President Obama News Thread

[Jet Gorgon]

^^ Can I buy me some of those watermelons, BG?

Professionals are very much unionised, they just call their unions 'Associations' or wanker stuff like that. The doctors unions ( AMA, BMA etc) are amongst the most aggressive and belligerent you will find anywhere.

True, but they don't dictate your wages, pensions, work details, etc. Far as I know, professionals like lawyers, docs, bankers, et al, don't go on strike either. I belong to a pro assn in the US, too. I get updates on industry reg changes and other news. Like other pro assns, we must adhere to a strict code of conduct and ethics. If I mess up, the whole assn knows and there goes most chances of getting projects somewhere else. And we don't strike. Never seen lawyers or docs do it either. Let me know if that's incorrect.
Sure, teachers and nurses are pros, but as soon as they work for the govt especially, they get sucked into unions. That's a farce. Fine, have a union, but they should not be allowed to strike and deprive the public (who pays their wages) of essential services. Their union "leaders" should be smart enough to negotiate a deal. That's what they're paid for.
If unions disrupt essential services by forcing their workers to strike, I hope Obama will have the guts to fire them all like Reagan did with the air-traffic controllers. Sadly, since the unions gave him such huge support, I think he'll just shrug it off, make a nice touchy feely speech and let the people suffer.
One thing I do applaud Obama for is his plan (well, campaign rhetoric, so whether it comes to pass is questionable) to create more charter schools and a system that measures a teacher's worth on merit, not length of service.

[Bugs]

I apologize in advance for this off topic post. Ever since Obama announced the nearly two trillion dollar deficit I have been poking around the national debt issue.

Can anyone tell me in simple terms what the hell “Federal Reserve and intergovernmental holdings” are?
File:Estimated ownership of treasury securities by year.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



File:Estimated ownership of US Treasury securities by category 0608.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Is this just basically the Feds printing money to buy and hold their own debt?

I must say I was surprise by how relatively low the percentage of the US debt is held by Foreign sources – just over 25%. Before looking into this I thought that this number was well over the 50% range.

[panama hat]

^^ Most of what you write is garbage . . . as usual, of course doctors withhold services, as do nurses. Teachers do not all work for the government private teacher's unions go on strike but:

a system that measures a teacher's worth on merit, not length of service.

Yes, exactly. Very good point, Jet.

A few years ago teachers in New England, my memory is vague on the exact locale (entry for a Jet-jibe), were tested on subject knowledge . . . close to 70% failed . . . no-one lost their jobs, they were just told to 're-educate' . . . I am not sure if follow-up tests were done.

Again, as it is amazing, Jet is spot on with her comment

[Boon Mee]

And it's gonna get worse before it gets better courtesy of BO's so-called 'economic plan'...

[Jet Gorgon]

Well, BO just cannot quit doling out other people's cash. He just gave $900m to help the Israeli/Palestinians resolve their probs. Guess he kept it short of a BILLION so people will think it's chump change. "Oh, it's only millions, Dear!" What a fekin loser.
And Rahm on Scheiffer's Sunday show was the oiliest avoidance git I ever heard -- better than BO.

[barbaro]

^ I noticed the $900 Billion for Gaza aid. The US spends $3 billion of taxpayer money on Israel per year. $2 goes to mandatory buying of US arms manufactured weapons. So once again, the American govt is playing both sides. No money should go over there at all. If it were to be spent (which I think it shouldn't) it should be spent on the US.

[attaboy]

Obama plans to reduce the charity deduction to 28% of every dollar donated. That should be good for the poor. Down the road we'll read how the federal government needs to get more inviolved in caring for the poor.

[Cujo]

^ I noticed the $900 Billion for Gaza aid.

WTF!!???
At a time like this they're giving 900 BILLION to the fucking joos??
I say again.
WTF!!!???

[panama hat]

^ Incorrect hyperbole . . . I think Milkman wrote billion instead of million and the money is for Gaza, not Israel.

Calm down, relax . . . breathe . . . inhale good thoughts, exhale anti-Semitic rants . . .

[Panda]

^ Incorrect hyperbole . . . I think Milkman wrote billion instead of million and the money is for Gaza, not Israel.

