Not quite the unforgettable Dan Quayle yet, but Joe is getting there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Printable View
Not quite the unforgettable Dan Quayle yet, but Joe is getting there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
This should be in News of the Weird, but it's just a smidgen too political.
Looks as though the Mormon Church posthumously baptized Obama's mother, without his permission (and obviously without hers). No harm, obviously, but it's still weird.
Details.
A reader contacted me last week, saying that last year, in the heat of the presidential campaign, the Mormons had posthumously baptized Barack Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham. Baptizing the dead of other faith's, secretly and without the consent of their families, is a common Mormon practice. For the past fifteen years the Mormons have caused quite a stir by forcibly baptizing Jewish Holocaust victims - in other words, converting them to Mormonism - despite strong objections from the Jewish community.
Thus, it's hardly a stretch to imagine the Mormons' doing this to Obama's mother. Still, I had no proof. Then yesterday, I received a document. It's allegedly a screen capture of the registration-only section of the Mormon-run Web site, FamilySearch.org. In that screen capture, excerpted above, is clearly the name and correct date of birth and death of Barack Obama's mother (Stanley Ann Dunham, born 29 Nov 1942 in Kansas, died 07 Nov 1995) and the date of her alleged post-death baptism by the Mormons. You can see the entire document here:
-edit-
To their credit, the Mormon Church is taking this seriously.
"The offering of baptism to our deceased ancestors is a sacred practice to us and it is counter to Church policy for a Church member to submit names for baptism for persons to whom they are not related," said spokeswoman Kim Farah in an emailed statement. "The Church is looking into the circumstances of how this happened and does not yet have all the facts. However, this is a serious matter and we are treating it as such."
$17 billion, huh? :inquisitive:Quote:
Obama's promised line-by-line scrub of the federal budget has produced a roster of 121 budget cuts totaling $17 billion — or about one-half of 1 percent of the $3.4 trillion budget Congress has approved for next year. The details were unveiled Thursday.
But it gets better:So, who's surprised? Anyone?Quote:
Those savings are far exceeded by a phone-book-sized volume detailing Obama's generous increases for domestic programs that will accompany the call for cuts. And instead of devoting the savings to defray record deficits, the White House is funneling them back into other programs.
link
Oh, uh...I'm shocked...Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Found the link to the pdf. that covers all the programs and what-not being... "budgeted"
Budget of the US Government Fiscal Year 2010 - Terminations, Reductions, and Savings
Obama burgergate. Too silly to even attempt a summary, but let's put it this way: If you find mustard offensive, this story is for you.
Hannity ignites the firestorm.
Rush Limbaugh's show keeps it up, and Laura Ingraham must comment on mustardgate as well.
Huffingtonpost...hmm, huh? What? :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Seriously though, I concur with the original poster that people are making too big a deal out of something like this. I do think it is just another pathetic attempt at showing the public what a peoples' person he is though.
I thought that a fanfare for $17bn isn't really justified when it's roughly 0.5% of the budget. I sort of assume that government reviews things and tries to save these sums routinely.
~:smoking:
Yes, it's true, I linked to a video in the Huffington post. Strange that you weren't around to lob your smilies when I've also linked to NRO or American Conservative. Strange that I only get flack when linking left, never right. Work the ref, much?Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
P.S.: Here's a site much more your speed, Vuk.
That anyone can call "fancy" the sludge which is apparently mustard that americans dump on their food is the most interesting thing.
~:smoking:
lol, the difference is though that your talking points came directly from the Huffingtonpost guy's commentary. When you link to conservative sights, it is usually to make fun of them. Lob my smilies? I posted one. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I don't think he is the anti-Christ BTW, just Hitler, don't you remember? ~;)
EDIT: I made the post comment in humor BTW Lemur. I based my opinion on your argument (what little bit you insinuated of an argument), not on your choice of sources. I only meant to be funny. :P
I wasn't aware of any evil you wouldn't impute to our President. He's not the antichrist? News to me.
Here's a person who was once considered a "conservative" (ever-shrinking circle, that) on mustardgate:
MUSTARD-GATE
Friday, May 08, 2009 6:38 AM
What kind of a man eats his hamburger without ketchup? That was the big question yesterday on talk radio, after President Obama visited an Arlington, Virginia, hamburger place on Tuesday and ordered his burger with spicy mustard.
