Thoughts & Commentary on the Obama Administration

Another thoughtful Economist article about our current Prez:

The collapse of Detroit’s giants is a tragedy, affecting tens of thousands of current and former workers. But the best way to offer them support is directly, not by gerrymandering the rules. The investors in these firms are easily portrayed as vultures, but many are entrusted with the savings of ordinary people, and in any case all have a legal claim that entitles them to due process. In a crisis it is easy to put politics first, but if lenders fear their rights will be abused, other firms will find it more expensive to borrow, especially if they have unionised workforces that are seen to be friendly with the government.

It may be too late for Chrysler’s secured creditors and if GM’s lenders cannot reach a voluntary agreement, they may face a similar fate. That would establish a terrible precedent. Bankruptcy exists to sort legal claims on assets. If it becomes a tool of social policy, who will then lend to struggling firms in which the government has a political interest?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

A discussion on Ann Coulter and her abilities is properly conducted in another thread.

---

What about her smokin' bod? :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

A discussion on Ann Coulter and her abilities is properly conducted in another thread.

If I may steer us back to topic, The Economist has a fascinating article examining President Obama's appointment to Education Secretary, Arne Duncan. The fellow seems to have some strong support across the floor, and doesn't seem to be afraid (along with the president) to challenge some shibboleths of the left.

The overview looks encouraging, though a fight with their own Congress may be in the offing. Any thoughts from those closer to the events?

Since moving to the Education Department a couple of months ago he has been a tireless preacher of the reform gospel. He supports charter schools and merit pay, accountability and transparency, but also litters his speeches with more unfamiliar ideas. He argues that one of the biggest problems in education is how to attract and use talent. All too often the education system allocates the best teachers to the cushiest schools rather than the toughest. Mr Duncan also stresses the importance of “replicating” success. His department, he says, should promote winning ideas (such as “Teach for America”, a programme that sends high-flying university graduates to teach in underserved schools) rather than merely enforcing the status quo.

Nor is this just talk. Mr Duncan did much to consolidate his reputation as a reformer on May 6th, when the White House announced that it will try to extend Washington, DC’s voucher programme until all 1,716 children taking part have graduated from high school. The Democrat-controlled Congress has been trying to smother the programme by removing funding. But Mr Duncan has vigorously argued that it does not make sense “to take kids out of a school where they’re happy and safe and satisfied and learning”. He and Mr Obama will now try to persuade Congress not to kill the programme.

---

The teachers unions will take him for a long walk off a short pier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

The teachers unions will take him for a long walk off a short pier.

---

Awww, if you can't make campaign promises and then turn around and tell your base, "Just kidding," what will politics come to?

This Duncan fellow seems grand, I just can't imagine him actually making it. :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

This Duncan fellow seems grand, I just can't imagine him actually making it. :/

---

Meanwhile, they're phasing out vouchers in DC. Call me when they figure out how to translate talk into results.

Duncan can say whatever he wants, as long as he does the teacher's union's bidding, they'll probably be fine with him. :wink:

Obama fires US commander in Afghanistan
I thought this excerpt was interesting:

Quote:

---

Asked if McKiernan's resignation would end his military career, Gates said, "Probably." But he praised the general's long service, and when pressed to name anything McKiernan had failed to do, Gates demurred.

"Nothing went wrong, and there was nothing specific," he said.

---

So he's finished, not just in Afghanistan, but in the military altogether. What did he do to make the administration want to force him out? I guess I'll have to wait for McKiernan's tell all book. :shrug:

Quote:

---

What did he do to make the administration want to force him out?

---

errrrrr.....

Quote:

---

The White House said the recommended change came from the Pentagon.

---

So what did he do to make the pentagon want a special forces commander in place ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

errrrrr.....
So what did he do to make the pentagon want a special forces commander in place ?

---

The Pentagon.... headquarters of the DoD.... headed by Robert Gates- member of the Obama administration and reporting to Obama- the CinC. :idea2:

Pack up your fishing gear and take it somewhere else please. :yes:

Quote:

---

Pack up your fishing gear and take it somewhere else please.

---

:flowers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I thought this excerpt was interesting:So he's finished, not just in Afghanistan, but in the military altogether. What did he do to make the administration want to force him out? I guess I'll have to wait for McKiernan's tell all book. :shrug:

---

Here's a somewhat informed take:

When a Cabinet officer asks for a subordinate's resignation, it means that he's firing the guy. This doesn't happen very often in the U.S. military. McKiernan had another year to go as commander. (When Gen. George Casey's strategy clearly wasn't working in Iraq, President George W. Bush let him serve out his term, then promoted him to Army chief of staff.) Gates also made it clear he wasn't acting on a personal whim. He said that he took the step after consulting with Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. Central Command; Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and President Barack Obama. According to one senior official, Gates went over to Afghanistan last week for the sole purpose of giving McKiernan the news face-to-face.

