The Obama Administration thread

[SLCPUNK]

Time to move on and focus on what's going on right now.... 

What? We can't look back three decades and blame it on THAT??? What fun are you anyway?

[C0ma]

For Chrisake you're thick as a brick!

For the last time, THE MAJORITY OF SUBPRIME LOANS DID NOT MEET CRA REQUIREMENTS. THEY WERE GIVEN OUT BY UNREGULATED MORTGAGE COMPANIES THAT IMMEDIATELY SOLD THEM AS SECURITIES.

Fuckin' hell!

Where did I say in reference to that chart that Sub Prime Loans and the CRA loans we were discussing were tied together? You asked for the rates of default on the all loans mentioned... I provided.
The current national rate of default on CRA loans (as reported by the Federal Reserve, who has to investigate default and profitability of CRA loans) is 9% which is significnatly lower than the Sub Prime Average, but in line with the ALT-A loans that you keep refering to.

[C0ma]

Time to move on and focus on what's going on right now.... 

What? We can't look back three decades and blame it on THAT??? What fun are you anyway?

I know we have the last 8 years to blame it on 

[C0ma]

Are there seriously still people who believe that poor people caused the economic crisis?

It's all code words for "The Niggers, Jimmy Carter and Clinton." They just don't have the fucking balls to say it.

Interesting... "The Niggers" caused the economic crisis. I never thought of it that way, after all Bill Clinton was our first Black President.
I suppose that's not what you meant, are you saying that all "Niggers" are poor? That's a prety bold generalization, seems like your time spent in SLC lead to a little rub off of older Mormon views on "Niggers". I'm sure there's plenty of poor white trash feeling left out.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

The big spending started with Bush and Obama is spending even more.

Where are all you Democrats who were screaming about a balanced budget and deficits now?

You think it sucks now? If they weren't propping up the economy/financial markets, the life you have known would be finished.

You fuckers don't give a shit about spending anyway, you've defended it for eight years. Now all of a sudden you're back to your conservative roots, completely oblivious to the colossal shit storm you just dodged. Who do you think you're kidding anyway?

Always the same response from you - Bush is very bad and use profanity towards all viewpoints  that don't agree with yours.

Yes it does suck now, and it will get much worse....Obama's spending is unsustainable. How do you think we are going to pay all that back without bankrupting the country? 
 

[C0ma]

The big spending started with Bush and Obama is spending even more.

Where are all you Democrats who were screaming about a balanced budget and deficits now?

You think it sucks now? If they weren't propping up the economy/financial markets, the life you have known would be finished.

You fuckers don't give a shit about spending anyway, you've defended it for eight years. Now all of a sudden you're back to your conservative roots, completely oblivious to the colossal shit storm you just dodged. Who do you think you're kidding anyway?

Always the same response from you - Bush is very bad and use profanity towards all viewpoints  that don't agree with yours.

Yes it does suck now, and it will get much worse....Obama's spending is unsustainable. How do you think we are going to pay all that back without bankrupting the country? 
 

I agree with SLC (just threw up a little in my mouth typing that)... we had to spend heavily to sustain the economy, and with the two wars raging in Iraq and Afganistan we have been spending money like drunken sailors for the past several years... BUT I don't think this is the time for Obama to try and jam his socialized medicine plan and it's huge price tag down our throats. Yes, in the future a refined healthcare system will only help the economy... but with the amount of money being thrown into the bailouts and stimulus package, I don't agree that this is the year to sneak it in. Especially not while cutting federal aid to states which has in turn cut local aid, causing critical layoffs to Police and Fire. Obama at every turn has told us we all have to sacrifice, but he wasn't willing to sacrifice his health care plan.

[loretian]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/06/obama/index.html

Without trying to come across as cocky or snotty here, I just have to ask, who was genuinely surprised at this?  Who opposed to the warrant-less wiretaps and wanted to prosecute Bush for them not based on law (in fact, did anyone bother reading the law?) because of their blind-hatred for all things (well, most things anyway) named Bush?

Hmmm... maybe there is a reason... for this!