Calm down, relax . . . breathe . . . inhale good thoughts, exhale anti-Semitic rants . . .

Well, its to rebuild all the devastation in Gaza that Israel did with the bombs and weapons USA gave them.
But the thing is that the Gazans only get it if they follow the West Bank Fatah prez Abbas as he is the one who will be holding the money.

If at first democracy doesn't succeed in getting the result you want, you bomb them, then you bribe them. Its the American way.

[barbaro]

^ I noticed the $900 Billion for Gaza aid.

WTF!!???
At a time like this they're giving 900 BILLION to the fucking joos??
I say again.
WTF!!!???

As Panama Hat said, this $900 Million is for the Gazans. The $3 Billion per year is for the Jews.

Yup. While American disintegrates, we need to keep filling the troughs of scum that the US uses, and the scum that uses the US govt.

[panama hat]

The $3 Billion per year is for the Jews.

Of which 2 billion is for weapons purchases from . . . the USA . . . Economics 101!

[Cujo]

900 BILLION for Gaza aid??????
900 BILLION?????? At a time like this?
Sounds like the inmates are running the asylum.
Give the Joos not a fucking cent, give Gaza not a fucking cent. Leave them to their own devices untill you've (Americans) sorted out your own house.

(Alternative post)
If 2/3rds of the aid (2 B) going to the joos is to buy arms from the U.S. shouldn't it be fair to allow the Palestinians to spend 2/3 of their 900 Billion (600 B) on arms? Seems fair enough to me.

[barbaro]

900 BILLION for Gaza aid??????
900 BILLION?????? At a time like this?
Sounds like the inmates are running the asylum.
Give the Joos not a fucking cent, give Gaza not a fucking cent. Leave them to their own devices untill you've (Americans) sorted out your own house.

Again, as I stated before above - it's $900 Million.

Million, not B - billion.

[raycarey]

what?

$900 Mcbillion?

For the Syrians?

[Boon Mee]

I'll bet reach-around, sabang and the usual suspects are really digging the Obama joyride, eh?

[Bugs]

This little tid-bit was first reported earlier this week:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/wa...edvedev&st=cse

WASHINGTON — President Obama sent a secret letter to Russia’s president last month suggesting that he would back off deploying a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow would help stop Iran from developing long-range weapons, American officials said Monday.

My first thought on this was - some kind of secret letter. Probably something that was better let unwritten. Surely there are channels availible for this kind of interaction that would allow both parties to deny any deal existes until the deal is done.

Why is denial important? Because I think now that the possibility of a deal has been made public that it is dead in the water. Both because I think it becomes less attractive to Russia - having a deal to sell out Iran in favor of the US become public before the deal is done. And also because now those that would prefer not to leave the Czechs and the Poles hanging in the wind in exchange for a deal on Iran will have time to put pressure on things from the US side as well.

Had the deal been kept secret, and certainly not in writing. Then I think the chances were much greater that something could have been done. Once the deal was done then both could have done after action work to console those that were negatively effected.

Then again maybe the idea of a deal was leaked because one side or the other did not want to go thru with it anyway?

Here is a bit more on the issue:
Obama's Russian Gambit on Iran - Associated Content

The crisis created by Iran's nuclear program continues to vex the Obama administration. The purely diplomatic approach appears not to be working, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has privately admitted. And that leaves—what?

A report in the Russian media suggests that President Obama is prepared for one final gambit on the diplomatic front. Obama, according to the report, has proposed that the United States scrap the missile defense system being built in Eastern Europe is exchange for Russia help on stopping Iran from developing a nuclear arsenal. The proposal has the germ of a clever diplomatic move, but also carries great risk.

Everything depends on what Russia has to do in exchange for the end of the missile defense system. If the deal is based on some sort of positive result, i.e. if Iran actually has to officially scrap its nuclear program, with an inspection regime to verify that it has done so, then Obama will have pulled off a coup. But if all Russia has to do is to promise to put pressure on Iran in exchange for no missile defense, then Barack Obama will have made a blunder almost comparable to the one Neville Chamberlain made at Munich in 1938.

[raycarey]

This little tid-bit was first reported earlier this week:

well, later in the week the obama administration stated that the little tid-bit was inaccurate.