First answer: Texans.
Texans traditionally eat hamburgers with mustard or with mayonnaise (or with both), but without ketchup. This is simply called a “hamburger” in Texas, but is sometimes called a “Cowboy Burger” or a “Texas Burger” outside of Texas.
A hamburger with ketchup is sometimes called a “Yankee Burger.” A hamburger with mayonnaise is sometimes called a “Sissy Burger.”
Dirty Martin’s (in Austin since 1926) serves hamburgers with mustard, pickles, onions, and tomatoes, but it is not known when this combination began. The popular Texas “Whataburger” hamburger chain has served hamburgers with mustard from its founding (1950). The hamburger-with-mustard combination in Texas is attested at least from the 1950s, but the pre-1950s hamburger condiments cannot be firmly established.
Second answer: Republicans. A 2000 survey of members of Congress by the National Hot Dog Council found that 73% of Republican lawmakers preferred mustard to ketchup, as opposed to 47% of Democratic lawmakers.
Final answer: traditionalists. Louis' Lunch in New Haven, Connecticut, the restaurant widely believed to have served the first hamburgers ever made in the United States, absolutely forbids ketchup.
Next question?
lol, calling Obama the antichrist would attribute things to him other than what he does. I judge people solely by what they do. Also, by calling someone a supernatural being such as the 'anti-Christ', you are taking away their individual blame as a person that everyone has for the wrong they have done. I can tell you honestly Lemur, that I base my opinion of Obama solely on what he has said and done and the people he associates with - ei, his own actions. I neither attribute things to him that are not his, nor try to make more of him than he is. He is not the anti-Christ, he is Obama. Anything he does, good or bad is not the work of the 'anti-Christ', but of Obama. Any glory or blame for his actions is his entirely, and I have never and never will judge him on anything but his actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Sadly, I've known people who won't put French's or Heinz' yellow mustard on a burger...Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
...because they though it was too spicy.
:rolleyes3:
By that metric, Colman's would induce cardiac arythmia.
Mustardgate is not going away! Check out this blog. And here's more coverage from a Website That Dare Not Speak Its Name (good video links, however).
Websites can speak? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
lol, I am really in love with Ann Coulter. I generally do not like media personalities (not even Hannity), but that Coulter is something else. :P No wonder the liberals hate her, she is dynamite! As far as water-boarding goes, I got a story about that that I will post on the torture thread.
Mann Coulter is hilarious. It's all an act, Vuk, we're just waiting to the curtain to close and the scene to end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
I'll be honest, I think Mustardgate is the best thing ever in political news coverage.
I'm following this story with relish.
"Sissy liberals"Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
Yes she is truly a master of oratory.
If you'll excuse me I'm off to ketchup with the latest in dijongate.
Thank goodness we have you here to keep us focused on the important news...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Any fool can make something complicated, it takes a genius to make something simple. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Seriously though, she is shockingly intelligent, brutally simple and to the point, and totally unforgiving in her analysis's! Everyone I have ever seen who has argued against her has attacked her for her looks, accused her of selling books on her looks (which is funny, as she is ugly enough to frighten a semi truck), attacked her for her oratory, attacked her for being blond, attacked her for being FEMALE, etc. I have never heard anyone make any affective argument against her points or the facts she uses. The closest was some lady on the View, and she did a lousy job, got very much owned, and seemed all too eager to get away from Coulter at the end.
Thats strange since most people attack her on the basis that she is incredibly stupid and a liar, her written work has been described as unproffesional, crazy, unhinged......bugger all about her looks really apart from the few questions as to why this woman has an adams apple .Quote:
Everyone I have ever seen who has argued against her has attacked her for her looks, accused her of selling books on her looks
So its another case of "everyone I have ever seen" if I don't look at all :dizzy2:
What I mean Tribesman is that they say she is a liar and unprofessional, but they cannot attack any specific thing she says, so they go after her sex or looks. Plenty of people say she is a liar, but no one I have heard has made any type of good argument at all against anything she has said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
I typed "Arguments against Ann Coulter" into Google and waddayaknow a reasoned article appears...Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
Bloody hell ?????? have you even looked at the reams of criticism on the tripe from that dozy cow ?Quote:
What I mean Tribesman is that they say she is a liar and unprofessional, but they cannot attack any specific thing she says, so they go after her sex or looks. Plenty of people say she is a liar, but no one I have heard has made any type of good argument at all against anything she has said.
