Thoughts & Commentary on the Obama Administration

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

A little perspective ...

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

I was referring to government debt, as Kralizec pointed out...

[Louis VI the Fat]

Meanwhile in Europe, Obama has returned to America its role as inspirational leader of the world.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

[Xiahou]

Government run banks? Check.
Government run auto industry? Check.
Government run healthcare? Coming soon.

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.

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.

So, does anyone see GM returning to profitability in the forseeable future or is it now just an expensive UAW welfare program?

[CountArach]

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?

[Incongruous]

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

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"

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.

[drone]

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.

So, does anyone see GM returning to profitability in the forseeable future or is it now just an expensive UAW welfare program?

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. Obama is doing his city proud.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You don't think the UAW would want it to be profitable?

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.

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

[Lemur]

Government run banks? Check.
Government run auto industry? Check.
Government run healthcare? Coming soon.

Behold Socialism in action:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Behold Socialism in action:

Don't make me quote how much the nationalized part of the economy has increased, percentage wise, in the last year.

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

[CountArach]

Behold Socialism in action:

I really did lol. Well played Lemur.

[Xiahou]

Another hard hitting story from the AP:
CAPITAL CULTURE: World hangs on Obama's every bite
This part really hit home for me...

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!"

On a completely unrelated note, a few malcontent journalists are beginning to suggest that fawning media coverage of Obama may actually be a problem.

The Obama Infatuation

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

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.

[Xiahou]

Reagan.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Reagan.

Stop whining about a president you disagree with being idolized. It happens to some degree for every single president.

Nope, not Reagan. This is a problem because it removes objectivity.

For an indepth analysis, see here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...entry_id=41380

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

When Barack Obama decided that questions from the German press about his trip agenda in that country were too pesky, he told the reporters, "So, stop it all of you!" He just wanted them to ask things he wanted to talk about. Well, what politico wouldn't want that?

OK, dad. We'll behave.

And according to a new Pew Research Center poll, we are behaving...like fans. On domestic press, it showed that "President Barack Obama has enjoyed substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush during their first months in the White House" with "roughly twice as much" Obama coverage about his "personal or leadership qualities" than was the case for either previous president.

Back in the US, NBC's Brian Williams' two-part "Living Large With the Top Dog" feature on Mr. Obama's life included a plug for Conan O'Brien's new show and mention of cable talkies where Mr. Obama only cited MSNBC personalities. Accident? I don't think so. There were a few probing moments in there, but they were overshadowed by the flash of hanging out in the back of the Auto One limo and having burgers. A little navel-gazing among journalism standards hall monitors about whether the thing had been too soft came and went.

Then, this Sunday in the NYTimes, there was full-on chick-flick swooning over Barack and Michelle Obama's heavily scented "date night" in NY City and its high bar standard effect on our relationship culture, with just a hint of controversy over the taxpayer costs to add some spice. I swear I've seen this movie, only Michael Douglas was the President. Or Harrison Ford. Or one of those cool and languid characters you'd want to like you. George Bush needed to be beer-bar likable to get elected. His successor has managed to get a lot of people to want to be liked by him.

And in Paris, Mr. Obama talked about how he'd love to take his wife for a romantic tour of the City of Lovers, but couldn't. Then he did. I'm guessing some regular-Joe freedom fries weren't on the menu.

This guy is good. Really good. And, frankly, so far, we're not.

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.

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?

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.

Good grief.

CR

[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.


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.

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.

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.

[Xiahou]

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.

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

I don't want to wonder too far off topic, but he's right.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well, you probably won't appreciate this clip either then. It's the editor of Newsweek talking about how Obama is like a god.

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.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

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.

[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).

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.

If you think that the media under Bush was compliant then there's nothing really to complain about - it's nothing new.

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.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

What's your point then? The media either thinks Obama is god or the antichrist, depending on whether you've flipped to MSNBC or Fox. It doesn't affect reality.

[Xiahou]

What's your point then? The media either thinks Obama is god or the antichrist, depending on whether you've flipped to MSNBC or Fox. It doesn't affect reality.

I thought the above posts were pretty clear on what my point was.

Here, skim this study and see if anything jumps out at you. I really don't see where anyone but the most rabid Obama fanboy (which apparently includes much of the press) would think that Obama has gotten the same level of critical coverage that past presidents have had- particularly Bush, but even Clinton did not receive the level a favoritism that Obama seems to be enjoying now if Pew is to be believed.

I don't expect the media to collectively sling mud a Obama, but it sure would be nice if his agenda was viewed with a more critical eye and perhaps even a little bit of skepticism. When I look at headlines, half the stories mentioning the president read more like fawning celebrity worship instead of political reporting- see my food article above.

