Thoughts & Commentary on the Obama Administration

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

I don't know. I haven't changed my position. I can't really make my mind up about Afghanistan. Last page I said I thought there were reasons to support a surge, and reasons not to.

Then jingoism broke lose: 'disgraceful', 'beneath my dignity', 'no backbone', 'my friends die because of this'.

Which irritated me. So I pointed out that Poland and the UK have contributed less troops to international missions this past decade, and that much of the troops and resources that were committed were send to Iraq. Which is currently commonly regarded as unsuccesful, and also as detrimental to the cause in Afghanistan and other missions.



'Also, where do you get the figure "40,000" from for Iraq? Is that the total number of men we sent overall, because some of those were the same men going back three or four times. Or is it the number for the actual invasion? I'm fairly sure it isn't.'
I was referring to the number of UK troops deployed for the invasion. Wiki below says 46.000. 200 Poles were involved in the invasion as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_Force_-_Iraq

---

Funny how the mind plays tricks on you. Ok, so Britain sent 46,000 troops to invade Iraq, then left 8,300 troops there, and those numbers continued to fall. So that figure is a bit of a red herring when talking about troop commitments long term. If you were to wiki military forces and deployments you would see that Britain has deployed more men per-capita, and from a smaller armed forces.

As I said, your country is more populous (by 4 million), has more money and a larger army. You also have a larger defence budget and the only reason we get ahead of you in military rankings is because we have more planes and an extra aircraft carrier.

As far as "jingoism", you basically said, "I only think we should go if it can be won", which ignores the fact that the major problem is troop numbers, so that "winning" could well be dependant on whether France gets involved seriously or not; along with Germany.

So you look like you are setting up a self fullfilling prophecy, where you can turn around after we fail for lack of men and say, "look, we were right not to send more men". That position then become win-win for France, unless the Coalition wins in Afganistan.

It is also a fact that my friends died because their units were stretched too thin, because of lack of resources. That is not jingoism, it is a logistical and strategic reality.

When you begin to fight your friends, it's probably time to stop fighting your eniemies.

:wisdom:

Republican partisanship is grinding the US political system to a complete stop. Founding Fathers turning in their grave:

Quote:

---

The instinctive reflex is to blame Obama. He must be doing something wrong. Maybe he is doing a thing or two wrong. But the main thing is that America's political system is broken.

How did this happen? Two main factors made it so. The first is the super-majority requirement to end debate in the Senate. The second is the near-unanimous obstinacy of the Republican opposition. They have made important legislative work all but impossible.


The super-majority requirement – 60 votes, or three-fifths of the Senate, to end debate and move to a vote on final passage – has been around since the 19th century. But it's only in the last 10 to 15 years that it has been invoked routinely. Back in Lyndon Johnson's day – a meaningful comparison since American liberals are always wondering why Obama can't be "tough" like Johnson – the requirement was reserved for only the most hot-button issues (usually having to do with race). Everything else needed only 51 votes to pass, a regular majority.


Both parties have contributed to this problem. But guess which has contributed more? In 2007, when they became the minority party for the first time in five years, the Republicans invoked the super-majority measure 60 times, an all-time record for a single year.

---

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Sigh. If you've been watching the Washington healthcare debate, you know what that sigh was about. We Americans have always been proud of our constitution and the principle of separation of powers. The system has always ensured that the minority party has certain rights and that the executive branch cannot just muscle through Congress any old thing that it wants. Our founders wanted a system that moved slowly.


Do they ever have it. In fact, we now have a system that barely moves at all. Watching American politics through British eyes, you must be utterly mystified as to why Barack Obama hasn't gotten this healthcare bill passed yet. Many Americans are too. The instinctive reflex is to blame Obama. He must be doing something wrong. Maybe he is doing a thing or two wrong. But the main thing is that America's political system is broken.


How did this happen? Two main factors made it so. The first is the super-majority requirement to end debate in the Senate. The second is the near-unanimous obstinacy of the Republican opposition. They have made important legislative work all but impossible.


The super-majority requirement – 60 votes, or three-fifths of the Senate, to end debate and move to a vote on final passage – has been around since the 19th century. But it's only in the last 10 to 15 years that it has been invoked routinely. Back in Lyndon Johnson's day – a meaningful comparison since American liberals are always wondering why Obama can't be "tough" like Johnson – the requirement was reserved for only the most hot-button issues (usually having to do with race). Everything else needed only 51 votes to pass, a regular majority.


Both parties have contributed to this problem. But guess which has contributed more? In 2007, when they became the minority party for the first time in five years, the Republicans invoked the super-majority measure 60 times, an all-time record for a single year.


And Obama's problems are not limited to Republicans, of course. Think of it this way: in a 100-seat body, getting 51 votes is hard but not impossible. But getting those 57th, 58th, 59th and 60th votes to end debate … Well, the situation gives those senators incredible bargaining power. They can basically dictate terms in exchange for their votes. Which is exactly what senators Ben Nelson (Democrat of Nebraska), Joe Lieberman (independent of Connecticut), Olympia Snowe (Republican of Maine) and others have been doing publicly for weeks. A sharp friend has mordantly taken to referring to them as "President Nelson", "President Lieberman" and "President Snowe" in emails. My friend is not exaggerating. With regard to the final content of the Senate bill, each has more power than Obama.


Then we have the nature of the GOP opposition. Once upon a time, there were a number of Republican moderates in Congress. Today, out of 217 legislators, the number of genuine moderates is under 10. Maybe even under five.


I do not embellish. Last Friday, the House of Representatives passed a set of financial industry reforms and regulations. It's scarcely a radical package of measures. Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to make several compromises to get enough votes out of moderate Democrats for the thing to pass. So how many Republicans backed it? Yep. Again: zero.


To see David Cameron offer support for the bonus tax is mind-boggling to an American. There is no way a Republican in Congress would ever endorse such a thought. He or she would be destroyed by the conservative agitprop network.


So this is where we are. We now have a distended nightmarish version of what the founders wanted. We've got a Congress that can not only stand up to the executive branch but can (at least on domestic matters) dictate terms to it. And we have a minority that has the power to stop the majority from doing much of anything.


These are the two basic reasons the great progressive dawn of the Obama era has ground to a near halt. And yet even most Americans are dimly aware of all this. It requires a lot of dot connecting. What's needed is a broad public education campaign – and here, Obama should start playing a role – about how broken this system is, bringing a new level of pressure to bear on the legislators who are the problem. But for now, people on the left would rather engage in juvenile carping about how let down they are.

---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...l-system-obama

Hey, don't blame the Republicans! They tried to get rid of the cloture rule in 2005, but those pesky Democrats wouldn't let them. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Hey, don't blame the Republicans! ~;)

---

When I get wet on my way to work that is still the result of some devious plot, somewhere, by the GOP. :whip:

From the Guardian? Yes, probably the most unbiased and trusted news source for American politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

When I get wet on my way to work that is still the result of some devious plot, somewhere, by the GOP. :whip:

---

I remind the esteemed Gentleman from Paris that Cloture is a French invention that we stole, via the UK, to temper the power of the Executive.

It's not a Constitutional requirement, just a legislative rule. One that could be un-done tomorrow, enough Senators agreeing.

And I would remind Mr. Tomaski that "President" does not equal "Dictator".

I find it quite telling that the Democrats, even with their large majority in both houses plus the White House, can't really get anything done. And this is after all the whinging from them during the Bush years when they were the minority. If they had really wanted to stop the GOP then, they could have, but complaining and woe-is-me talk was apparently easier. They either didn't have the balls, or secretly wanted to go in the same direction with plausible deniability.

I'm guessing this is all on the Dem leadership, both Pelosi and Reid have got to go. Both are hopelessly out of their league.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

I'm guessing this is all on the Dem leadership, both Pelosi and Reid have got to go. Both are hopelessly out of their league.