[Bugs]

This little tid-bit was first reported earlier this week:

well, later in the week the obama administration stated that the little tid-bit was inaccurate.

While Obama said he was not offering "a quid pro quo" I don't know what else it should be called.

There was a letter sent to Medvedev, and the letter did say that "to the extned that we are lessening Iran's commitment to nuclear weapons, then that reduces the pressure or the need for a missile-dedense system".

That pretty much seems to me to be an offer to back off the missle system if something can be done to eliminate the nuclear issue associated with Iran.

Even if it was not meant to be an offer of quid pro quo I don't know why he even bothered to send the letter?

Bloomberg.com: Europe

Obama suggested a possible approach in a letter to Medvedev last month. The shield is designed to protect against Iranian missiles, and “to the extent that we are lessening Iran’s commitment to nuclear weapons, then that reduces the pressure or the need for a missile-defense system,” Obama told reporters on March 3 in describing the letter.

While Obama denied that he was offering a quid pro quo, analysts said there was an implicit message to the Russians: use your influence with Iran to drop its missile program and suspected nuclear-weapons effort, and the need for the defensive shield that you so despise will evaporate.

‘Not Immutable’

“Reading between the lines, we have suggested we can move forward on missile defense,” said Pifer, who is now a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington. “Obama is suggesting that our position is not immutable.”

One thing that I think lessens the offer in the letter is that Obama has never been too keen on the missle system. So I doubt the Russian see the offer of not implimenting a system that he was none to keen on in the first place as much of an offer.

[Bugs]

Potential Obama nominations continue to fall by the wayside:

Sanjay Gupta has pulled out of consideration for Surgeon General:
CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - BREAKING: Gupta withdraws from consideration for cabinet post « - Blogs from CNN.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) – CNN correspondent Sanjay Gupta has withdrawn his name from consideration as the nation’s next surgeon general, opting to continue to devote time to his reporting and his medical career.
Gupta will discuss his decision, and the president’s health care agenda, tonight on CNN’s Larry King Live.

Should be interesting to see if Gupta gives up any details, about his decision.

Some said it was an issue of money - just saw Gupta say on AC360 that it was not about the money.

I wonder if Obama's plans on health care were an issue for Gupta or not?

A couple more from the treasury department pull out as well:
UPDATE 3-Picks for 2 high U.S. Treasury jobs withdraw-sources | Deals | Regulatory News | Reuters

WASHINGTON, March 5 (Reuters) - Two top contenders for senior posts at the U.S. Treasury have withdrawn, people familiar with the moves said on Thursday, dealing a blow to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's efforts to build his staff to fight the financial crisis.

Former Securities and Exchange Commissioner Annette Nazareth withdrew from consideration to become deputy Treasury secretary for personal reasons to remain in her private securities law practice, one of the sources said.

And Caroline Atkinson, Geithner's choice for international affairs undersecretary, also has withdrawn. Atkinson, a senior official at the International Monetary Fund, has decided to remain at the institution, a person familiar with the decision said.

Both Nazareth and Atkinson had been vetted for the jobs but were not formally nominated for U.S. Senate confirmation.

Nazareth and Atkinson could not immediately be reached for comment. A Treasury spokesman declined to comment.

Some say much of the delay in filling open positions is due to a ramped up vetting process due to early Obama nominations pulling out. Some say these recent pull-out in the treasury department are due to conflicting points of view between the possible nominees and Geithner. That seems a bit of a stretch since from what I have read Geithner is the primary guy who picked them to be checked out in the first place.

In any case I guess it is not too surprising that some folks don't want to be associated with the treasury department right now.



In light of the complexity of the current US government should consideration be given to changing the election date? How much time is really necessarry for an elected president to put together a full staff?

IMHO there needs to be enough time between the election and when the new guy takes over to be able to field a full team.

That being said I think the time between Obama being elected and offically taking office made the US financial situation much worse - too much time with very little being done.

So what needs to be done to make sure an incoming president has the time, resources, etc, necessary to be able to field a full team the day he takes office?

[Norton]

So what needs to be done to make sure an incoming president has the time, resources, etc, necessary to be able to field a full team the day he takes office?