[freedom78]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/06/obama/index.html

Without trying to come across as cocky or snotty here, I just have to ask, who was genuinely surprised at this?  Who opposed to the warrant-less wiretaps and wanted to prosecute Bush for them not based on law (in fact, did anyone bother reading the law?) because of their blind-hatred for all things (well, most things anyway) named Bush?

Hmmm... maybe there is a reason... for this!

Those wiretaps are illegal, and if the Obama admin wants to fight for them then they won't do so with my support.    And while I disagree with this completely, it is not, as the author writes, more extreme than the Bush admin version, wherein he had lawyers claiming that ANYTHING was subject to commander-in-chief powers during a time of war and, conveniently, we're in a "war" on terror, with no easily defined beginning or end, thus meaning that the President can do anything.  That's the idiot John Yoo for ya.  He'd be willing to subordinate any value of our Republic --- free speech, free press...anything! --- to the commander-in-chief power.

Now, in the mean time, I'm going to seek out more info about this issue.  It's also worth mentioning that the government is being sued and is presenting a defense.  And, secondary to that, it's important to note that the best way to change a policy like this, for good, is to have the courts rule against you.  Can one provide a baseless and ridiculous defense on purpose with the hope of losing?  I don't know, but if this policy were immediately changed it still wouldn't prevent the gov from being sued, so as long as you're bound to the process...

Anyway, let's hope that the courts quickly bitchslap this nonsense.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

The big spending started with Bush and Obama is spending even more.

Where are all you Democrats who were screaming about a balanced budget and deficits now?

You think it sucks now? If they weren't propping up the economy/financial markets, the life you have known would be finished.

You fuckers don't give a shit about spending anyway, you've defended it for eight years. Now all of a sudden you're back to your conservative roots, completely oblivious to the colossal shit storm you just dodged. Who do you think you're kidding anyway?

Always the same response from you - Bush is very bad and use profanity towards all viewpoints  that don't agree with yours.

Yes it does suck now, and it will get much worse....Obama's spending is unsustainable. How do you think we are going to pay all that back without bankrupting the country? 
 

I agree with SLC (just threw up a little in my mouth typing that)... we had to spend heavily to sustain the economy, and with the two wars raging in Iraq and Afganistan we have been spending money like drunken sailors for the past several years... BUT I don't think this is the time for Obama to try and jam his socialized medicine plan and it's huge price tag down our throats. Yes, in the future a refined healthcare system will only help the economy... but with the amount of money being thrown into the bailouts and stimulus package, I don't agree that this is the year to sneak it in. Especially not while cutting federal aid to states which has in turn cut local aid, causing critical layoffs to Police and Fire. Obama at every turn has told us we all have to sacrifice, but he wasn't willing to sacrifice his health care plan.

I am not saying the Gov't should have done nothing regarding the economy. Spending less money more wisely would be a novel idea though. But as they say in Washington, "why let a good crisis go to waste?"  

[Jim Bob]

Does anyone watch the Mike Huckabee show?  He is such a good person and makes a lot of sense and isn't very political at all.  I enjoy his guests, commentary, and his musical performance at the end of each show.  I think he would make a fine president.

I can't believe there are people who really think this. 

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Does anyone watch the Mike Huckabee show?  He is such a good person and makes a lot of sense and isn't very political at all.  I enjoy his guests, commentary, and his musical performance at the end of each show.  I think he would make a fine president.

I can't believe there are people who really think this. 

I like Huckabee as a person and I watch his show on occasion. I liked the fact last election that he showed a lesser known name could have a shot at the nomination and he did not give up. Not sure about how confident I'd be in him as President though. A little too much bible thumpery for me ( not that there's anything wrong with that, just a little uneasy about an evangelical as the commander in chief position ie. God told me to do this or do that, etc).