---

I wouldn't mind seeing a decapitation and a decimation of both parties' congressional representatives. The Dems, as you rightly point out, are ineffective verging on comical, while the Repubs have decided on a new and unprecedented level of obstructionism. Both should be punished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

I haven't even begun.

---

Very well.

Quote:

---

Spin the numbers as much as you like, but for all its tough talk, Poland's contribution in Afghanistan has not even been as large as that of the modest contribution of France.

---

Do you mean overall or currently or in the next year ? Overall (since 2003) I agree. Right now - I must disagree and in the future - it is up to your government, isn't it ?
I would like to see it enlarged otherwise it would be comparatively smaller than of Poland.

Quote:

---

Poland is a large country, two thirds the size of France.

---

That is silly and you know that.
Are you saying that Sweden should send more soldiers (it is pretty large) same with Finland, not to mention Canada or Australia, and what about Denmark ? How large this cowardly Greenland is!

Quote:

---

Yet you don't even manage half the cost in money, death toll or troops deployed of even France (or Germany).

---

With at least 6 times less money.
Let's not talk about death toll - it proves nothing, besides I won't engage in this kind of conversation.

Quote:

---

The only thing Poland exceeds these two in, is in shouting how fantastically large its contribution is.

---

And PR, life is not fair I guess... :juggle2:

Quote:

---

Of course, most military operations have at any rate been US/UK/Canadian efforts, neither French nor Polish. It is not really the show of either one of us. A few hundred Poles being shifted back and forth between safe zones in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't make the difference. But when you spin their numbers a bit, it can look mighty impressive.

---

I'm not sure if Ghazni is a safe province. While in Iraq - 2006 Sadr's uprising wasn't a picnic, though it certainly was safer than the British zone or one of American areas.

Quote:

---

And spin it is - for example, while French and German troops have been rotting in the Afghan mountains for a decade, Poland up to two years ago had only 160 men deployed.

---

That is true - who is denying that ?

Quote:

---

Why were there no Poles to support the effort in Afghanistan? Because Poland wasn't interested in fighting terrorism, in creating the peace in Afghanistan. All efforts were diverted into Iraq. As the Foreign Minister of Poland, Cimoszewicz, stated in July 2003, "We have never hidden our desire for Polish oil companies to finally have access to sources of commodities". That's what Poland was doing, while France was naively thinking that this was all about getting Bin Laden in Afghanistan and creating a stable democracy there.

---

Now you are making a fool of yourself. So Poles sent those soldiers to fight for OIL ? That is so demagogic...

I guess that is why the most of our leading intellectuals supported the invasion and removing Saddam ? I am certain too that Polish oil companies are now in possession of numerous oil fields in Iraq.

If anything I'd like the irony that while French idealists are fighting for democracy in the worst world's hellhole cynical Poles are basking in adoration having a picnic in Iraq and protecting oil fields owned by polish capitalists.
That would be something to enjoy for every francophobe here (I admit I am one).
Unfortunatelly (?) that is not true.

Poland joined the coalition to remove Saddam first, to prove ourselves as a loyal ally second, to enter the scene of more ambitious international politics and possibly gain something in the process.

Let's not forget that Iraq owed us sizable amounts of money, that Poland had pretty good trade relations with that country before - if anything we couldn't gain much more than we could lose.

Preserving stronger ties with America was always important to Poland, especially with Mr. Chirac lecturing us about numerous virtues of staying silent and learning from his infinite wisdom while he and Mr. Schoder were having a good time in Sochi with Mr. Putin.


When it comes to helping in Afghanistan our NGOs were doing great work with humanitarian aid sent to that country - militarily at that time it was seen as a secondary front, almost a finished conflict.

Finally what was sent to Iraq stretched our resources to the maximum. At the beginning of the occupation of Iraq US troops laughed observing what equipment our troops were forced to use - old helmets, poor uniforms, open topped vehicles.

That is the sad truth - Poland was not capable to send more troops than we've sent to Iraq and it would be much less if sent to Afghanistan.

Quote:

---

Ten years on, Poland and America at last return attention to Afghanistan. Too little, too late for anything, except to scold those who have urged from the beginning to keep Afghanistan the focus of effort. There's your 'shameful lack of backbone'. Throughout all the insults, immaturity, disastrous loss of focus by the coalition, the French have been in Afghanistan all this time. It wasn't us who decided to move the fight to Iraq - on the contrary.

---

And you are free to congratulate yourself if that proves decisive, but I cannot and won't agree with several of your arguments when it comes to my country involvement.
Because I expect that you've conscious choice selecting arguments you've used in this post I cannot dismiss it as emotional.

I am sorry Louis there are too many demagogic arguments here - the oil, the death toll, the money, the size of a country.

You must realise (and let's be honest - you do) that our resources are and were considerably smaller, our power projection capabilities are meaningful only in Europe and that Poland's plans to become a world power are a fact only in computer games.

I dare even say that without the Iraq affair there wouldn't be any sizable Polish forces in Afghanistan - the modernisation of the army which is a fact from 2003 (i.e. from the moment we've found ourselves in charge in one of Iraq's occupation zones) wouldn't happen, at least not so quickly.

I dare say that Iraq was essential experience for our military and as safe (or 'safe') as it was it brought numerous improvements which helps transforming our army from ex-Warsaw pact outdated structures and helps sending troops to places like Chad or Afghanistan.
For that reason for Poland it was not a mistake to fight in Iraq - it couldn't divert resources, because there were none.

If you are going to question commitment of Poland and our reliability as an ally I suggest to think it over once more.

If anything I don't recall anybody ever questioning Poland's commitment or reliability, Soviet generals and Central Commitee excluded.* :book:








* only Ukrainians are entitled to that.

Nice to know that we have a **** thug for a President. Obama: more of the same, but to the 10000th degree!

Quote:

---

“Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother,” Obama told DeFazio during a closed-door meeting of the House Democratic Caucus, according to members afterward.

---

How brain dead are Americans for voting this guy in?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

Nice to know that we have a **** thug for a President. Obama: more of the same, but to the 10000th degree!



How brain dead are Americans for voting this guy in?

---

Here you go, have a sticker and tell the world about it:

http://www.antiobamasticker.com/

I don't see anything even remotely "thuggish" about Obama in that story.

Quote:

---

“Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother”

---

Is it Presidential or thuggish to make threats to Senators to try to persuade them to not represent their constituents in the way that they think they would want to be represented?
I mean for Pete's sake, the guy goes to Europe and cannot take his eye's off of every woman's butt he sees. He bribes pharmaceutical companies, threatens senators, etc, etc, etc. Is anything beneath him?
People really deserve what they get electing a Chicago thug like him. It is too bad that the smart people who voted against him will have to also suffer. :no:

Threat? Nixon and LBJ are laughing in their graves right now. If you don't vote with your party you risk losing party support for your legislation and party help with getting re-elected. Again, I fail to see how reminding reminding a stubborn party member of that constitutes a threat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woad&fangs

Threat? Nixon and LBJ are laughing in their graves right now. If you don't vote with your party you risk losing party support for your legislation and party help with getting re-elected. Again, I fail to see how reminding reminding a stubborn party member of that constitutes a threat.

---

Johnson should have been impeached. That hardly makes what Obama did any better. A party is only important as it is a group of individuals who agree on certain important things. When you disagree, then partisanism should not factor. The guy did right by doing what he thought his constituents would want. He was not reminding him of it, he was reminding him that if he crossed him he would make sure he was paid back. Thus, "keeping score". E.I. don't **** with me, because I will add you to the list. That is a threat.

If political parties don't matter, then what precisely was Obama "threatening" him with? Either you think Obama is going to shank him in his sleep, or you admit that the senator is a member of the democratic party because he gets advantages out of it. Advantages which can be taken away if he does not follow the party line closely enough. The senator can always go independent "to serve the interests of his constituents".