Gates emphasized at a press conference today that McKiernan didn't do anything specifically wrong but that "fresh thinking" was needed urgently. The United States couldn't just wait until the current commander's term ran out.

An intellectual battle is now raging within the Army between an "old guard" that thinks about war in conventional, force-on-force terms and a "new guard" that focuses more on "asymmetric conflicts" and counterinsurgency.

McKiernan is an excellent general in the old mold. McChrystal, who rose through the ranks as a special-forces officer, is an excellent general in the new mold. He has also worked closely with Gates and Petraeus. (In his press conference, Gates referred to McChrystal's "unique skill set in counterinsurgency.") For the past year, McChrystal has been director of the Pentagon's Joint Staff. More pertinently, for five years before that, he was commander of the Joint Special Operations Command, a highly secretive operation that hunted down and killed key jihadist fighters, including, most sensationally, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq.

Last fall, Bob Woodward reported in the Washington Post that JSOC played a crucial, unsung role in the tactical success of the Iraqi "surge." Using techniques of what McChrystal called "collaborative warfare," JSOC combined intelligence intercepts with quick, precision strikes to "eliminate" large numbers of key insurgent leaders.

This appointment will not be without controversy. McChrystal's command also provided the personnel for Task Force 6-26, an elite unit of 1,000 special-ops forces that engaged in harsh interrogation of detainees in Camp Nama as far back as 2003. The interrogations were so harsh that five Army officers were convicted on charges of abuse. (McChrystal himself was not implicated in the excesses, but the unit's slogan, which set the tone for its practices, was "If you don't make them bleed, they can't prosecute for it.")

-edit-

Another take.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

:flowers:

---

Knowing the basics of the chain of command of the administration is floral? Why do we let you post here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

(McChrystal himself was not implicated in the excesses, but the unit's slogan, which set the tone for its practices, was "If you don't make them bleed, they can't prosecute for it.")[/indent]
[/URL]

---

That's the slogan of a group of government employees sworn to uphold the constitution? Anyone else a wee bit worried?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The White House said the recommended change came from the Pentagon.

---

So what did he do to make the pentagon want a special forces commander in place ?

---

So you're using the word of the white house as proof the white house didn't interfere?
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

Another thoughtful Economist article about our current Prez: (dealing with creditors)

---

*sigh* Such foolish shortsightedness...

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

errrrrr.....
So what did he do to make the pentagon want a special forces commander in place ?

---

When Generals get pink-slipped in the US, it's not usually for something they've done, rather a failure to achieve some goal.

My guess is that Gen. McKiernan had been given a major objective to achieve within a defined time-period, and did not get the job done. So now he, and his approach, are both being binned, and they're gonna take a new direction with a new local boss.

Within 30 days, we'll probably also see some other heads roll (i.e. transfers out-of-theater) of some Brigadiers and Colonels, chiefly on the Plans and Ops staffs.

Quote:

---

When Generals get pink-slipped in the US, it's not usually for something they've done, rather a failure to achieve some goal.

---

so its business as usual which makes this a non-issue xiahou posted , shocking eh .

I'm confused. Isn't showing willingness to try new tactics a good thing, as opposed to refusing that a strategy isn't working? Again getting someone in who has more experience with the latter in hand seems to be sensible.

Is there a party based element I'm missing?

~:smoking:

I hope not (and I think this might be what Xiahou feared). Our uniformed guys are supposed to be distinctly a-political, party-wise. I'd hate to see that change.

Rather, I think it's as you say, a change in strategy and tactics, ushered in with a fresh face. That the old guy is retiring from service is, I hope, merely a happy coincidence.

Afghanistan's Karzai was here last week, making the rounds of the TV talk shows, where he was drilled on how ready Afghan forces were to take the lead - a point on which he kinda waffled, calling for more US influence, while decrying civilian losses to bombing attacks.

I suspect that may have been the motivator for the switch in Generals: less bombing, more ground ops.

A counterinsurgency expert comments on the general switch:

Now there is a lot of stuff at work here. First, I heard rumors that McChrystal might replace McKiernan only last Friday, when a senior U.S. policy-maker cornered me and asked me what I thought of McChrystal. That's kinda like asking a rifleman in the French Army what he thinks of Napoleon. Although I indeed served under McChrystal's command in both Iraq and Afghanistan, I do not know him personally and was but one cog in a giant machine at the time.