[a completely inoffensive name]

@Xiahou
Again, why should this be in a thread about the Obama Administration and not in a thread about news organizations and journalism? Talk about his policies, not about the media bending over for him please.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Obama's economic idiocy continues:

US government seeks to rein in executive pay
Democrats want to push administration on US corporate pay strategies

* Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration is taking a half-step toward taming U.S. executive pay. Some lawmakers prefer a fuller stride.

Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee said Thursday the administration's efforts to hector the private sector into reining in executive pay might not go far enough.

The administration contends that excessive compensation contributed to the U.S. financial crisis, but rejects direct intervention in corporate pay decisions.

Instead, the administration plans to seek legislation that would try to rein in compensation at publicly traded companies through nonbinding shareholder votes and less management influence on pay decisions.

Government interference will just result in less efficiency, and a distortion of incentives.

Oh, and the American Medical Association, America's largest physician group, opposes any public insurance plan, like Obama's:

Doctors’ Group Opposes Public Insurance Plan

By ROBERT PEAR
Published: June 10, 2009

WASHINGTON — As the health care debate heats up, the American Medical Association is letting Congress know that it will oppose creation of a government-sponsored insurance plan, which President Obama and many other Democrats see as an essential element of legislation to remake the health care system.

The opposition, which comes as Mr. Obama prepares to address the powerful doctors’ group on Monday in Chicago, could be a major hurdle for advocates of a public insurance plan. The A.M.A., with about 250,000 members, is America’s largest physician organization.

While committed to the goal of affordable health insurance for all, the association had said in a general statement of principles that health services should be “provided through private markets, as they are currently.” It is now reacting, for the first time, to specific legislative proposals being drafted by Congress.

I guess the question is - will they listen? I doubt it.

CR

[Lemur]

Interesting on the AMA, I did little reading, did not know that their membership had dropped so dramatically. Anyway, based on what I'm reading today, they're in more of a "conditional" opposition, depending on what is in the plan. Makes sense. I haven't seen the details, has anyone?

AMA's leaders agree that the nation's health system is sick. But the group has long opposed government intrusion into health care and believes reform can be achieved by revamping private health insurance plans.

Dr. Nancy Nielsen, AMA's president, says the group wants details on Obama's proposal for a public health insurance plan to compete with private plans.

In a written statement Thursday, she said the AMA "opposes any public plan that forces physicians to participate, expands the fiscally challenged Medicare program or pays Medicare rates."

But, she added, the AMA "is willing to consider other variations of a public plan that are currently under discussion in Congress."

In an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday, Nielsen sounded more conciliatory than combative. She said AMA shares Obama's concern "that we need to have comprehensive health care reform" that offers everyone affordable, high-quality health insurance.

[CountArach]

AMA donates more to Republicans - they aren't in this for their patients. They are in this for themselves.

[Xiahou]

AMA donates more to Republicans - they aren't in this for their patients. They are in this for themselves.

Holy cow- they donate more to the Republicans??? Then clearly, they are all scumbags- each and every one of them. Now, had they donated more to the Democrats, they'd be saints.....

Some more of the objective insight that I've come to expect from Nate.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Holy cow- they donate more to the Republicans??? Then clearly, they are all scumbags- each and every one of them. Now, had they donated more to the Democrats, they'd be saints.....

Some more of the objective insight that I've come to expect from Nate.

Who is Nate?

[Lemur]

Nate Silver, the unexpected star of the last election. He's a baseball statistical analyst who took his sports-stats techniques and applied them to politics, with more accurate results than any other public pollster. He's also well-liked by Dems and lefties at the moment, as the bearer of good tidings. From Wikipedia:

Silver's final 2008 presidential election forecast accurately predicted the winner of 49 of the 50 states as well as the District of Columbia (missing only the prediction for Indiana). As his model predicted, the races in Missouri and North Carolina were particularly close. He also correctly predicted the winners of every U.S. Senate race that has been resolved.

We'll see if he's as well-liked when the news is bad for the Dems.

Here's his political polling/statistical analysis site.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Nate Silver, the unexpected star of the last election. He's a baseball statistical analyst who took his sports-stats techniques and applied them to politics, with more accurate results than any other public pollster. He's also well-liked by Dems and lefties at the moment, as the bearer of good tidings. From Wikipedia:

Silver's final 2008 presidential election forecast accurately predicted the winner of 49 of the 50 states as well as the District of Columbia (missing only the prediction for Indiana). As his model predicted, the races in Missouri and North Carolina were particularly close. He also correctly predicted the winners of every U.S. Senate race that has been resolved.

We'll see if he's as well-liked when the news is bad for the Dems.

Here's his political polling/statistical analysis site.

Oh thats right, he is the fivethirtyeight.com guy. I checked that website frequently during the election.