Out of curiosity, why do you feel LBJ should have been impeached? I'm not aware of anything he did which was impeachment worthy, but it also wouldn't surprise me if there was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

Johnson should have been impeached. That hardly makes what Obama did any better. A party is only important as it is a group of individuals who agree on certain important things. When you disagree, then partisanism should not factor. The guy did right by doing what he thought his constituents would want. He was not reminding him of it, he was reminding him that if he crossed him he would make sure he was paid back. Thus, "keeping score". E.I. don't **** with me, because I will add you to the list. That is a threat.

---

If that were remotely true you would still have a constitution where the runner-up became VP, and you would not have Primaries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

It is too bad that the smart people who voted against him will have to also suffer. :no:

---

Shame that Ron Paul or Nadar got so little number of votes. Shows you how many smart people there are in America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Shame that Ron Paul or Nadar got so little number of votes. Shows you how many smart people there are in America.

---

How is it smart to vote for someone who does not have a chance in France at winning when you could give your vote to the lesser of two evils and stop the greater of two evils from getting in? No, those people are just as stupid as the ones who voted for Obama in IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

How is it smart to vote for someone who does not have a chance in France at winning when you could give your vote to the lesser of two evils and stop the greater of two evils from getting in? No, those people are just as stupid as the ones who voted for Obama in IMO.

---

Don't worry that was done. The greater of the two evils didn't get elected.

Also, why bother with the lesser of two evils? You can just pick the best choice and if everyone just did that, ta da.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Don't worry that was done. The greater of the two evils didn't get elected.

Also, why bother with the lesser of two evils? You can just pick the best choice and if everyone just did that, ta da.

---

You cannot count on everyone picking the best choice, because the best choice is a matter of opinion and people are always divided (not to mention special interests). Let me ask you a question, if you had to pick one of the other, would you rather be lightly hit on the shoulder, or punched full force in the face by Kimbo? Obviously you would pick the lesser of two evils. It is basic damage control. :P You are not helping cut down on the damage though when you vote for someone who has no chance.

An interesting article by Robert Kagan about the Obama administration and their foreign policy philosophy. Lengthy, but insightful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

An interesting article by Robert Kagan about the Obama administration and their foreign policy philosophy. Lengthy, but insightful.

---

Oh for Pete's sake, if there's a three-part series of editorials about the first year of Obama foreign policy, why not link to all three, instead on singling out the negative one? The full set:

Obama's Year One: Contra

Obama's Year One: Medius

Obama's Year One: Pro

I liked Kagan's article, always insightful but somewhat out-of-place. He seemed more intent on writing an article on the "foreign affairs" side than an overall view of Obama. Not to say that he is out of place because Obama's legacy is based on his results on the international stage. At the same time, however, he seems to be more focused on his views and thoughts than an analysis of Obama's total legacy (then again it's an article in Foreign Policy or whatever)

The "median" article is also somewhat denegrating of Obama, which accurately reflects the current situation. Despite overall hopeful attitudes, his actions have failed to produce concrete tangible results, which is true in the overall sense. Even the pro article seemed to be sad with Obama's overall results, but that's just me. Just this man's opinion.

An interesting take on Obama and the environment in which he operates, from a Limey perspective:

In Britain, an opposition party in total revolt can do only so much. In the US system, where the constitution makes big change very, very hard, an opposition can gum up the works much more successfully. Because the Republicans lost so many seats last time around, their current ranks are dominated by those in the safest seats, and their main worry is being picked off by primary challenges from the Sarah Palin-Dick Cheney wing. Because of the still-waxing power of religious fundamentalism in the American South, the Republicans increasingly frame their arguments in doctrinal terms, rather than pragmatic ones. And so the party has become more purist and more radical in the wake of its defeat. To give a simple example, last week the Republican candidate for the governorship of Alabama was forced to offer the following campaign pledge: “I believe the Bible is true. Every word of it.” He had previously gaffed that some parts of the Bible might not be taken literally, but as metaphor or parable. No, this is not Iran. It’s America. In 2010.

Obama’s promise was that he would try to end this culture war. My view is that — to great dismay among his own partisan base — he has largely fulfilled that promise. He went to dinner with conservative journalists before he schmoozed the liberal ones; he spent more time on Capitol Hill with Republicans in his first few months than Bush ever had; he asked the evangelical Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration; he avoided abortion and gay rights issues; he refused to investigate, let alone prosecute, the war crimes of his predecessor; and he has ramped up the war in Afghanistan. He has cut taxes and refused to nationalise the banks.

But for all this, he is the target of almost relentless and extreme opposition, painting him as the most radical and extremist anti-American ever in the Oval Office. And with a Senate that requires a 60-40 majority to get anything done, that makes his promises very hard to keep. When Europeans wonder if America is ungovernable, this polarisation is the critical thing to keep in mind. Obama’s gamble is therefore to outlast this reaction, to refuse to take the bait for total political warfare at home, and to enact as much as he can as quickly as he can in case the natural upswing of an opposition in a depressed economy renders his congressional majority moot by next November.

The Republican gamble, in turn, is that the extremism of their populist oppositionism doesn’t rally the fringe of their base at the cost of alienating the critical middle that still holds sway in American politics. My own sense is that in a low-turnout mid-term election, they could do very well with this tactic. But at a strategic level, I suspect that this is a trap for 2012. If they cannot attract younger or minority voters, if they continue to fail to offer actual policy alternatives instead of recitation of right-wing dogma, they could manage to stymie Obama later this year at the cost of immolation in 2012. Winning in 2010 could even persuade them that becoming even more radical is the way to win in 2012. A Palin nomination is perfectly possible.

It’s a war of nerves. If the Republicans win it, the culture war lives on. If Obama survives, he will remake the centre of American politics as a Democratic bastion again. Those are the stakes. And they keep getting higher.

Andrew Sullivan is hardly a Limey perspective, considering he lives in America and the topic of most of what he writes is America related.

And most of his arguments are poor - he makes mountains out of molehills, or campaign statements.

Dick Cheney's quote is reflected in the articles you and Xiahou posted from the FP mag.

He acts surprised that no Republicans voted for health care, since it was more conservative than Romney's in MA - and doesn't mention that didn't turn out well.

Basically, it's a long essay on how noble ole Obama is trying to end partisanship while those nasty Republicans keep trying to muck it up.

CR

I wonder if any criticism of Obama will fall under the Irish blasphemy laws.

I think it's completely inappropriate for the Vice President to appear in Hennessey ads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I think it's completely inappropriate for the Vice President to appear in Hennessey ads.

---

More funny Onion stuff. Too bad his Mom died.

I caught an episode of "Stossel", where he covered what he referred to as 'crony capitalism'. One of the examples highlighted was a window company called Serious Materials. I couldn't find the actual clip from the show, but I did find this on youtube. Anyone have any thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I caught an episode of "Stossel", where he covered what he referred to as 'crony capitalism'. One of the examples highlighted was a window company called Serious Materials. I couldn't find the actual clip from the show, but I did find this on youtube. Anyone have any thoughts?

---

I love her idea of "Peace Corps meets the Military... Green SWAT teams go into a neighborhood and retrofit the entire area with energy-efficient (Serious Materials) windows..."

Comedy Gold, that.

[/sarcasm]

Well, the Unions and government employees with collective bargaining agreements won't get the 40% tax on their expensive health care plans everyone else with such plans will get.

:wall:

CR

Well Obama's got the wonderful idea to get back the money paid out stupidly by TARP by taxing large banks - most of which have either paid back the loans or didn't get money in the first place.

And what does he say to protests?

“Instead of sending a phalanx of lobbyists to fight this proposal or employing an army of lawyers and accountants to help evade the fee, I suggest you might want to consider simply meeting your responsibilities.”

Apparently being taxed to pay for other's debts is your responsibility in his America. :wall: :furious3:

And why are they being taxed now? Because they're profitably, and the democrats hate a profitable business in a bad economy, and what better way to get more credit flowing than taxing banks?

