now. Only a small handful of such donors have appeared in Mr. Obama’s joint campaign filings with the Democratic National Committee, though officials there said more would appear in the coming weeks.
Some traditional heavy hitters in Democratic Wall Street fund-raising have stepped out of the game. They include Maureen White and her husband, Steven L. Rattner, a founder of the Quadrangle Group, whose Fifth Avenue living room was a critical conduit between Wall Street and Democratic candidates in the years before Mr. Rattner joined the Obama administration to help restructure the auto industry. The couple did not resume their old role after Mr. Rattner left government, and he was caught up last year in an investigation into kickbacks to New York’s state pension fund.
And even as some criticize the president for listening too closely, they say, to Wall Street on issues like the 2008 bailout and financial regulation, he has suffered some unusually public defections and criticism by some former Wall Street supporters, who view his policies and rhetoric as unfair to their industry. Many are Republicans whose support last time around burnished his image as a post-partisan problem solver.
And as Mr. Obama seeks to rebuild, Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination, is using his background as a venture capital executive and his policy proposals to woo financial-industry donors.
Last week, Mr. Romney held three fund-raisers in Greenwich, Conn., and New York, including a reception hosted by Anthony Scaramucci, a hedge fund manager who donated to Mr. Obama in 2008. Mr. Scaramucci said he wanted a president who embodied pragmatism and middle-of-the-road solutions. In 2008, that candidate was Mr. Obama, he said; today, it is Mr. Romney.
“He seemed like he was going to be a transformative candidate,” Mr. Scaramucci said of Mr. Obama in an interview. “I’m really not an ideological guy, and I think the country right now needs more practical, less partisan people.”
To offset those defections, Mr. Obama’s campaign has deployed a corps of loyal Wall Street supporters who have fanned out to defend the president’s record and stoke fatigued donors. They include Robert Wolf, the chief executive of UBS Group Americas; the hedge fund managers Orin S. Kramer and Eric Mindich; and Mark T. Gallogly, a co-founder of Centerbridge Partners.
Mr. Mindich and Mr. Wolf were among those at the White House meeting, along with some prominent names from the hedge fund world: James G. Dinan of York Capital Management, Glenn Dubin of Highbridge Capital Management and Paul Tudor Jones.
Members of the president’s economic team and his chief of staff, William M. Daley, a former banking executive, have been more active in reaching out to Wall Street executives about policy issues, donors said, along with Mr. Messina and Patrick Gaspard, the D.N.C.’s executive director.
The campaign and its allies are also seeking to recruit a new group of high-level bundlers, supporters who recruit other donors. They include Antonio Weiss, the global head of investment banking at Lazard; Charles Myers, a senior managing director at Evercore Partners; and James E. Staley, the head of JPMorgan Chase’s investment bank.
The campaign is also courting prominent Wall Street figures who could serve as Mr. Obama’s ambassadors at firms known for leaning Republican: Lenard B. Tessler, a managing director at Cerberus Capital who donated to Mr. Romney and Mrs. Clinton in 2008, and Hamilton E. James, the president of the private equity behemoth Blackstone.
“Fund-raising is certainly different than last time around in ’07,” Mr. Wolf said. “Not everybody on Wall Street agrees with the financial regulatory legislation. But as someone who witnessed firsthand the Lehman weekend at the New York Fed, there are certainly many of us in the financial services community, myself included, that fully support smart reforms.”
Still, there is skepticism. One Democratic financier invited to this month’s dinner, who asked for anonymity because he did not want to anger the White House, said it was ironic that the same president who once criticized bankers as “fat cats” would now invite them to dine at Daniel, where the six-course tasting menu runs to $195 a person.
The donor declined the invitation.

© 2011 The New York Times

[w1s2x3]

Obama proves that incompetents is colorblind.