I do know that many policy-makers and journalists think that McChrystal's work as the head of the super-secret Joint Special Operations Command was the untold success story of the Surge and the greater war on terror campaigns. I also know that McChrystal and David Petraeus forged a close working relationship in Iraq in 2007 and have much respect for one another. (Prior to 2007, the relations between the direct-action special operations task force and the overall command in Iraq were strained at best.)

Second, let's not beat around the bush: Gen. McKiernan was fired -- and fired in a very public manner. Secretary Gates' exact words: "I have asked for the resignation of General David McKiernan."

Damn.

This tells me that President Obama, Secretary Gates, and Gen. Petraeus are as serious as a heart attack about a shift in strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This was ruthless, and they were not about to do the George Casey thing whereby a commander is left in the theater long after he is considered to have grown ineffective.

The sad truth of the matter is that people have been calling for McKiernan's head for some time now. Many of the people with whom I have spoken do not think that McKiernan "gets" the war in Afghanistan -- or counterinsurgency warfare in general. There was very little confidence that -- with McKiernan in charge in Afghanistan -- we the United States had the varsity squad on the field.

That all changed today. I do not know if the war in Afghanistan is winnable. But I do know that Stan McChrystal is an automatic starter in anyone's line-up.

Game on.

-edit-

This topic is too meaty for this thread; I'm spinning it out on its own.

Heh. From a viral email I received this morning:

Quote:

---

Dear Mr. President:
Please find below my suggestion for fixing America 's economy.

Instead of giving billions of dollars to companies that will
squander the money on
lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the following plan.

You can call it the Patriotic Retirement Plan:

There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force.

Pay them $1 million apiece severance for early retirement with
the following stipulations:

1) They MUST retire. Forty million job openings - Unemployment
fixed.

2) They MUST buy a new American CAR. Forty million cars
ordered- Auto Industry fixed.

3) They MUST either buy a house or pay off their mortgage -
Housing Crisis fixed..

It can't get any easier than that!

If more money is needed, have all members of Congress and their
constituents pay their taxes...

---

:laugh4:

Obama considers his nominees

Quote:

---

An official familiar with Obama's decision-making said others include Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and U.S. Appeals Court judges Sonia Sotomayor and Diane Pamela Wood—people who have been mentioned frequently as potential candidates.

---

Hasn't Napolitano done enough already?

Aside from the story itself, and whether we agree or disagree with the final choice...

The article writer: BEN FELLER, is a guy to watch. Being AP, he can spread story quite broadly, and is apparently trusted by "anonymous White House source"s as a good "leak to" asset.

Or...

he totally made the stuff up on his own. Or got purposely lied to. I'm betting 'not', this being a trial balloon, he being the trial balloon releaser.

Big, long interview with President 44. Lots of interesting stuff gets touched on, worth a read.

Obama continues his fight against international commerce:

Quote:

---

The decision, which would make it hard for Americans in London to open bank accounts and trade shares, is being discussed by executives at Britain's banks and brokers who say it could become too expensive to service American clients. The proposals, which were unveiled as part of the president's first budget, are designed to clamp-down on American tax evaders abroad. However bank bosses say they

are being asked to take on the task of collecting American taxes at a cost and legal liability that are inexpedient.

Andy Thompson of Association of Private Client Investment Managers and Stockbrokers (APCIMS) said: "The cost and administration of the US tax regime is causing UK investment firms to consider disinvesting in US shares on behalf of their clients. This is not right and emphasises that the administration of a tax regime on a global scale without any flexibility damages the very economy it is trying to protect."

---

:wall::wall:

CR

U.S. Budget Gap Is Revised to Surpass $1.8 TrillionAnyone want to start a pool on whether or not we can break the $2 trillion mark this year? That's a deficit equaling almost 13% of our GDP...

Quote:

---

Economists generally agree a country’s annual deficits should not exceed 3 percent of economic output. Mr. Obama, in his 10-year budget outline in February, projected the United States would fall just below that level in the last months of his term, in the 2013 fiscal year. Many analysts consider his economic assumptions too rosy, however, which casts doubt on his deficit forecast.

---

"Many analysts" would be right, since they've already exceeded their projections on spending and tax revenue estimates have already been revised down. Then there's Obama's plans for universal healthcare, which I'm sure will come in under budget- just like Medicare has. :sweatdrop:

So... should we worry yet?

Here's a very uplifting article I read recently, entitled: US Credit Rating Under Fire

Quote:

---

But what's troublesome is that estimates of the deficit continue to skyrocket, and now stand at more than $2 trillion for 2010, which is a nearly 30% increase in just a few months.

These numbers make George Bush's deficits look like chump change, and the problem isn't so much the number as it is the direction and velocity of change.

As government continues to deficit spend they inevitably "crowd out" private borrowing and spending, as taxes must rise dramatically in order to fund the spending.