God, what extreme stupidity.

CR

So the government bails out banks, but you can't tax the banks as taxing the banks = Taxing the American people and apparently the people shouldn't be responsible for paying the debts of others (ie: the banks) in your post.

I love this, keep it up.

"Because they're profitably" Yeap, like the Mafia and the Drugs Cartels...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

So the government bails out banks, but you can't tax the banks as taxing the banks = Taxing the American people and apparently the people shouldn't be responsible for paying the debts of others (ie: the banks) in your post.

I love this, keep it up.

---

Good grief, did you not even read what I wrote? The government is taxing banks that paid back their loans. If they we're going after the banks that still owe money, that'd be different.
:wall:

Also, it hurts the whole freaking economy. Taxes can't be used for petty, spiteful things because they effect everyone.

CR

“The government is taxing banks that paid back their loans.” So, that is it. The crooks reimbursed all the money they took so they are clean again and are out of responsibilities…

Crooks, huh? Kindly list all those convicted of criminal actions in relation to the banking industry recently.

Populist actions may get some votes, but this will hurt the economy. Oh wait! Who cares? Fulfilling spiteful feelings should always be a president's top priority. :laugh4:

CR

Banks who had a role in the current crisis should be taxed to death. Good riddance.

And speaking of crooks; a liberal radio host says he'd break the law and vote multiple times to prevent republicans from being elected.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

And speaking of crooks; a liberal radio host says he'd break the law and vote multiple times to prevent republicans from being elected.

CR

---

I think the majority of the country would do the same here.

oh wait... different Brown, silly me.

Though on another note, Republican is a very poor choice. I rather have our conservatives than anyone from the republican party, at least they aren't as bat:daisy: insane.

Ah, American liberal is an oxymoron. I'll take the democrats simply because they're slightly left of the fundamentalism the republicans have made themselves to be.

Indeed. Voting Republican is probably closer to voting for the BNP than Conservative, over here.

"Crooks, huh? Kindly list all those convicted of criminal actions in relation to the banking industry recently"
And your point is?
Yes crooks. They sold products they knew were not safe. They made money on "toxic assets".
They lied in saying they were making money because they were just encreasing the debt, they were multiplcating the debts in order to make their bonuses.
they didn't workon their clients interests, they were just making their money.
Crooks, burglars and thieves...

And of course no legal action, because their friends, relatives and accointances made them untouchable by the laws.

If I sell you a car, and if you bring back the car, will my manager allow me to keep the bonus. No.
But bankers, yes they can.
Not only they can, but after the biggest financial mistake ever, they want to pocket even more money!
And they are right to do so.
Because with poeple having your opinion (poor riches), they should be stupid not to do...:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Indeed. Voting Republican is probably closer to voting for the BNP than Conservative, over here.

---

Not entirely, because it depends on what Republican you're voting for. U.S. parties don't operate with party lists and the party program doesn't matter that much either (though I challenge you to take a good gander at the G.O.P.'s program, compare it with the BNP's and the Tories's, and then tell me the Republicans are more similar to the former).

A balanced, well-thought-through examination of President 44's first year.

Reality bites
Jan 14th 2010 | WASHINGTON, DC

Governing is harder than campaigning. But America’s 44th president has made an adequate start

FOR some, the magic is undimmed. Carl Baloney is extravagantly happy that Barack Obama is his president. He is old enough to remember segregation: back in the 1960s, his local university turned him away because he was black, he says. He is also old enough to have high blood pressure, which pushes his monthly health-insurance premiums skywards.

Mr Obama plans to bar insurers from turning away the sick. That will take some of the fear out of life for people like Mr Baloney, who is self-employed and pays his own bills. Others in his neighbourhood near New Orleans are much worse off, he says: “Health care is the emergency room. Next stop is the funeral home.” This will change, predicts Mr Baloney, and he is proud that it will change under a black president. “I never thought I’d see it,” he says, “and such a sharp president, too.”

Others feel differently. “I’m neither a Democrat nor a Republican, neither a jackass nor an elephant. But I wouldn’t vote for a socialist. Hell, I’d vote for Adolf Hitler before I’d vote for Barack Obama. At least you know what he’d do to you,” says Ron King, a retired policeman in Stuart, Virginia. He adds that Mr Obama “lies all the time” and is “dangerous; he’s trying to change the entire country.” Mr King has perhaps not rigorously thought through his Hitler analogy, but his anger is real.

Mr Obama came to power proclaiming an end “to the petty grievances...that for far too long have strangled our politics” and to “the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long”. By electing him, he said, Americans chose “unity of purpose over conflict and discord”. Alas, this was balderdash.

Abroad, Mr Obama is still loved. But at home his star is tarnished. His approval rating has fallen from almost 70% at the time of his inauguration a year ago to 50% now. The proportion of Americans who disapprove of the job he is doing has quadrupled, from 12% to 44%. More than half of voters think the country is on the wrong track, and they are roughly evenly divided as to which of the two parties would do a better job of correcting that. A poll of polls by RealClearPolitics, a political website, finds that a generic Republican candidate for Congress beats a generic Democrat by 44% to 41%.

Mr Obama’s reputation as a miracle-worker was easier to maintain on the stump than in office. He said he would end the war in Iraq, bring health insurance to all Americans, erect a cap-and-trade system to curb global warming and clean America’s soiled reputation by closing the prison at Guantánamo Bay. He has not yet done any of these things, though he has made progress in Iraq and is close to signing a health-care bill.

None of this should be surprising. Governing is hard, especially during an economic crisis. The American political system is fraught with checks and balances: a president cannot simply tell Congress what to do. Everything takes time and requires ugly compromises. Nonetheless, many of Mr Obama’s fans feel let down.

The same technology that Mr Obama used so effectively to promote his candidacy can also be used to highlight his broken promises. When Democrats opted to hold the final negotiations on the health-care bill in secret, critics immediately posted footage of Mr Obama vowing that such talks would be televised. Ditto his promise never to hire lobbyists, and to post bills online for five days before he signed them. Some voters have concluded that he cannot be trusted. Others are outraged at what they see as his march towards European-style socialism. Anti-tax “tea party” protests have swept the country. Re-energised Republicans crow that they can recapture the House of Representatives this year, and cut the Democrats’ Senate supermajority down to size.

Mr Obama came to power at a time when American-style free-market capitalism was seemingly in disgrace. Many of his supporters thought he had a mandate to push the country significantly to the left. But since he took office, public opinion has shifted sharply to the right.

At the beginning of 2008 Americans trusted Democrats over Republicans to deal with the deficit by a whopping 30 percentage-point margin, according to Ipsos-McClatchy. Now they prefer Republicans by seven points. On taxes, Democrats led by 17 points, but now trail by two. On protecting America against terrorists, their nine-point advantage has mutated to a seven-point deficit. And in areas where Democrats still have the advantage, the gap has narrowed: from 39 points to four on health care, from 21 to five on Iraq and from 44 to 25 on the environment.

Americans have not suddenly fallen in love with Republicans, who seem keener to obstruct Mr Obama than to offer a coherent alternative. Rather, they are fed up with the recession and government in general. Since Mr Obama is the public face of power, he gets the blame.

Four cheers for 44

A YouGov Polimetrix poll for The Economist found that Americans disapprove of Mr Obama’s handling of the economy by 54% to 40%. They also frown on his handling of health care (by 53% to 40%), terrorism (48% to 42%), immigration (49% to 28%), Afghanistan (51% to 39%), Iraq (50% to 41%), Social Security (49% to 33%) and gay rights (39% to 33%). Of the ten topics mentioned in the poll, he scored a pass mark on only two: education, where he has taken tentative steps to promote autonomous “charter” schools and the environment. In short, Americans still like Mr Obama more than they like his policies, but they are increasingly souring on both.

