President Obama News Thread

[barbaro]

Coz Rep Judd is in charge of Comm now?

Yes, that's why Obama hired him . . . so he could hide things from him.

Yep, slice and dice to fit your blinkered viewpoint, mad hatter. Emmanuel likely picked Judd coz he knew Judd would cause big probs by pointing out the sh*t in libbie legislation. But, you lost the plot of my post, once again.

Jet, where did you read this?

[Jet Gorgon]

Coz Rep Judd is in charge of Comm now?

Yes, that's why Obama hired him . . . so he could hide things from him.

Yep, slice and dice to fit your blinkered viewpoint, mad hatter. Emmanuel likely picked Judd coz he knew Judd would cause big probs by pointing out the sh*t in libbie legislation. But, you lost the plot of my post, once again.

Jet, where did you read this?

^ Note the "likely" there, MM. My viewpoint.

[panama hat]

^ And your opinion is formed by what background knowledge?

Oh, sorry . . . it's Jet. No knowledge.

[Jet Gorgon]

^ You have to know how to read first, hatter. And having the ability to sort through and separate the libbie sh*t from the truth as I do helps.

[panama hat]

And having the ability to sort through and separate the libbie sh*t from the truth as I do also helps.

Well, as long as you're not indoctrinated or opinionated . . .

[sabang]

The American people have spoken, and conclusively rejected the legacy of the Republican Bush administration- and the rest of the world wholeheartedly agrees. Of course there will always be some Begrudgers, thats politics.

[Bugs]

The American people have spoken, and conclusively rejected the legacy of the Republican Bush administration- and the rest of the world wholeheartedly agrees. Of course there will always be some Begrudgers, thats politics.

Indeed the American people have spoken and some of them voted into office Republicans. As such those representatives should stand up for what the voters put them there to do - and not simply step aside and give Obama what ever he asks for.

I especially like when Obama goes off on the fact that he has inherited the current situation and implies that ALL of the previous administrations polices are no good and thus need not even be considered.

The tax polices - regardless of raising or reducing them did not get us into the current mess nor are they likely to get us out of it. It is the bloody spending that is the problem - yet that seems to the the current administrations solution?

Add in the fact that for the last two years congress has been controlled by the blue team and they did f'all to change the course of the nation. Toss on top of that the fact that our current Treasury Sec - Mr. Geitner (with plenty of help from members of the red team) fought to prevent legislation being passed in regard to increasing the controls in the financial sector - specifically against legislation in the derivitives area which IMHO is the main cause of the current problems (well that coupled with the push (mainly by the blue team) for Freddy and Fanny to continueally lower the requirements for home loans - you know all that we need to get more people into houses (even though they can not afford it)).

The lack of controls in the financial sector is not something that can be pinned on one party. As it relates to this area of governance Clinton and his crew where very much in step with the red team- as have the majority voice for the blue team all the way up until things went tits-up. So pretty much regardless of who has been in control of the white house or congress the majority voices on both sides did plenty to get us into the current situation - or IMO more accurately did plenty of nothing to prevent the current situation from happening.

US trade policies are yet another issue that both teams have had remarkably similar positions on ever since the Clinton years - but one that Obama (at least during his campaign) indicated was an issue he planed to take the US into a least a bit of a different direction on.



Don't get me wrong Bush and his boys did a lousy job of controlling spending - but increasing it, is not the solution.

[raycarey]

I especially like when Obama goes off on the fact that he has inherited the current situation and implies that ALL of the previous administrations polices are no good and thus need not even be considered.

this is what you have inferred through your partisan lens......i've seen no evidence that obama has implicitly stated or implied this.

but feel free to post a credible link proving otherwise.

[panama hat]

Indeed the American people have spoken and some of them voted into office Republicans. As such those representatives should stand up for what the voters put them there to do - and not simply step aside and give Obama what ever he asks for.

Absolutely right. As with all parties there are Republicans from the loony right, the far right, cebtrist right, left of centre etc . . . and they will hopefully support - or not - bills according to their mandate.

US trade policies are yet another issue that both teams have had remarkably similar positions on ever since the Clinton years - but one that Obama (at least during his campaign) indicated was an issue he planed to take the US into a least a bit of a different direction on.

Nothing wrong with (hopefully) improving smething. Just because he wants to shape something doesn't mean he will negate it.

Don't get me wrong Bush and his boys did a lousy job of controlling spending - but increasing it, is not the solution.

But, honestly, what is the solution? I'd hate to be in his shoes, it really is an unwinable situation, whether inherited or not.

[sabang]

Republican Senator Judd Gregg withdrew his nomination as Commerce secretary on Thursday in an embarrassing setback to President Barack Obama's efforts to bridge party differences in his fight against recession.

Gregg said he pulled out because of "irresolvable" differences over policy issues, including the $789 billion economic stimulus package that has so far drawn support from only a handful of Republican lawmakers.