Hold on I get it , you are using the Vuk definition of good arguement again aren't you:yes:
So because she still writes crap even if most others say it is crap then it isn't really crap becuse she still writes it:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
That is what I mean Tribesy. Plenty of people have said what she has written is crap, but the vast majority of all arguments against her coming from the media and from individuals I have met or talked too (you included) do NOT actually attempt to prove her wrong on anything, but instead simply say "She writes crap", "She is a stupid woman/blond woman", "She sells on sex", etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman in his effort to prove Vuk correct
Other writers, both liberal and conservative have their specific arguments challenged all the time, and people try to take them to task on specifics. Almost everyone is content to say about Ann "she is just an out of touch loony", "she writes garbage", etc, with out ever trying to prove that what she writes is garbage. The few who do attempt to seriously debate her get utterly owned. (all that I have seen, but I hold out faith that she is indeen not perfect and must have made at least one mistake in her life) ~;)
That says a lot .Quote:
That is what I mean Tribesy.
So.....
The answer is no:yes:Quote:
have you even looked at the reams of criticism on the tripe from that dozy cow ?
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.
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?
What about her smokin' bod? :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
The teachers unions will take him for a long walk off a short pier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Awww, if you can't make campaign promises and then turn around and tell your base, "Just kidding," what will politics come to?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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
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: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:
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.
errrrrr.....Quote:
What did he do to make the administration want to force him out?
So what did he do to make the pentagon want a special forces commander in place ?Quote:
The White House said the recommended change came from the Pentagon.
The Pentagon.... headquarters of the DoD.... headed by Robert Gates- member of the Obama administration and reporting to Obama- the CinC. :idea2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Pack up your fishing gear and take it somewhere else please. :yes:
:flowers:Quote:
Pack up your fishing gear and take it somewhere else please.
Here's a somewhat informed take:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
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.
Knowing the basics of the chain of command of the administration is floral? Why do we let you post here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
That's the slogan of a group of government employees sworn to uphold the constitution? Anyone else a wee bit worried?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
So you're using the word of the white house as proof the white house didn't interfere?Quote:
So what did he do to make the pentagon want a special forces commander in place ?Quote:
The White House said the recommended change came from the Pentagon.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
*sigh* Such foolish shortsightedness...Quote:
Another thoughtful Economist article about our current Prez: (dealing with creditors)
CR
When Generals get pink-slipped in the US, it's not usually for something they've done, rather a failure to achieve some goal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
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.
so its business as usual which makes this a non-issue xiahou posted , shocking eh .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.
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:
:laugh4: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...
Obama considers his nominees
Hasn't Napolitano done enough already?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.
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:
:wall::wall: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."
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...
"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: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.
So... should we worry yet?
Here's a very uplifting article I read recently, entitled: US Credit Rating Under FireQuote:
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.
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.Quote:
Anyone want to start a pool on whether or not we can break the $2 trillion mark this year?
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.
A little perspective ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
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 Lemur
How's that for perspective?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisher
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)
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:
Note that the spendthrift Irish have a per capita debt of $549,819.
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 anythingQuote:
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%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I was referring to government debt, as Kralizec pointed out...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Meanwhile in Europe, Obama has returned to America its role as inspirational leader of the world. :sweatdrop:
Obama's press secretary slams critical articles from British press.
Ah, such great diplomacy, huh? Really spreading love and the like around the world, isn't he? So classy too, suggesting the press are liars when they don't like you.
CR
Government run banks? Check.
Government run auto industry? Check.
Government run healthcare? Coming soon.