Yet, by some measures, his first year has been quite successful. He has made no disastrous mistakes, and can brag of four substantial achievements. First, he has done wonders for America’s image abroad. Foreigners warm to his African and Muslim roots, his childhood in Indonesia, his Harvard cosmopolitanism. He seems less brash, more diplomatic and more respectful of Muslims than his predecessor. He calls for a world free of nuclear weapons. He takes a stand against torture. He talks in complete sentences. “[E]ngagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation,” he told the Nobel committee. “But...[n]o repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.”

How much does this matter? Simon Anholt, an analyst, heroically estimates the value of the “Obama effect” on America’s global brand at $2.1 trillion. Each year, Mr Anholt commissions a poll of 20,000-40,000 people to find out how much they admire various countries’ people, culture, exports, governance, human-rights record and so on. He finds that admiration in one area often translates (illogically) into admiration in others. When George Bush was president, foreigners expressed less positive views of American goods, services and even the landscape. Under Mr Obama, he finds, America is once again the most admired country in the world (having slipped to seventh place in 2008). Using the same tools that consultants use to value brands such as Coca-Cola or Sony, he guesses that the value of “Brand America” has risen from $9.7 trillion to $11.8 trillion. Writing in Foreign Policy magazine, Mr Anholt calls this “a pretty good first year”.

Second, and more concretely, the American economy appears to have stabilised. The crisis that was raging when Mr Obama was elected has eased. Carrying on where the previous administration left off, Mr Obama has used gobs of taxpayers’ cash to prop up tottering banks and insurers. He deserves at least some of the credit for the American financial system not collapsing. He intervened to rescue two of America’s largest carmakers, General Motors and Chrysler. He stimulated demand with vast injections of borrowed money. All this, his supporters say, helped to restore confidence, thereby preventing a painful downturn from turning catastrophic.

Third, Mr Obama has shown he is serious about winning in Afghanistan. As Iraq grows calmer, Mr Obama is pulling out American troops, as he said he would. If all goes to plan, only a handful will remain by the end of 2011. Meanwhile he is escalating the war in Afghanistan, as he also promised. By putting tens of thousands more American boots on the ground, he hopes to make the country stable enough to start pulling out by next summer.

Fourth, Mr Obama is close to signing the biggest shake-up of America’s dysfunctional health-care system since the 1960s. The House and Senate have each passed a bill, and now the two mammoth documents are being haggled into one. Before long—perhaps before Mr Obama’s state-of-the-union message—health reform will probably become law.

Many details have yet to be finalised, but the outline looks roughly like this. Every American will be obliged to have health insurance. Those who cannot afford it will receive subsidies. States will set up carefully regulated exchanges to make it easier for individuals to shop around for the right policy. Insurers will be barred from excluding those with pre-existing health problems.

Most of the tens of millions of Americans who currently lack health cover will soon have it, predicts Mr Obama. And ways will be found to curb costs. The House bill calls for scores of pilot schemes to find cheaper ways of keeping people healthy. The Senate version would set up a commission to explore ways of doing it. The greatest single threat to America’s fiscal solvency—galloping health-care inflation—will thus be tamed.

Mr Obama’s detractors scoff. So what, they ask, if foreigners applaud him? Being liked is no guarantee of being effective. His Nobel peace prize will hardly make North Korea surrender its nuclear weapons. His admirers insist that Mr Obama’s patient and tactful style will eventually pay dividends: for example, by persuading Russia to lean on Iran to stop pursuing its own nuclear arsenal. His critics retort that it has shown few dividends yet. They think the world’s thugocrats see weakness in Mr Obama, and intend to exploit it.

This is harsh. Mr Obama has been quicker on the trigger than George Bush when it comes to assassinating terrorist suspects in Pakistan with missiles fired from drones. He has ordered roughly one such strike a week since taking office, killing some 400-500 militants and an unknown number of civilians. He may have ruffled hawks’ feathers by pushing for terrorists such as Khalid Sheikh Muhammad to be tried in civilian courts, but he has shocked doves, too, by refusing to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay until he figures out what to do with those inside.

Mr Obama’s decision to ramp up the fight in Afghanistan could hurt him politically. Doves fret that it will be his Vietnam—that a costly, bloody, unwinnable war will derail his presidency. Hawks gripe that although he made the right decision to send more troops, he dithered for months before making it and then exuded irresolution as he did so. He said that America “has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan” and will only do “what can be achieved at a reasonable cost”. The Taliban may take that to mean that all they need to prevail is a little patience.

Brickbats and tea-parties

On the economy, Mr Obama’s critics make several points. Much of his stimulus spending will be wasted, they say, because government spending is always inefficient. The money he has borrowed will have to be paid back. Last year’s budget deficit, at an estimated 11.2% of GDP, was the highest since the second world war. That is not sustainable. Mr Obama will presumably address the deficit in his budget next month, but he has not said publicly how he will do so.

Tea-party-goers assume he will raise taxes. They worry that he plans to shift America to a permanently higher level of public spending and intrusive regulation. Mr Obama has hired legions of government employees, whose pay and benefits have outpaced those in the private sector. Although he says he believes in free markets, he does not always act that way. When Washington bailed out Detroit, politically favoured labour unions fared better than bondholders. Lobbyists took note. Conservatives fret that, having spent his life in law, academia and government, Mr Obama knows little about wealth creation. “He doesn’t know anybody who’s ever had a real job,” grumbles Grover Norquist, an anti-tax activist.

Mr Obama calls himself a free trader, but he slapped tariffs on Chinese tyres last year, provoking swift retaliation. No full-blown trade war broke out, but America’s reputation has suffered. Foreigners complained more about America to the World Trade Organisation last year than about any other country bar China, according to Global Trade Alert, a watchdog.

Mr Obama’s proposed health-care reform has attracted brickbats from both left and right. The left frets that the final bill will probably not include a government-run health insurer (the “public option”). Critics on the right fear that the final goal is socialised medicine, with rationed care and scant rewards for innovators.

Others worry that reform will cost too much. Both bills call for wasteful spending to be cut, but largely in unspecified ways at some time in the future. And pitfalls abound. For example, if the government compels everyone to get health insurance, insurers can fairly easily cope with the requirement that they turn no one away. But if the fine for not buying insurance is too low, young healthy people may simply opt to pay it. Many will wait until they are ill to start buying insurance. So the pool of insured Americans will grow sicker. Premiums will rise, prompting more healthy people to stop buying insurance. This is called a “death spiral”. If it happens, either the system will collapse, or the government will have to save it with public money. Most likely, Congress will be tinkering with health care for years to come.

Still keeping his cool

Mr Obama’s second year could be even tougher. If and when health reform passes, the Senate will start haggling about climate change. America’s failure to enact a cap-and-trade system for carbon dioxide earned Mr Obama frowns at the Copenhagen climate summit last month, but carbon pricing is hugely controversial in America, and has become more so since Mr Obama became president. The House narrowly passed a cap-and-trade bill only by making it much weaker than planned. Greens hope that, so long as the Senate passes a bill of some kind, it can be tightened later. But there is no guarantee that it will pass.

Some pundits chide Mr Obama for letting Congress call the shots. He left it largely up to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the top Democrats in the House and Senate, to design a health-care plan and decide how stimulus money should be spent. The results, critics reckon, were more wasteful and less coherent than if Mr Obama had taken charge. Nobody wanted a health plan written wholly by White House wonks; but there was a middle ground available, where the president could simply have asserted his will more forcefully over the process.

Mr Obama is trying a more hands-on approach to regulating Wall Street, proposing a stronger role for the Federal Reserve in preventing financial firms from taking risks that imperil the system. House Democrats agree, but those in the Senate would rather set up a new regulator. Other looming battles include immigration reform (see article) and a bill to allow unions to organise without secret-ballot elections. Even if rogue states and terrorists are quiet, which is hardly likely, Mr Obama will have a turbulent 2010.

A Spock or a Clinton?