[loretian]

More great stuff from Paglia (once again, she's a liberal, a democrat, supports Obama, and somehow manages to maintain a level head above the ruckus).  In this column she tackles Obama's continuous gaffes (and their lack of coverage by the "not liberal in the slightest *wink* *wink*" mainstream media), why right wing talk radio is successful (conservatives are actually able to laugh at themselves), the "Barack The Magic Negro" song played on Rush Limbaugh (I never liked the song, though it's insightful the insight could be offered in other ways, but I certainly don't take the song out of context like so many), and the general mean-spirited, pettiness, and nasty-ness of liberals these days:


Yes, something very ugly has surfaced in contemporary American liberalism, as evidenced by the irrational and sometimes infantile abuse directed toward anyone who strays from a strict party line. Liberalism, like second-wave feminism, seems to have become a new religion for those who profess contempt for religion. It has been reduced to an elitist set of rhetorical formulas, which posit the working class as passive, mindless victims in desperate need of salvation by the state. Individual rights and free expression, which used to be liberal values, are being gradually subsumed to worship of government power.


Enjoy! http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/04/08/bow/index.html

[loretian]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/06/obama/index.html

Without trying to come across as cocky or snotty here, I just have to ask, who was genuinely surprised at this?  Who opposed to the warrant-less wiretaps and wanted to prosecute Bush for them not based on law (in fact, did anyone bother reading the law?) because of their blind-hatred for all things (well, most things anyway) named Bush?

Hmmm... maybe there is a reason... for this!

Those wiretaps are illegal, and if the Obama admin wants to fight for them then they won't do so with my support.    And while I disagree with this completely, it is not, as the author writes, more extreme than the Bush admin version, wherein he had lawyers claiming that ANYTHING was subject to commander-in-chief powers during a time of war and, conveniently, we're in a "war" on terror, with no easily defined beginning or end, thus meaning that the President can do anything.  That's the idiot John Yoo for ya.  He'd be willing to subordinate any value of our Republic --- free speech, free press...anything! --- to the commander-in-chief power.

Now, in the mean time, I'm going to seek out more info about this issue.  It's also worth mentioning that the government is being sued and is presenting a defense.  And, secondary to that, it's important to note that the best way to change a policy like this, for good, is to have the courts rule against you.  Can one provide a baseless and ridiculous defense on purpose with the hope of losing?  I don't know, but if this policy were immediately changed it still wouldn't prevent the gov from being sued, so as long as you're bound to the process...

Anyway, let's hope that the courts quickly bitchslap this nonsense.

I'm sorry, aside from your rhetoric, do you have an actual lawful argument to make?  Just wondering...    because that's what it comes down to.

Regarding your first paragraph, I think you're a little confused about what you're talking about.

Edit:  And do you really believe Obama is defending the warrantless wiretapping if he doesn't believe in it?  And actually seeking to expand it's power in order for it to be ruled illegal?  If that is actually true, then Obama is a total schmuck, and even I don't believe that about him.  I mean, if you're right, then I'm terrified what he'll do next (but I really don't think you're right).

[freedom78]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/06/obama/index.html

Without trying to come across as cocky or snotty here, I just have to ask, who was genuinely surprised at this?  Who opposed to the warrant-less wiretaps and wanted to prosecute Bush for them not based on law (in fact, did anyone bother reading the law?) because of their blind-hatred for all things (well, most things anyway) named Bush?

Hmmm... maybe there is a reason... for this!

Those wiretaps are illegal, and if the Obama admin wants to fight for them then they won't do so with my support.    And while I disagree with this completely, it is not, as the author writes, more extreme than the Bush admin version, wherein he had lawyers claiming that ANYTHING was subject to commander-in-chief powers during a time of war and, conveniently, we're in a "war" on terror, with no easily defined beginning or end, thus meaning that the President can do anything.  That's the idiot John Yoo for ya.  He'd be willing to subordinate any value of our Republic --- free speech, free press...anything! --- to the commander-in-chief power.

Now, in the mean time, I'm going to seek out more info about this issue.  It's also worth mentioning that the government is being sued and is presenting a defense.  And, secondary to that, it's important to note that the best way to change a policy like this, for good, is to have the courts rule against you.  Can one provide a baseless and ridiculous defense on purpose with the hope of losing?  I don't know, but if this policy were immediately changed it still wouldn't prevent the gov from being sued, so as long as you're bound to the process...