[Ben]

Wednesday, Jun 15, 2011 A different kind of candidate and campaign (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/06/15/obama/index.html)

By Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/author/glenn_greenwald/index.html)


http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/06/15/obama/md_horiz.jpg AP/Carolyn Kaster

(updated below)
Along with presumably tens if not hundreds of thousands of other people, I recieved a charming email today from "Barack Obama" -- subject matter: "Dinner?" -- offering me and "four supporters like [me]" the chance to have dinner with him. It won't be anything fancy: just a "kind of casual meal among friends" -- provided I donate $5 or more to his re-election campaign. This is necessary because he's a special kind of politician once again running a special kind of campaign:


Most campaigns fill their dinner guest lists primarily with Washington lobbyists and special interests.
We didn't get here doing that, and we're not going to start now. We're running a different kind of campaign. We don't take money from Washington lobbyists or special-interest PACs -- we never have, and we never will.
We rely on everyday Americans giving whatever they can afford -- and I want to spend time with a few of you.
From The New York Times, Monday (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/us/politics/13donor.html?hp):

A few weeks before announcing his re-election campaign, President Obama convened two dozen Wall Street executives, many of them longtime donors, in the White House's Blue Room. . . .
The event, organized by the Democratic National Committee, kicked off an aggressive push by Mr. Obama to win back the allegiance of one of his most vital sources of campaign cash -- in part by trying to convince Wall Street that his policies, far from undercutting the investor class, have helped bring banks and financial markets back to health.
Last month, Mr. Obama's campaign manager, Jim Messina, traveled to New York for back-to-back meetings with Wall Street donors, ending at the home of Marc Lasry, a prominent hedge fund manager, to court donors close to Mr. Obama's onetime rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton. And Mr. Obama will return to New York this month to dine with bankers, hedge fund executives and private equity investors at the Upper East Side restaurant Daniel. . . .
One Democratic financier invited to this month's dinner, who asked for anonymity because he did not want to anger the White House, said it was ironic that the same president who once criticized bankers as "fat cats" would now invite them to dine at Daniel, where the six-course tasting menu runs to $195 a person.
And let us not forget where Obama was when, prior to the 2010 midterm election, he mocked the Left (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/17/obama) for being insufficiently grateful for all of his fantastic accomplishments; that took place at (http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/politics/103043739.html) "a Democratic National Committee dinner [] held at the sprawling Greenwich estate of Richard and Ellen Schapps Richman. The price per plate [was] said to be [] around $30,000."
Though I think it's quite revealing, I don't really have any objection to Obama's efforts to persuade Wall Street and other oligarchs to (once (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2008/06/05/analysis-shares-obama-idUKNOA53525520080605) again (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/23/nation/na-money23)) fill his coffers with cash. Virtually every politician, especially at this level, is going to troll for money wherever they can get it, if, for no other reason, than to deprive their opponents of that cash. I just don't want to have to once again endure 18 months of the propagandizing (and false) mythologizing conceit that this is some sort of special campaign propelled by plucky, small-donor enthusiasts driving him back to the White House $5 and $10 at a time so that he can stand up on their behalf to special interests.

UPDATE: The New York Times today describes (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/business/15schumer.html?hp) how the nation's banking industry was desperate for a special law to serve its interests in a protracted patent dispute -- after many futile "years of fighting . . . .at the federal Patent Office, in court and across a negotiating table" -- and thus turned to "one of their best friends in Congress," Sen. Chuck Schumer, who quickly and dutifully gave them what they wanted by inserting that special protection into a new law. As the NYT previously detailed (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/business/14schumer.html), Schumer has long been one of the key cogs in the Democratic Party's fundraising machinery by serving the interests of Wall Street, which in return lavishes the Party with massive largesse. But if you give Barack Obama $5 or more for his re-election campaign, you'll win the chance to sit down with him for dinner -- a "kind of casual meal among friends" -- because that's the Party of the little guy and gal.

[Ben]

YouTube - &#x202a;Alex Jones Calls for Impeaching Barack Obama on Violating War Powers Act&#x202c;&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahPYzUqs9uI)

[Ben]

YouTube - &#x202a;Obama sued for violating War Powers Act&#x202c;&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dii4zC0lYL4)