Pundits never tire of dissecting the president’s personality. Is he growing less popular because he is too aloof? Maureen Dowd, a liberal columnist, likens him to Mr Spock, the emotionless alien from Star Trek. Or is it his vanity? Conservatives mock his frequent use of the word “I”, as in: “I am well aware of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world.”

Such perceptions matter far less, however, than the state of the economy. The main reason Mr Obama’s polls have slipped is that Americans have spent the past year in fear of losing their jobs. When the economy recovers, Mr Obama will get the credit. If no recovery happens, the Republicans may regain the House. But even that need not be a disaster. After 1994, when Bill Clinton had to work with a Republican Congress, he governed from the centre, balancing the budget and signing welfare reform. And in 1996 he won a second term in the White House.

pledges kept and pledges not:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...irst-year.html

Barack Obama: review of pledges kept and promises broken in first year
President Barack Obama was elected on a campaign pledge of sweeping change in US policies at home and abroad. A year after taking office, some promises have been kept, others broken and still others subjected to compromise or delay.

By Alex Spillius
Published: 8:00AM GMT 20 Jan 2010

ECONOMIC RECOVERY

Obama's biggest promise was to make rescuing the economy his top priority. The results have been mixed or inconclusive so far.

A $787 billion stimulus he said was needed to jolt the country out of recession but which Republicans said was larded with too much spending was passed.

The economy is growing again but job losses persist, with unemployment at 10 per cent. He is now vowing to spur job creation. Whether he succeeds or fails could determine his political future.

A Wall Street bail-out is credited with helping avert a collapse, but the return of massive bonuses has outraged Main Street. A promised financial regulatory overhaul faces obstacles in Congress. While Obama has been lauded for acting to defuse the crisis, critics fault him for tackling health care and climate change instead of keeping the focus on the economy.

HEALTH CARE

Obama's goal of getting a health care bill to his desk by the end of 2009 proved overly ambitious, and now with just weeks of negotiations to go, it could be wrecked if Republican Scott Brown wins Sen Edward Kennedy's old seat.

Dithering Democrats were probably more to blame than the president. Liberals wanted a government insurance option and moderates were wary of the cost of reform. Even a newly compromised bill would see Obama would make history.

AFGHANISTAN

As promised, Obama switched attention from Iraq to Afghanistan, deciding in December to boost troop levels there by 30,000 after lengthy deliberations that critics called too deliberative.

Now it is Obama's war. The problem is polls show public support has waned as US casualties have increased, and some of Obama's fellow Democrats are balking at the build-up.

Candidate Obama pledged to withdraw all US combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. He will come close if he sticks to the August 2010 deadline he set as president.

ENGAGEMENT

Obama pledged to talk to his enemies, breaking with the isolation policy of his predecessor, George W Bush, at least in his first term.

Obama made overtures to Iran but it remains defiant over its nuclear programme. He also has little to show for outreach to North Korea. He lifted key restrictions on Americans with families in Cuba, but Havana has given little in return.

Critics say such gestures signal weakness, but aides insist it has been important to improve the tone of foreign policy. The White House says it will give Obama greater international leverage if he seeks further sanctions on Tehran this year.

CLOSING GUANTÁNAMO PRISON, FIX IMAGE ABROAD

Obama will miss his one-year deadline to close the internationally condemned military prison at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, a promise stalled by political and legal complications.

But that effort plus his ban on harsh interrogation of foreign terrorism suspects have helped repair some of the damage done to America's international image under Bush.

He kept his pledge to reach out in a major speech to the Muslim world. But many Muslims are disappointed he has not done more to push Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts.

Obama's popularity abroad remains high, as the award of the Nobel Peace Prize before any major foreign policy success showed. But critics at home say he has been too apologetic.

MORE TRANSPARENCY, BIPARTISAN COOPERATION

Obama, after accusing the Bush administration of being overly secretive, pledged greater transparency. He did order more openness and tighter limits on lobbyists and held a few televised issue-specific "summits" at the White House.

But much has been made of Obama's failure to keep his campaign pledge to have health care negotiations broadcast live on C-SPAN. The White House press corps has complained that Obama has not held a full-scale press conference since July.

Obama has also faced criticism for allowing exceptions to his promised ban on lobbyists serving in his administration.

He recently acknowledged regret at failing to bridge the bitter divide between Republicans and his fellow Democrats.

KEEP AMERICANS SAFE

Although no major attack has been carried out successfully on US territory since Obama took office, an attempted Christmas Day bombing of a US airliner came very close.

The failed bombing drew criticism from Republicans that Obama's counterterrorism policy was inadequate to keep Americans safe, as he had cited repeatedly as his highest priority.

That has resulted in Obama taking responsibility for the intelligence and security lapses that led to the Christmas incident and promising new reforms to prevent a repeat.

GLOBAL LEADERSHIP IN FIGHTING CLIMATE CHANGE

Obama had promised to make the United States a leader in the fight against global warming, in contrast to Bush's more reluctant approach.

He helped broker a non-binding international pact in Copenhagen in December and now faces an uphill fight to get the Senate to pass a law to cut carbon pollution at home while opponents argue that caps would hurt the economy. His stewardship will help determine whether a binding UN climate pact can be reached in 2010 after Copenhagen fell short.

OTHER PROMISES

No tax rise for anyone earning under $250,000: Obama has kept this pledge, but political analysts say it could be tested as he faces greater pressure over record budget deficits.

Lift Bush-era restrictions on stem-cell research: Obama moved to ease such limits within months of taking office.

Repeal "Don't ask, Don't Tell" rule for gays in the military: Although the White House has said it remains Obama's goal, he has yet to make a move.

Work for immigration reform: the issue is stalled as Obama grapples with bigger items. He has said, however, he wants to tackle it in early 2010.

Ah, good. The Department of Homeland Security and the US banks are giving me my money back. :2thumbsup:

At last, I should add, and I am most pleased they finally admit, and put to an end, their perfidious practises of swindling people around the world of their cash.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

OUR REF: WB/NF/IMF/WA-XX027/N08
ATM carte de paiement (822)
DATE: 17/01/2010.

Attn: Bénéficiaire


Le Department of Homeland Security, Washington, Etats-Unis, Nations Unies et les banques concernées a été d'avoir une réunion pour les 7 passé des mois sur la façon de compersate toutes les personnes qui ont été escroqués dans n'importe quelle partie du monde, cela vaut pour tous les entrepreneurs étrangers qui mai n'ont pas reçu leur montant du contrat, et les gens qui ont eu une transaction inachevés ou les entreprises internationales qui ont échoué en raison d'gouvernementales probelms etc, la fin de réunion jusqu'à la semaine dernière.


Le Department of Homeland Security, Washington, Etats-Unis, Nations Unies et les banques concernées, a accepté de vous compersate avec la somme de ($ 850,000.00 US Dollars) dans l'ATM MASTER CARD.


Maintenant, votre carte de guichet automatique de dollars ($ 850,000.00 US Dollars) est sous la garde de notre représentant, maintenant contacter notre directeur représentant, par nom de M. David Green avec ses informations ci-dessous et demandez votre carte de guichet automatique.


Personne à contacter: Dr. David Green
Téléphone: Tel: +44-704-571-1123
Email: (dgreen.atmcard0@ymail.com)


(1.) Nom complet:
(2.) Adresse de livraison:
(3.) Age:
(4.) Sexe
(5.) Profession:
(6.) Numéro de portable:


Notez que nous avons mis nos titres de surveiller tous ces escrocs, assurez-vous d'arrêter la communication avec ces derniers et communiquer avec le bureau ci-dessus et de recevoir vos fonds immediately.Notify nous une fois que vous recevez votre Carte bancaire.


Observe,
Mme Euice Moore
Directeur régional, Gestion de la dette Office [DMO]
Fond Monétaire International.
Envoyez votre réponse à M. David Green On Email: (dgreen.atmcard0@ymail.com)

---

Link: my inbox.
And no, surely you don't expect me to translate all of that crock, do you?