Maybe identifying cabinet members during the campaign would work. The composition of the cabinet could also be a factor in how folks vote.

[panama hat]

So what needs to be done to make sure an incoming president has the time, resources, etc, necessary to be able to field a full team the day he takes office?

Maybe identifying cabinet members during the campaign would work. The composition of the cabinet could also be a factor in how folks vote.

. . . and shortening the whole election circus.

[Jet Gorgon]

Some say much of the delay in filling open positions is due to a ramped up vetting process

Pity Obama's admin didn't check whether appointees paid their taxes before they were announced. This admin is becoming a laughing stock.

[panama hat]

This admin is becoming a laughing stock.

Typical hyperbole bullshit from you, but:

Pity Obama's admin didn't check whether appointees paid their taxes before they were announced.

Absolutely . . . among other things . . . especially if the vetting process was supposed to be so vigorous. I can't see why people would want to set themselves up for public scrutiny knowing - as they must, Jet - that they have skeletons in the closet.

[blackgang]

Obama Era Marked by Steep, Continuing Stock Market Declines
Thursday, March 05, 2009
By Matt Cover


President Barack Obama speaks about his fiscal 2010 federal budget, Thursday, Feb, 26, 2009, in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House campus in Washington. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama’s first five weeks in office have been marked by sharp declines in U.S. stock markets, as the economy has continued to decline despite numerous legislative proposals from Congress and the administration aimed at stabilizing it.

Since Jan. 20, the nation’s largest stock market, the New York Stock Exchange’s Composite Index has declined steadily, losing 441 points, or $895 billion in value. The country’s second largest market, the NASDAQ, has also declined since Obama was sworn in, falling from 1,440 to 1,321 points, a 119 point drop.

In fact, Obama’s rise has seemed to accompany the economy’s fall, with the NYSE index dropping by 3,732 points since his nomination on Aug. 27, 2008 to Feb. 27, 2009 -- the last day for which official statistics are available – for a loss of $7.7 trillion dollars.

The NYSE Composite Index lost 2,004 points – for a loss of $4 trillion – from Obama’s nomination to his election Nov. 4 and lost 1,287 points – $2.6 trillion in value – from his election until his inauguration on Jan. 20.

The markets have been trending downwards since Obama’s inauguration as well.

In what might have been a moment of hope, the markets rose slightly in the week following Obama’s inaugural, but then fell again as details of his stimulus spending plan were revealed. On Jan. 28, the day Obama announced his hopes to sign a stimulus bill, the market fell 200 points.

On Feb. 9, the president made two campaign-style stops in South Bend and Elkhart, Ind. Obama made the case for government stimulus in his first national news conference, saying that only government could save the economy.

“It is only government that can break the vicious cycle, where lost jobs lead to people spending less money, which leads to even more layoffs. And breaking that cycle is exactly what the plan that's moving through Congress is designed to do,” Obama declared.

The following day, the NYSE lost 210 and the NASDAQ lost 51 points, with the NYSE shedding $400 billion the next day.

In fact, the market has lost over $1 trillion in February alone, as Obama’s agenda has dominated news cycles as the president signed the stimulus bill and then rolled out new bank and mortgage bailout plans along with his record $3.6 trillion budget last Thursday, which sent the market into a 379 point dive in three days.

Despite all of Obama’s efforts at stabilization, the markets hit record lows earlier this week, declining to levels not seen since the summer of 1997, having lost over $9 trillion since this time last year.

The major markets have all seen huge declines so far this year as the economy searches for a bottom amid the tsunami of new government spending. The NYSE has lost 33 percent of its value this year. The NASDAQ has shed 41 percent of its value this year. Both exchanges continue to decline, essentially guaranteeing that this recession will wipe out the steady growth of the past 11 years.

Obama, however, has said he is unconcerned with what he called the daily market fluctuations, saying during a Tuesday conference with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown that he was more concerned with the markets’ long term performance.

“What I’m looking at is not the day-to-day gyrations in the stock market but the long-term ability for the United States and the entire world economy to regain its footing,” Obama explained.

“The stock market is sort of like a tracking poll in politics, it bobs up and down, day-to-day, and if you spend all of your time worrying about that, you’re probably going to get long-term policy,” he added.