A clearly annoyed White House said in a terse statement it regretted that Gregg withdrew after he had pursued the job.

"He was very clear throughout the interviewing process that despite past disagreements about policies, he would support, embrace and move forward with the President's agenda," said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs.

Three weeks after being sworn in, Obama, who pledged to hit the ground running to tackle one of the worst economic crises in decades, is still trying to form his 15-member cabinet. The Commerce Department, while not central to the fight, plays an important role in promoting U.S. business around the world.

Gregg is the third cabinet nominee to withdraw his nomination and the second for the Commerce Department. The first Commerce nominee was New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who is facing a legal inquiry.

Third Obama cabinet nominee withdraws name | Politics | Reuters

This is becoming farcical.

I'm not (yet) going to criticise Judd until I know a bit more about his reasons for withdrawing, but it seems that Obamas attempts at being bipartisan are being rebuffed by the Republicans.

[Butterfly]

The Republicans are sore losers and can't see themselves cooperating with a democrat,

they are only showing their true colors,

[Bugs]

I'm not (yet) going to criticise Judd until I know a bit more about his reasons for withdrawing, but it seems that Obamas attempts at being bipartisan are being rebuffed by the Republicans.

I think Judd deserves the majority of blame for this one. One has to know and consider that if you go to work for another party that there are going to be conflicting views to some extent. This should have been properly address during the vetting process - and it seems it was not. I lay the blame for that not at Obama's feet but at Judd's.

I don't agree with the stimulus plan and it seem's that Judd does not either. But Obama has been behind it from the get go. So to come out now after basically accepting the position and to use the stimulu package as part of the reason is bullocks.

[Bugs]

Don't get me wrong Bush and his boys did a lousy job of controlling spending - but increasing it, is not the solution.

But, honestly, what is the solution? I'd hate to be in his shoes, it really is an unwinable situation, whether inherited or not.

The hart of the problems IMHO are the availability of credit (because of the stability of banks), and the housing mortgage situation.

I think the solution to the banking issue is to get the hell out of the way, allow the market to function, allow many of those banks to fail. The market needs it’s pound of flesh and it will get it – now or later. I say better now so that we can focus on getting things turned around and have a better later.

I feel the solution to the mortgage situation is for the government to step up to the plate and guarantee one mortgage per household. Take those bad mortgages off the books of the banks – and thus less of them will fail. Keep hard working people in their homes and keep neighborhoods intact.

IMHO if the bad banks are allowed to fail, the marginal banks are stabilized by clearing out much of their risky mortgage loan issues, and the good/stable banks are allowed to soar – then credit will free up. Once credit is freed up people/businesses (small-medium-and large) will once again start to invest, the economy will make the turn, and jobs will start to be created (by market forces) once again.

[panama hat]

I think the solution to the banking issue is to get the hell out of the way, allow the market to function,

But then isn't the following a contradiction?

I feel the solution to the mortgage situation is for the government to step up to the plate and guarantee one mortgage per household.

I'm all in favour of government guaranteed housing loans, but there must be checks and balances. Generally speaking the government is not there to make a profit (and they're very good at NOT making profits) whereas the free market is and this leads to speculation and greed.

Oh, I'm also in favour of nationalising essential services . . . water, gas, electricity etc . . . No surprise there.

[Bugs]

I think the solution to the banking issue is to get the hell out of the way, allow the market to function,

But then isn't the following a contradiction?

Only partly a contradiction - I am not in favor of the government stepping up to the plate on mortgages to bail out the banks. I want them to step up to the plate to keep people in homes - hence the one mortgage per household. This means any mortgages tied to commerical or investment properties would not be covered and would be allowed to be foreclosed upon.

By default this action would aid banks to a certain degree. But the goal of the move would be to prevent neighborhoods from deteriorating due to unoccupied homes and thus also having a negative effect on those who are actually able to make their house payments.

Additionally I would like the deal (new mortgage) between the government and the homeowners include a clause that requires the homeowner to compensate the government for the loss the government originally takes on should the house be eventually sold for a profit (a price over and above the new morgage price agreed upon between the government and homeowner). A similar program was used duing the great depression and it actually ended up turning a small profit in the long run.

I feel the solution to the mortgage situation is for the government to step up to the plate and guarantee one mortgage per household.

I'm all in favour of government guaranteed housing loans, but there must be checks and balances. Generally speaking the government is not there to make a profit (and they're very good at NOT making profits) whereas the free market is and this leads to speculation and greed.

Oh, I'm also in favour of nationalising essential services . . . water, gas, electricity etc . . . No surprise there.

