President Obama News Thread

[venturalaw]

The usual puddle deep level of political analysis I see.

Au contraire there mon amie! The comparison is most apt.Comrade Obama intends to nationalize (socialize) just about all of American life. Mighty glad I don't live there...

No he doesn't Booners. The comparison's trite, sophomoric and puerile.

Wake up, it's not the 1950's anymore and there's no threat of imminent invasion from Communist Russia. Also you should lay off the blogs for a while, they're rotting your brain.

Where is the indication that BO supports privatization? He took over Crysler GM (The plan is for the federal government to take a 60 percent ownership stake in the new GM), is seeking to nationalize health care, will increase taxes thereby requiring that the ever-expanding government be financially supported by small business (thereby shrinking the private sector). His mindset was clearly demonstrated by his statement “Your warranty will be safe. In fact, it will be safer than it’s ever been, because starting today, the United States government will stand behind your warranty.”
How many more businesses will the US Government take over? Given the government's track record in this regard there is significant cause for concern.
You're right - no threat of imminent invasion from Communist Russia - the threat is from within.

[AntRobertson]

You're right - no threat of imminent invasion from Communist Russia - the threat is from within.

A touch melodramatic, don't you think.

[MrG]

How many more businesses will the US Government take over? Given the government's track record in this regard there is significant cause for concern.

It took over very few, as I recall. And they were bailed out at the behest of the Wall Streeters and politicos who got us into the mess. And it started with that socialist, GW Bush. And then, just as the sky is falling and it can't get any worse....

will increase taxes thereby requiring that the ever-expanding government be financially supported by small business (thereby shrinking the private sector).

What on earth does that mean?

[venturalaw]

How many more businesses will the US Government take over? Given the government's track record in this regard there is significant cause for concern.

It took over very few, as I recall. And they were bailed out at the behest of the Wall Streeters and politicos who got us into the mess. And it started with that socialist, GW Bush. And then, just as the sky is falling and it can't get any worse....

will increase taxes thereby requiring that the ever-expanding government be financially supported by small business (thereby shrinking the private sector).

What on earth does that mean?

How will the government programs be financially supported? The only method is by taxing the private sector. Unless you know of an alternative money source, it will be businesses that pay. This will naturally cause a decrease in business and therefore a shrinking of the private sector.

[barbaro]

^ long time noe see, VL. Good to hear from you.

Yes, they'll attempt to tax the private sector, leading to a poorer quality of life and a larger tax burden. This can also happen (is happening) at the state leve (E.G. California).

[Butterfly]

Obama is doing the right thing, he needs to Europeanize America and make it a modern socialist state like the rest of the world is

once America is Europeanized, it will be easier for America to sync its foreigner policies with the rest of the civilized world

[Boon Mee]

You're right - no threat of imminent invasion from Communist Russia - the threat is from within.

A touch melodramatic, don't you think.

Not at all. To wit:

[ItsRobsLife]

Kid "Why do people call you a Socialist"?

Pres "Because they are poorly educated racists that just can't admit they don't like us because we are black so try and attack us in another way."

Kid "Fuck them dumbass dinosaurs daddy, the world loves you like it never loved Bush"

Pres "I am going to fuck them sweetie, right where it hurts and make them pay back some of the money those money grabbing bastards ripped off from the system for the last ten years"

Kid "That'll make 'em even madder"

Pres " I know sweetie, isn't being a President the best job ever"

[MrG]

it will be businesses that pay. This will naturally cause a decrease in business and therefore a shrinking of the private sector.

You mean like all those socialist countries in Europe that are so much better off than the USA. In what way will taxing the private sector make it shrink? The big ones, oil inclueded, get govt. write-offs and pay less taxes than I do. The whole trickle down thing of reducing taxes so business can grow has been pretty well shot to hell as an excuse.

[AntRobertson]

You're right - no threat of imminent invasion from Communist Russia - the threat is from within.

A touch melodramatic, don't you think.

Not at all. To wit:

...


You were a lot more interesting when you were something more than just a cut 'n paste merchant for right-wing blogs.

Now you're entirely predictable and - I'm sorry to say it - boring.

[Boon Mee]

You're right - no threat of imminent invasion from Communist Russia - the threat is from within.

A touch melodramatic, don't you think.

Not at all. To wit:

...


You were a lot more interesting when you were something more than just a cut 'n paste merchant for right-wing blogs.

Now you're entirely predictable and - I'm sorry to say it - boring.

Not to worry my dear Ant...been too busy packing up and moving house back to my litttle mooban in Suphanburi to do much else than the quick 'stick the liberal' cartoon. All will be different soon I can assure.

[AntRobertson]

Well I hope so. It's pretty obvious that you don't actually believe half the stuff you've been cut 'n pasting. How can you, you equally as clearly don't even understand half the stuff you've been cut 'n pasting.

[Muadib]

It's not merely the US government's desire to create a nanny state, but to control all aspects of life for US citizens...

Here's a bill the US Senate is floating that reeks of Totalitarianism...

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet | Politics and Law - CNET News

August 28, 2009 12:34 AM PDT
Bill would give president emergency control of Internet


Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."

Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.

A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president's power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.

When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.

The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government's role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.

Rockefeller's revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a "cybersecurity workforce plan" from every federal agency, a "dashboard" pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a "comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy" in six months--even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.

The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," he says.

Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)

"The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."

Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.

The Internet Security Alliance's Clinton adds that his group is "supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective."

Update at 3:14 p.m. PDT: I just talked to Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee, on the phone. She sent me e-mail with this statement:

The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president's authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a "government shutdown or takeover of the Internet" and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government's response.

Unfortunately, I'm still waiting for an on-the-record answer to these four questions that I asked her colleague on Wednesday. I'll let you know if and when I get a response.