I do wonder: somewhere, somebody wrote all of the above, in the expectation that it would sound somewhat convincing to some people.
Maybe I should forward it to Joyandet, he might fall for it. :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

(1.) Nom complet:
(2.) Adresse de livraison:
(3.) Age:
(4.) Sexe
(5.) Profession:
(6.) Numéro de portable:

---

They forgot the colon, after "(4.) Sexe".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

They forgot the colon, after "(4.) Sexe".

---

Ugh, crud, you're right. So the mail is not offical, then? Does that mean I won't actually get my $850.000 back, which America swindled me out of and which the new administration was returning to me? :bigcry:

"back"? Louis? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

(1.) Nom complet:
(2.) Adresse de livraison:
(3.) Age:
(4.) Sexe
(5.) Profession:
(6.) Numéro de portable:

---

(7.) ???
(8.) Profit!

Obama's approval rating is at an astonishing low. As for myself, Obama has completely grown on me. He is moderate, classy, and does what he said he would do. Although this very moderation and class means he too easily loses fights when the opponent is ready to turn it into a mud-wrestling match.
I hope Obama's second year will see Obama slam his fist on the table a bit more often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obama

Barack Obama declared war on Wall Street last night as he unveiled a sweeping series of measures aimed at checking the behaviour of banks and clamping down on risky deals.
The proposals, regarded as the biggest regulatory crackdown on banks since the 1930s, would limit the size of institutions and bar them from the most cavalier trading practices. Mr Obama hopes that the move will reset his flagging presidency.

“We should no longer allow banks to stray too far from their central mission of serving their customers,” he said. “My resolve to reform the system is only strengthened when I see record profits at some of the very firms claiming that they cannot lend more to small business, cannot keep credit card rates low and cannot refund taxpayers for the bailout. If these folks want a fight, it’s a fight I’m ready to have. Never again will the American taxpayer be held hostage by a bank that is too big to fail.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6997741.ece

---

:2thumbsup:


Ten-to-one in two months time we will see angry mobs in town halls screaming that Obama should leave the poor banks alone. No doubt holding signs saying 'Keep Washington out of the financial sector!!', replacing previous signs saying 'Keep your :daisy: government hands off my medicare!!'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Ten-to-one in two months time we will see angry mobs in town halls screaming that Obama should leave the poor banks alone. No doubt holding signs saying 'Keep Washington out of the financial sector!!', replacing previous signs saying 'Keep your :daisy: government hands off my medicare!!'.

---

I would gives odds on for that my man

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Ten-to-one in two months time we will see angry mobs in town halls screaming that Obama should leave the poor banks alone. No doubt holding signs saying 'Keep Washington out of the financial sector!!', replacing previous signs saying 'Keep your :daisy: government hands off my medicare!!'.

---

Or you'll see people who know what they're talking about, like the Mayor of NYC, saying it's a bad idea.
http://www.businessinsider.com/henry...ppening-2010-1

Quote:

---

We agree with President Obama that it is ludicrous that, a year after a financial crisis almost destroyed the US economy, regulators haven't changed a thing.

Tim Geithner's "Too Big To Fail" policy is firmly in place, and our financial institutions can do whatever they want again.

So we were relieved to hear that Obama is finally deciding to do something about this.

But here's the problem: His new proposal won't fix a thing.

Under Obama's proposal, "banks" will no longer be able to trade for their own accounts or own, sponsor, or invest in hedge funds. So if you want to trade for your own account or own, sponsor, or invest in hedge funds, then... just don't be a bank!

In the fall of 2008, Lehman Brothers wasn't a bank. Neither was Bear Stearns. Or Goldman, Morgan, or Merrill Lynch. Or Fannie or Freddie. Or AIG--remember AIG?

None of these firms were banks.

Under Obama's new proposal, all of these firms would have been able to trade for their own accounts and own, sponsor, or invest in hedge funds.

And excuse us if our memory's faulty, but weren't these non-bank firms, along with with other non-bank firms like the idiot mortgage lenders, the ones that got us into trouble in the first place?

In other words, Obama's wildly popular new plan still hasn't addressed the real problem, which is not "banks." It's Tim Geithner's "Too Big To Fail." Until we address that one--preferably by making it possible for ALL firms to fail without taking the system down with them--we won't have done a thing.

---

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...453031712.html

Quote:

---

Hark back a few months to the shadow play of the Obama bank stress tests. Crediting themselves with mending the crisis, President Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner ruled that banks were on a solid footing because private investors would provide fresh capital and banks would be free to book profits and earn their way out of trouble.

That was then. Today it's politically convenient to bash banks for the very same profits, and to punish the very same investors with a new Obama bank tax. First, the government coaxes banks into buying back the government's TARP stake (and therefore government's share of future earnings). Then it turns around and helps itself to a chunk of those earnings anyway.
...
Aside from slightly raising the banks' cost of uninsured borrowing, the new Obama tax would do nothing to reduce the well-founded expectation of their uninsured creditors that they will be bailed out next time the banks get in trouble. Meanwhile, the only lesson the shareholders who just recapitalized the banks at Washington's behest can possibly learn is the moral hazard of trusting Washington.

Let's hope the crisis is over. Let's hope the banks don't soon need fresh infusions of equity to deal with more bad loans. If investors didn't get the message before, they've got it now: There will be no upside allowed. Anytime the sector starts to show signs of recovery, Washington can swoop in and grab the profits as a "responsibility fee."

This may be politically expedient given populist blowback over bank bonuses, but it's not a step toward a competitive, responsible banking sector that takes appropriate risks without looking for government handouts or bailouts. On the contrary, it's a formula for turning the banks into what Fannie and Freddie have become: profitless channelers of taxpayer-guaranteed money into whatever loss-making loans politicians happen to want made. Compared to that, give us Goldman every time.

---

Or we can go on saying Hurrah! for populism. :rolleyes:

CR

I was about to post in UK election thread, but here seems more acutely appropriate.

Gordon Brown to follow Obama's lead. Considering London's key role in European financial market, this paves the way for Europe to follow too.

(Incidentally highlighting what I've been desperately trying to convince the British of: the UK's position is a pot of gold. Britain's double-bill as 51st and 27nd state greatly enhances its influence and power, instead of reducing its 'sovereignity', or being a black hole from which no money can return)

Quote:

---

Gordon Brown plans to exploit Barack Obama's surprise crackdown on Wall Street banks to step up Britain's campaign for a new global transaction tax on financial products.


The prime minister believes the dramatic US move to curb risky activities by major US banks indicates a new-found willingness on the part of Washington to contemplate radical reform of markets.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...in-tax-banking

---

Go Limeys and Yanks! Rid the world of the excesses of neo-liberalism! :cheerleader:



In a not very surprising, but nonetheless disturbing manner, the City copy-pasted the response of Wall Street, fearing fo the loss of million pound jobs and excessive bonuses. Yes, lads, the party might be over soon, keep mewling:

Quote:

---

Lord Myners, the City minister, today played down the idea that Britain might follow Barack Obama's lead in introducing radical banking reforms. Myners told Reuters the UK had already taken measures to address the problems in its banking industry.

"President Obama came out with a solution to the idiosyncratic problems that he sees in the American banking system, which is around investment banking in particular," Myners said.

"It's worth remembering that proprietary trading, hedge funds, private equity, these were not at the heart of the difficulties that Northern Rock, or Royal Bank of Scotland or HBOS experienced." He added: "He's developing a solution to what he sees as the American issues; we've already taken the necessary action in the UK."

---

The guys in Brussels seem to be downplaying this though Louis just seen it on news there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

The guys in Brussels seem to be downplaying this though Louis just seen it on news there

---

'An optimist is the human personification of spring'. :smug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

As for myself, Obama has completely grown on me. He is moderate, classy, and does what he said he would do.