Actually I loathe the idea of the government being even at arms length involved in the housing/ real estate market. I hope one of the things that results out of this mess is the eventual privatization or elimination of Fanny and Freddie. And the program that I am talking about in regard to the government stepping to the plate would be temporary, no one getting a mortgage from Jan 1 of this year forward would be eligible, and once any mortgages that would get taken over by the government were cleared then the government would be out of the housing business. Additionally I would want the government to sell said mortgages back into the private sector before the end of their term, after the economy turns around, if they could make enough to cover the loss the government took initially.

I don't have a problem with public owned essential services - but once again I loathe the idea of nationalizing any of them. Any essential serivces that are publicly owned should be so on the local level. I would consider ownership on a state level - but only in smaller states - or states with low population density.

[panama hat]

Only partly a contradiction - I am not in favor of the government stepping up to the plate on mortgages to bail out the banks. I want them to step up to the plate to keep people in homes - hence the one mortgage per household. This means any mortgages tied to commerical or investment properties would not be covered and would be allowed to be foreclosed upon.

Ok, that makes sense and I agree.

I don't have a problem with public owned essential services - but once again I loathe the idea of nationalizing any of them. Any essential serivces that are publicly owned should be so on the local level.

Again, I agree to a certain extent, but would a local-level bureaucracy be able to attract the brainpower necessary to manage such a system, plus another problem is that information exchange would be hampered.

[Bugs]

I don't have a problem with public owned essential services - but once again I loathe the idea of nationalizing any of them. Any essential serivces that are publicly owned should be so on the local level.

Again, I agree to a certain extent, but would a local-level bureaucracy be able to attract the brainpower necessary to manage such a system, plus another problem is that information exchange would be hampered.

This is actually fairly common in the US already - for city or counties to own/control local water works, power plants, garbage disposal sites, etc. They hire in the brain-power (consultants) during the bidding process, contruction, as well as hiring the brain-power to run them.

I am not sure what you mean by information exchange being hampered. Regardless of who ownes the sites there are plenty of places (Consultants, Colleges, Universities, various government agencies, international organizations, as well as industry specific trade journals and magazines) to go for advice and to kept up to date on the latest progress in building/ maintaining/ and operating such services/facilities.

Actually I think this is one of the stengths of putting things in control of the states or local officials. With this approach lots of different things can be attempted and the feedback shared to allow others to know what worked (and what did not) in various areas.

I am not saying that there should be no form of national oversite or input. I think organizations like the EPA are benificial and to some extent under utilized and also to some extent currently have insufficient authority. Another example of where I think some form of nationally based connection/input are things that have a national impact – for example some form of standardization in an electric grid to allow for ease in distributing power around the entire nation.

[panama hat]

I am not sure what you mean by information exchange being hampered.

As an example, the federal government has linked databases . . . but then I guess the counties and states could link in as well . . . I forgot that we live in the information age.

Actually I think this is one of the stengths of putting things in control of the states or local officials.

States, yes. Nothing smaller, there is after all a bigger picture especially in water and electricity

[Boon Mee]

The BO Love-fest is definitely getting out of hand!

[panama hat]

Amid a sensible discussion comes BM . . . (just why I have never 'redded' you, I don't know!)

[Boon Mee]

Amid a sensible discussion comes BM . . . (just why I have never 'redded' you, I don't know!)

Well, if the sounds of your dinner splashing across the keyboard drowned out the words to the above tribute, Dan Cleary has the lyrics.

[Boon Mee]

Heh...think it's gotten out of hand yet?
Now, there's a Religion of Obama!



Link

[Jet Gorgon]

^ 555 Where are the prayer rugs?

As to mortgages, if municipalities want to buy foreclosed houses and let the "owners" rent them, fine. Why should folks be saved who took out mortgages well beyond their means and missed payments even before the crisis? The govt will cut their interest rates and their principle owing? Hogwash. That's a slap in the face to sensible folks with a modest mortgage who have kept up payments and will get zip. Sure, let folks who took out several mortgages on investment properties fail.

[panama hat]

Well, if the sounds of your dinner splashing across the keyboard drowned out the words to the above tribute, Dan Cleary has the lyrics

I had answered this but for soem reason the post was deletd . . . absolutely nothing acrimonious about it . . . some mods are losing their grip.

So, yes, the lyrics are quite frightening . . . going overboard by a mile, I'd say

That's a slap in the face to sensible folks with a modest mortgage who have kept up payments and will get zip. Sure, let folks who took out several mortgages on investment properties fail.

Do you actually know what's in the package or are you just regurgitating crap, like your $30million mouse-house? Not saying you should read the whole thing - who has? - just get some facts that don't emanate from people with a axe to grind . . . that rules out FOX. By continuing along your line and getting caught out time and agai you simply expose yourself to be clueless, simply regurgitating frpm one source.

[barbaro]

^^^ and ^^

Obviously the pic above if a joke. The books were put on a rack before the "religion" sign came down.

No President in history was "religous" like, messiah-like, or revolutionary enough.

Obama's in the Center. Just like everyone before him. And it will be the same after Obama leaves office.