Obama isn't interested in getting the federal government into the auto industry- nope. It'll just have GM's CEO fired and replaced with one of their choosing. It'll write GM's bankruptcy deal, and it'll choose GM's new board. Totally different from being in the auto industry though. :dizzy2:Quote:
The president a month ago forced Rick Wagoner out as GM's CEO. The Treasury Department dictated what bondholders should get for the $27 billion they held in GM debt. Obama's team determined that GM needed to downsize so that it could break even if auto industry car sales remain at 10 million vehicles a year, instead of the 16 million auto sales threshold it needs today.
And on Treasury's instructions, GM will replace a majority of its board members in consultation with the Obama administration.
So, does anyone see GM returning to profitability in the forseeable future or is it now just an expensive UAW welfare program?
You don't think the UAW would want it to be profitable?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
While I agree that it was not very classy or diplomatic, he had a point, the British press is in general, bollox. That reply from The Telegraph made me laugh, "take on the status quo in Washington":laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Obama's team is gonna need to learn a bit quicker tha this, or else it will only serve what will doubtless sonn be a growing sense of resentment.
I see it panning out like one of the storylines in The Sopranos. Davey Scatino, one of Tony's old friends has a gambling problem, loses his shirt at a high stakes poker game, and Tony covers for him. In exchange, Tony's crew takes over his sporting goods store and cleans it out. The resemblance is uncanny. ~D Obama is doing his city proud.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Oh, sure, they want it to be. But I'll bet they're just fine with hanging on to all their perks and getting more government money. After all, IIRC they didn't budge in negotiations before GM collapsed.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
The guy in charge of GM's dismantling:
A 31 year old guy with no economics or business education, just political campaign experience (mostly).
I guess we'll have the answer to "Who could possibly run GM worse?"
CR
Behold Socialism in action:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...alismchart.png
Don't make me quote how much the nationalized part of the economy has increased, percentage wise, in the last year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
EDIT: Also, that guy you link to uses this chart to refute the allegation that we are headed to socialism. Now, if we're headed there, we are there yet, are we? So the chart is a red herring.
CR
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I really did lol. Well played Lemur.
Another hard hitting story from the AP:
CAPITAL CULTURE: World hangs on Obama's every bite
This part really hit home for me...On a completely unrelated note, a few malcontent journalists are beginning to suggest that fawning media coverage of Obama may actually be a problem.Quote:
With all the chatter, and with restaurants often happily revealing Obama menu picks, it's stunning that a central mystery remains: What did the Obamas eat? The restaurant won't spill the (organic) beans, and as for fellow diners, "Everyone gave them space and was too cool to bother them," says Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition and food studies at New York University who ate at a nearby table.
Cool up to a point, that is. "When they got up, the whole place broke out into spontaneous applause," says Eva Fleischer, who was dining with her husband and friends. "Barack said, 'Hi guys,' and Michelle even touched my friend on her shoulder!"
The Obama InfatuationQuote:
The Obama infatuation is a great unreported story of our time. Has any recent president basked in so much favorable media coverage? Well, maybe John Kennedy for a moment, but no president since. On the whole, this is not healthy for America.
Reagan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Stop whining about a president you disagree with being idolized. It happens to some degree for every single president. This is why I can not tolerate current Republican talking points, even if I were to agree with some of their policies. It's just slander, lies, ad hominem, slander.
Please Xiahou, I know you are smart enough give me a legitimate argument on why Obama is so far a failure. There is so much you can choose from without bringing up this media blame game again.
Do you have any data supporting that? The Pew Study only goes back as far as Clinton. If you have something else, I'd like to see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
If I remember correctly, the counter to Republican complaining about Bush's media coverage was that the press is always adversarial. So far, the Obama administration has bucked that trend.Quote:
Please Xiahou, I know you are smart enough give me a legitimate argument on why Obama is so far a failure. There is so much you can choose from without bringing up this media blame game again.
https://img70.imageshack.us/img70/68...vecoverage.png
I'd be much happier if Obama did have an intellectually curious media that was willing to ask probing questions instead of heaping praise on Michelle's fashion sense or writing dozens of articles about the Obama's date night.
The author of the second story I linked, Robert J. Samuelson, is no partisan hack either. Maybe you should give the article another look before dismissing it.Quote:
Are his proposals practical, even if desirable? Maybe they're neither? What might be the unintended consequences? All "reforms" do not succeed; some cause more problems than they solve. Johnson's economic policies, inherited from Kennedy, proved disastrous; they led to the 1970s' "stagflation." The "war on poverty" failed. The press should not be hostile, but it ought to be skeptical.