Treasury has responded to these pressures by shortening duration which makes the intermediate and longer-term much worse, because now you get to add "rollover risk" to the picture as well. Currently, the $12 trillion or so in US Debt has an average duration around 4 years - the shortest on record. This has been undertaken in an attempt to manage interest costs, but that game cannot continue forever, and when it reverses it has the risk of doing so at breakneck speed, dramatically increasing interest cost for the government and doing even more budgetary damage.

Simply put, America's choices for government at the federal level is unsustainable; the ability and demand to spend in a deficit-ramping fashion on a sustained basis, as has happened every year since WWII, cannot continue.

There are solutions but they're bitter medicine: The Treasury must be refilled, deficit spending must cease, and those private parties that have led us into this mess believing these would be rescued with public funds must instead be left out in the cold.

Will we as a nation take these options now, or will the market force them upon us in a few years when it is no longer willing to fund the profligate and even fraudulent cover-ups by attempting monetarily "paper over" the ripoffs and scams perpetrated upon us by the so-called "masters of the financial universe"?

That is the question facing America, and its being asked now.

---

Quote:

---

Anyone want to start a pool on whether or not we can break the $2 trillion mark this year?

---

Brilliant. I think you oughtta, mate. Just post a poll with 18 options: June '09 thru Dec '10 (going with your links prediction of a 2010 achievement) (or maybe 24 months thru May 2011, just in case). Award every entrant 1 Xiahou dollar to bet with, winner take all; split in case of a multi-vote. Make it "public" so all can see who voted what.

It could almost serve as a "when will the US be so crushed with debt, which they've always historically serviced, that they eschew servicing, and embrace the economy of Venezuala as their template."

See, I think I've seen the light. Japan's leveraged to the hilt - they have something like 170% of their GDP in national debt. It doesn't matter though! They're fine! We basically have infinite money. I for one hope to get a luxurious welfare package to sit around playing TF2 all day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

We basically have infinite money.

---

A little perspective ...

Note that the spendthrift Irish have a per capita debt of $549,819. Yikes! Can we foreclose on the Emerald Isle?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

A little perspective ...

Note that the spendthrift Irish have a per capita debt of $549,819. Yikes! Can we foreclose on the Emerald Isle?

---

Don't forget our government conveniently leaves out the unfunded liabilities of things like Medicare and Social Security. Last year, Richard Fisher, the head of the Federal Reserve bank in Dallas pegged the unfunded liabilities from these programs to be 99.2 trillion!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisher

Add together the unfunded liabilities from Medicare and Social Security, and it comes to $99.2 trillion over the infinite horizon. Traditional Medicare composes about 69 percent, the new drug benefit roughly 17 percent and Social Security the remaining 14 percent.

I want to remind you that I am only talking about the unfunded portions of Social Security and Medicare. It is what the current payment scheme of Social Security payroll taxes, Medicare payroll taxes, membership fees for Medicare B, copays, deductibles and all other revenue currently channeled to our entitlement system will not cover under current rules. These existing revenue streams must remain in place in perpetuity to handle the “funded” entitlement liabilities. Reduce or eliminate this income and the unfunded liability grows. Increase benefits and the liability grows as well.

---

How's that for perspective?
What's funny is that in his budget estimates from his speech last May, put the 2009 deficit around 400 billion. Clearly, he grossly underestimated our government's ability to spend. :sweatdrop:

For a different perspective, you can look at the Treasury Dept.'s 2008 financial statements, where they put 2008's "Total present value of future expenditures in excess of future revenue" at a meager $43 trillion. I'm pretty sure the accounting that we use to arrive at our modest $13 trillion dollar debt would probably land any organization other than the government in some regulatory hot water. (Then again, I'm not an accountant- maybe one will pop in here and explain it all to us)

Quote:

---

Note that the spendthrift Irish have a per capita debt of $549,819.

---

Its not so much spendthrift, just a demontration that fuelling growth by a combination of low taxation, credit and reducing regulation doesn't work.

Quote:

---

Can we foreclose on the Emerald Isle?

---

You can try, but due to the right wing approach to business and finance that was practiced there are no real assets to sieze only fictional ones so forclosure doesn't get you anything

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

A little perspective ...

Note that the spendthrift Irish have a per capita debt of $549,819. Yikes! Can we foreclose on the Emerald Isle?

---

External debt isn't the same as government debt. External debt is all money owed by citizens, corporations and the government to outside parties (and doesn't take into account money owed to them by outside parties). It's to be expected that Switzerland would have a "bad" rating in that link of yours because of its banks. Or the Netherlands, wich according to that link have an external debt rating of 268% while the government debt is well below 60%.