Anyway, let's hope that the courts quickly bitchslap this nonsense.

I'm sorry, aside from your rhetoric, do you have an actual lawful argument to make?  Just wondering...    because that's what it comes down to.

The wiretaps violate FISA.  FISA allows for warranted wiretaps, and even warrantless wiretapping with exigent circumstances.  The Bush wiretapping programs were largely done by executive orders.  Executive orders cannot change the meaning of existing laws in a way that runs contrary to those laws.  They can only address areas to which the law doesn't speak or is unclear.  Thus, when FISA says that all such wiretaps run through the FISA court, Bush can't simply say "nuh uh...I done made one of them executive orders".

Edit:  And do you really believe Obama is defending the warrantless wiretapping if he doesn't believe in it?  And actually seeking to expand it's power in order for it to be ruled illegal?  If that is actually true, then Obama is a total schmuck, and even I don't believe that about him.  I mean, if you're right, then I'm terrified what he'll do next (but I really don't think you're right).

As I said, I want to look into this more.  My point, however, is that the gov is being sued and has to present a defense in that suit.  If you believe these programs are illegal, not to mention unconstitutional, and want them ended, you cannot risk that a future President might put them into place again.  Thus, having them ruled on as unconstitutional is the best way to end them semi-permanently. 

I haven't the foggiest if this is what the DOJ is doing, but it's very common for the courts to be used to fight out the constitutionality of a given issue.

Regarding your first paragraph, I think you're a little confused about what you're talking about.

I know exactly what I'm talking about.  Just because you have nothing substantive to add doesn't mean no one will notice when you dismiss anyone's remarks with "I think you're a little confused".  In fact, it is you who has failed to make a serious point.  You copy/pasted an article and offered nothing of value, and yet have the gall to dismiss others' remarks as "confused". 

Now, if you have an actual substantive criticism of anything I wrote in my "confused" first paragraph, I'd be more than happy to discuss it.  Given your lack of any such real, grounded, criticism, however, I'll simply continue under the impression that you simply didn't like what I had to say.

[ppbebe]

So this is true?


Love abroad, hate at home
While Europeans embraced President Obama's candour, to the US right he was attacking America

Hugh Jackson
guardian.co.uk,    Wednesday 8 April 2009 16.00 BST


Barack Obama and Michelle Obama with some European fans. 

Photograph: John Stillwell/WPA Pool/Getty Images

Barack Obama's latest round of nation-hopping calls to mind the last time he went abroad - not only the international lovefest part, but how it was immediately attacked back home by the US right.

read the rest of the article
here

[Smoking Guns]

So this is true?


Love abroad, hate at home
While Europeans embraced President Obama's candour, to the US right he was attacking America

Hugh Jackson
guardian.co.uk,    Wednesday 8 April 2009 16.00 BST


Barack Obama and Michelle Obama with some European fans. 

Photograph: John Stillwell/WPA Pool/Getty Images

Barack Obama's latest round of nation-hopping calls to mind the last time he went abroad - not only the international lovefest part, but how it was immediately attacked back home by the US right.

read the rest of the article
here

I guess you missed the tens of thousands that protested and rioted.....  Nobody has done that in America of the President, only in Europe.

[C0ma]

The big spending started with Bush and Obama is spending even more.

Where are all you Democrats who were screaming about a balanced budget and deficits now?

You think it sucks now? If they weren't propping up the economy/financial markets, the life you have known would be finished.

You fuckers don't give a shit about spending anyway, you've defended it for eight years. Now all of a sudden you're back to your conservative roots, completely oblivious to the colossal shit storm you just dodged. Who do you think you're kidding anyway?

Always the same response from you - Bush is very bad and use profanity towards all viewpoints  that don't agree with yours.

Yes it does suck now, and it will get much worse....Obama's spending is unsustainable. How do you think we are going to pay all that back without bankrupting the country? 
 