Ten-to-one in two months time we will see angry mobs in town halls screaming that Obama should leave the poor banks alone.

---

shame you're not americian....................

................and again.

I think you would like Obama to be our Prime Minister though, Furunculus. In the whole context of situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I think you would like Obama to be our Prime Minister though, Furunculus. In the whole context of situation.

---

I'd rather have Obama than Brown too, by a long shot. Still, at least Merkel is competent, even if I disagree with quite a few of her aims.

My President (OK, I didn't vote for him, but he has the job, and I am a Citizen) is no fool. I believe he is an astute politician, based on his years as a community organizer, and can accurately read the tea leaves left in the teacup of Massachusetts.

By Spring, Mr Geithner, and his "too big to fail" philosophy and policies, will be gone as Sec-Treasury. Mr. Emmanuel (ChStaff) will either leave to run for Chicago Mayor, or leave "to devote more time to family". Mr. Holder (Atty Gen) will accept a post at a prestigious University. Homeland Security will be helmed by someone else. Gates and Clinton will remain as SecDef and SecState.

In other words, I think he'll shake up his advisors, including folks who need Senate approval for their jobs. To the end that he re-works his focus, having been ill-advised in the recent past about what America wants and needs.

If he plays to the "needs", he'll be great. If he plays to the "wants", he'll get adulation for awhile - until he gets superceded by the "American Idol" contest.

I'm betting he goes for the needs. After a year in office, with the enormity of his decisions now settled on his shoulders, he knows he has about one thousand days remaining to either make his mark, or leave a skid-mark.

Good Luck to him, sez I. Trust your own instincts and conscience. Follow the Constitution, and plainly explain what you think we need to know.

1. Find binLaden.
2. Make him and his network no threat.
3. Separate banks (where ordinary citizens put their meager savings, and take out loans) from Investment Houses (market gamblers).
4. Get our money back (this year) from those we helped last year.

That ought to take up the agenda for the next 5 months. Do those, and America will follow you to hell and back, whether you're a one-shot wonder or 8-year Legacy.

Presuming:

1. Bin Laden isn't dead already, which he most likely is.
2. He isn't dead and his network is actually a major threat. Activity has been "very low" either because security services are good at their jobs or the threat is over-estimated.
3. That lobbyists and Fillibuster Republicans actually allow him to.
4. See Crazed_Rabbit, he attacked Obama for proposing such moves. Aka, Republicans won't allow it, so will the Lobbyists.

Unfortunately, KukriKhan, I doubt you will see the miracles you want, if the Republicans have their ways.

Quote:

---

I'd rather have Obama than Brown too, by a long shot. Still, at least Merkel is competent, even if I disagree with quite a few of her aims.

---

You must be sick, you are agreeing with me. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Follow the Constitution

---

I don't think thats possible for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

I don't think thats possible for him.

---

Yeah, Bush Jr. broke it all, and it will most likely take a while for Obama to fix it all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

4. See Crazed_Rabbit, he attacked Obama for proposing such moves. Aka, Republicans won't allow it, so will the Lobbyists.

---

No, I attacked Obama for proposing a tax that will get back TARP money from people who already paid and ignoring those who haven't.
:rolleyes:

CR

The WaPo editorial board confirms what I already knew. Specifically that the decision to indict the underwear bomber "was myopic, irresponsible and potentially dangerous." :thumbsdown:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

UMAR FAROUK Abdulmutallab was nabbed in Detroit on board Northwest Flight 253 after trying unsuccessfully to ignite explosives sewn into his underwear. The Obama administration had three options: It could charge him in federal court. It could detain him as an enemy belligerent. Or it could hold him for prolonged questioning and later indict him, ensuring that nothing Mr. Abdulmutallab said during questioning was used against him in court.

It is now clear that the administration did not give serious thought to anything but Door No. 1. This was myopic, irresponsible and potentially dangerous.

Whether to charge terrorism suspects or hold and interrogate them is a judgment call. We originally supported the administration's decision in the Abdulmutallab case, assuming that it had been made after due consideration. But the decision to try Mr. Abdulmutallab turns out to have resulted not from a deliberative process but as a knee-jerk default to a crime-and-punishment model.

In testimony Wednesday before the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, and Michael Leiter, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, all said they were not asked to weigh in on how best to deal with Mr. Abdulmutallab. Some intelligence officials, including personnel from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, were included in briefings by the Justice Department before Mr. Abdulmutallab was charged. These sessions did provide an opportunity for those attending to debate the merits of detention vs. prosecution. According to sources with knowledge of the discussions, no one questioned the approach or raised the possibility of taking more time to question the suspect. This makes the administration's approach even more worrisome than it would have been had intelligence personnel been cut out of the process altogether.

The fight against an unconventional enemy such as al-Qaeda cannot be waged exclusively or effectively through any single approach. Just as it would be a mistake to view all terrorist acts as law enforcement challenges, so would it be unwise to deal with all such incidents as acts of war. All paths must be seriously considered before a determination is made.

The administration claims Mr. Abdulmutallab provided valuable information -- and probably exhausted his knowledge of al-Qaeda operations -- before he clammed up. This was immediately after he was read his Miranda rights and provided with a court-appointed lawyer. The truth is, we may never know whether the administration made the right call or whether it squandered a valuable opportunity.

Finally, real change I can believe in. We are the haggis we've been waiting for.

Smuggled and bootlegged, it has been the cause of transatlantic tensions for more than two decades. But after 21 years in exile, the haggis is to be allowed back into the United States.

The "great chieftan o' the puddin-race" was one of earliest casualties of the BSE crisis of the 1980s-90s, banned on health grounds by the US authorities in 1989 because they feared its main ingredient ‑ minced sheep offal ‑ could prove lethal. [...]

For the past two decades, Americans of Scottish descent ‑ of whom there are at least 6 million ‑ have been forced to celebrate Burns' night without a true haggis, much to their distress.

There are stories of Scots smuggling in a haggis for their starving cousins, risking deportation in the process. Others are said to have secretly tried to create homemade, bootleg haggis, desperate to sample that particularly peppery concoction.

Was BSE ever actually a threat?

Nah, it was merely a conspiracy to destroy the British beef industry :book:

Uh-oh, I guess Obama is a false prophet after all. FDA sez no haggis for you!

Recently, several news articles have incorrectly stated that the U.S. will be relaxing or lifting its ban on Scottish haggis. At this time, haggis is still banned in the U.S. The APHIS rule covers all ruminant imports, which includes haggis. It is currently being reviewed to incorporate the current risk and latest science related to these regulations. There is no specific time frame for the completion of this review. Please check back with APHIS periodically for updates.

This is a good thing. Painting oneself blue is a sign of mad[cow]ness. That's why I was rooting for the evil stripmining marines.

I saw Enter the Haggis here in Philadelphia this past Saturday night. They haven't been banned...but they are Canadian, so I guess that is okay.

Lame speech. He looks weak and seems worried, but I missed the first half.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Lame speech. He looks weak and seems worried, but I missed the first half.

---

Interesting, I thought it was a superb speech; the best I'd heard in the last decade, if not longer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Interesting, I thought it was a superb speech; the best I'd heard in the last decade, if not longer.

---

I usually like his speeches, this one rang hollow to me and was disappointing. I'll watch the beginning later. Also, did McDonnell call facebook "fistbook"?

Haven't seen it yet, but this comment on it made me guffaw:

Tax incentives, small-business veneration, glorification of the entrepreneur, chest-thumping on competition, and even a bit of nationalism. Obama articulates Republican policies better than Republicans do. Doesn't look sour and mean, or like he wants to bite somebody.

Obama knocked it out of the park with this one.

For you europeans, that means he hit a 6. :beam: :smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus

Obama knocked it out of the park with this one.

For you europeans, that means he hit a 6. :beam: :smash:

---

I assume knocked it out of the park is an american phrase referring to when you in baseball make a home run...

But the explanation for europeans confused me, hit a 6?