[AntRobertson]

It's not merely the government's desire to create a nanny state, but to control all aspects of life for US citizens...

Here's a little bill before Congress that reeks of Totalitarianism...

When the Bush administration were doing this kind of thing they were being hailed in some quarters for their hardline in prosecuting the War on Terror and keeping America safe.

Plus ca change...

[barbaro]

^ True.

The GWB administration did the same thing - try to grow government - and encroach on citizens lives.

[Muadib]

Different administration, different message, same result...

I'm neither a moonbat or a wingnut and don't play the same games as Ray, Jet & Boonie... All I've seen of both the Bush & Obama administrations is the reduction of freedom for US citizens and increase in the control the US government has over the populace... At the same time doing nothing to secure the future of the country through fiscal responsibility and internal security... Just another case of watch the shiny object and furthering the culture of fear...

[robuzo]

Different administration, different message, same result...

I'm neither a moonbat or a wingnut and don't play the same games as Ray, Jet & Boonie... All I've seen of both the Bush & Obama administrations is the reduction of freedom for US citizens and increase in the control the US government has over the populace... At the same time doing nothing to secure the future of the country through fiscal responsibility and internal security... Just another case of watch the shiny object and furthering the culture of fear...

Obama doesn't so far seem willing to deny his administration the powers that the Bush administration granted itself. The Republicans were warned about this at the time but preferred to behave as if they would always be in charge. I suppose it would be out of character for people in positions of authority to give up any of their powers, but it is becoming clear that Obama really is just another centrist politician unwilling to shake things up. His chief of staff is the consummate political animal, a Washington insider whose primary concern is keeping corporate donors happy. If Obama continues to ignore the needs of his political base he could wind up losing after one term. If the US winds up with a President Cheney we will truly regret that the national security state wasn't dismantled when we had a chance.

[maccaroni man]

imho the best thing that could happen to the gold old USA is for Obama to be a 1 term wonder and then have some repubs in there to undue all the damage he managed to do during his brief stay. Seriously if you are a yank read your passport we are capitlist whic is what has made our country stand the test of time and grow faster than any other nation of its age and size for better or worse the united states was not built to be a socilist society for the working to provide for the unwilling and unable.

[robuzo]

imho the best thing that could happen to the gold old USA is for Obama to be a 1 term wonder and then have some repubs in there to undue all the damage he managed to do during his brief stay. Seriously if you are a yank read your passport we are capitlist whic is what has made our country stand the test of time and grow faster than any other nation of its age and size for better or worse the united states was not built to be a socilist society for the working to provide for the unwilling and unable.

Great, another right-wing nutter on TD.

It seems from your post that you didn't take advantage of the free public (i.e., socialist) school system; get your spellin' an' grammar from home-schoolin', didja? Or is Jesus your spell checker? Really amusing how the Republicans are staunchly defending (socialist) Medicare now, too, and (socialist) Social Security.

[panama hat]

imho the best thing that could happen to the gold old USA is for Obama to be a 1 term wonder and then have some repubs in there to undue all the damage he managed to do during his brief stay.

You are right, of course . . . what we need is another years of Bush-like cronyism to further enrich those with connections . . . and add a few more wars into the equation.

Seriously if you are a yank read your passport we are capitlist

Really? It says that?

a socilist society for the working to provide for the unwilling and unable.

Yes, can't have supporting the unable, can we . . . I suggest extermination camps for the invalids, aged and then we continue with those foreigners

[sabang]

Democrat and Republican policies are both just different nuances on capitalism. To say the Obama admin, or the Dem's, are Socialist is just plain nonsense.

'Socialised' medicine? Well every major capitalist nation except your own already has it- and way cheaper than your private system. Hardly Socialism. Government ownership of industry? A temporary phenomenon, part of a massive government bailout of the economy (which started under Bush). The government has announced it will be selling out as soon as it is feasible to do so.


Obama is certainly not immune to criticism, and I believe he has not shown good leadership on the Health care issue, and basically allowed the loonies to hijack the debate. A good article from Ariana Huffington here, critical of Obama-

Arianna Huffington: Lessons in Leadership: Why Obama Needs to Brush Up on His FDR

The consensus will come later, once reform has taken hold. You don't see many Republicans these days willing to come out in favor of repealing Social Security and Medicare. But if those programs weren't already in place, you can bet they'd be fighting against them just as hard are they are fighting against health care reform now. (Back in 1961, Ronald Reagan warned that if we passed Medicare we would "spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free.")

[Butterfly]

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

yes this is quite silly, I wonder how much of the presidency is under control of shadow groups

Obama might be too weak or too new to be able to assert his views, it was the same under Clinton in the beginning, but eventually he was able to break free and do serious work

[sabang]

^ As I understand it, these are emergency provisions that can be enacted in the event of some sort of massive cyber attack. No big deal.

[ItsRobsLife]

I feel the first cracks in the Obama persona are starting to show, as it does with any incoming administration after the honeymoon period, with the continuation of rendition and interrogation (torture) although under supervision (!!)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/us...rendition.html

As you say Sabang, Republicans and Democrats are just different shades of grey, supporting the same Friedmanist economic system.

Of the 700+ Gitmo detainees only a handful have ever been charged with an offence and the Red Cross claim that more than 70% of those detained and interrogated in Iraq have commited no serious crimes, many detained for being vocal in their protest against the economic policies implemented on it's country. In many cases rendition and detention are used simply to remove key figures in the community or workplace. The torture it seems is simply a matter of course, not for information, but in an effort to reprogramme, but most often simply just because they can as a message to those that would resist the US in it's economic 'restructuring'.

Meet the new boss same as the old boss.

[Boon Mee]

Hope & Change:

Are they frustrated or what?