I agree with SLC (just threw up a little in my mouth typing that)... we had to spend heavily to sustain the economy, and with the two wars raging in Iraq and Afganistan we have been spending money like drunken sailors for the past several years... BUT I don't think this is the time for Obama to try and jam his socialized medicine plan and it's huge price tag down our throats. Yes, in the future a refined healthcare system will only help the economy... but with the amount of money being thrown into the bailouts and stimulus package, I don't agree that this is the year to sneak it in. Especially not while cutting federal aid to states which has in turn cut local aid, causing critical layoffs to Police and Fire. Obama at every turn has told us we all have to sacrifice, but he wasn't willing to sacrifice his health care plan.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/04/08/menino_proposes_cutting_565_jobs/

Menino proposes cutting 565 jobs
Police, schools would see biggest reductions

Mayor Thomas M. Menino today will propose laying off 565 city workers, including public school teachers, police officers, and librarians, cutbacks that Boston officials said are needed to help balance the $2.4 billion city budget.

The job cuts are a response to the national recession and decreases in state aid. The budget, which Menino will present to the City Council today, requires pink slips for 212 teachers and classroom aides, 67 police officers, 44 police cadets, and 39 community center employees. Twenty-six library workers will lose their jobs, including four librarians.

Also among the casualties are mounted units of the Police Department and park rangers. The city hopes to find adoptive homes for its 24 horses, officials said.

The picture could have been worse. Nearly 200 jobs were saved by wage freezes that were accepted by 22 of the city's municipal unions, said Lisa Signori, Cabinet chief for finance and administration.

"We balanced this budget in a way that protects the city's fiscal foundation and its future," she said.

The impact on police can be minimized by moving more officers into patrol roles to fill in for those who will be laid off, Signori said. Librarians will be cut not from neighborhood branches but from the Copley Square library, which can absorb the hit with a smaller effect on service, she said. Throughout the system, library hours will not change. The city's 46 community centers and pools also remain on the same schedules.

Signori said that if more unions agree to wage freezes and if stimulus money arrives in time, some jobs slated for elimination in the mayor's budget could be saved. The 67 police officers, for example, aren't scheduled to be laid off until Oct. 1, giving the city time to lobby for more state and federal aid.

That is just the first few paragraphs, the rest can be read at the above link.

This is what really turns me off about Obama's existing budget plan and the Stimulus Bill. MA for example has had to make sweeping budget cuts that are leading to the loss of teachers and police officers, but when the first stimulus dollars arrived MA got over 33 million earmarked dollars for 3 Kennedy Family Related Projects (expanding the JFK Presidential Library, building the Ted Kennedy Institute for the Senate, and access to the waterfront from the Rose Kennedy Greenway). Hopefully those 3 construction projects create 565 jobs... of course they will be temporary jobs that will probably wind up being bid out to out of state construction companies like with the Big Dig.

Also the JFK library isn't exactly in the nicest of neighborhoods, so when a group of Boston Students (with no teacher because he/she lost their job) visits on a field trip we better hope the undermaned Boston PD has coverage in that neighborhood. I'd hate to see a little old fashioned gang violence spill out of the bordering housing project unchecked because the is no PD presence.

[C0ma]

So this is true?


Love abroad, hate at home
While Europeans embraced President Obama's candour, to the US right he was attacking America

Hugh Jackson
guardian.co.uk,    Wednesday 8 April 2009 16.00 BST


Barack Obama and Michelle Obama with some European fans. 

Photograph: John Stillwell/WPA Pool/Getty Images

Barack Obama's latest round of nation-hopping calls to mind the last time he went abroad - not only the international lovefest part, but how it was immediately attacked back home by the US right.

read the rest of the article
here

I guess you missed the tens of thousands that protested and rioted.....  Nobody has done that in America of the President, only in Europe.

I personally can't stand the guy, but a good portion of the rioting outside of the G20 wasn't aimed at Obama. There were a considerable amount of wacko's claiming that money was the worlds problem and that it should be abolished. God Bless the Anarchists...

[ppbebe]

but a good portion of the rioting outside of the G20 wasn't aimed at Obama.

that's it. Sorry Smoking Guns but the world isn't/wasn't revolving around obama then yet.

[jarmo]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=223862&title=baracknophobia-obey

Tyranny. 



/jarmo