Mostly, it isn't. The idea of a "critical" Obama story is one about a tactical conflict with congressional Democrats or criticism from an important constituency. Larger issues are minimized, despite ample grounds for skepticism.
Nope, not Reagan. This is a problem because it removes objectivity.Quote:
Reagan.
Stop whining about a president you disagree with being idolized. It happens to some degree for every single president.
For an indepth analysis, see here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...entry_id=41380
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
But what I'm more worried about is the direct damage Obama is going to do to the economy for no other reason than stupid populism.
And then he's also managing to start a trade war. This sort of stuff is what set recovery after the Great Depression back by years. It will do serious damage to the world economy if it continues.Quote:
June 8 (Bloomberg) -- I’ve finally figured out the Obama economic strategy. President Barack Obama and his team have been having so much fun wielding dictatorial power while rescuing “failed” firms, that they have developed a scheme to gain the same power over every business. The plan is to enact policies that are so anticompetitive that every firm needs a bailout.
Once that happens, their new pay czar Kenneth Feinberg can set the wage for everybody and Rahm Emanuel can stack the boards of all of our companies with his political cronies.
I know, it sounds like an exaggeration. But look at it this way. If there were a power ranking of U.S. companies, like the ones compiled by football writers for National Football League teams, Microsoft would surely be first or second to Google. But last week, Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer came to Washington to announce what Microsoft would do if Obama’s multinational tax policy is enacted.
“It makes U.S. jobs more expensive,” Ballmer said, “We’re better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S.” If Microsoft, perhaps our most competitive company, has to abandon the U.S. in order to continue to thrive, who exactly is going to stay?
Good grief.
CR
But there has not been an intellectually curious media for quite a while now. Everything has been mostly partisan talking points for at least the past decade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
So the media is mostly favoring Obama because they are liberal, so what. That's what news is nowadays, talking heads giving opinions not facts.
(I fully expect that first sentence to be used by itself, out of context.)
When you are expected to provide criticism about the Obama administration, I expect a diagnosis of the flaws within the man's policies not the failures of the news industry to provide an unbiased story.
And I have read Robert J. Samuelson, I actually read his articles frequently in Newsweek. I don't particularly care for him ever since he wrote an article defending lobbying/lobbyists: http://www.newsweek.com/id/174283 (just in case anyone is interested).
Now, the second half of CR's post was what I was looking for (oddly enough CR's posts consistently seem to be interesting to me, just like in a previous gun control debate). A take on his economic policies with a reference to history to provide strength and credibility.
Unless you blame the cause of the media's love of him to be manipulation from the Obama's administration, I think venting about it belongs in a thread about the epic failures of modern journalism not about the Obama Administration itself.
Well, you probably won't appreciate this clip either then. It's the assistant managing editor of Newsweek talking about how Obama is like a god.
I don't want to wonder too far off topic, but he's right.Quote:
And I have read Robert J. Samuelson, I actually read his articles frequently in Newsweek. I don't particularly care for him ever since he wrote an article defending lobbying/lobbyists
Meh, I never even heard of that guy. I like Jon Meacham who is the head editor and has been on the Colbert Report a couple times. I heard his book about Andrew Jackson, "American Lion" was very good. Unless you have an embarrassing clip of him, I don't really care, like most media I don't have a high expectation unless they prove themselves unbiased and capable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
You're stuck between a rock and a hard place Xiahou. If you're holding up the press under Bush as a non-compliant political force, I'll point out that it didn't slow him down all that much (more's the pity). If you think that the media under Bush was compliant then there's nothing really to complain about - it's nothing new.
And then I'd point out that's not the point. The media doesn't force an elected official to do anything- what it does is help in shaping opinion and, occasionally informing the public. This is a problem if much of what they're printing is uncritical cheerleading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
If you bothered to read preceding posts you'd see that contention has been studied by Pew and was not found to be accurate. I'm not really seeing the catch 22 or rock/hard place or whatever you're calling it.Quote:
If you think that the media under Bush was compliant then there's nothing really to complain about - it's nothing new.