American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]Governmental interference was certainly the largest force in the economic calamity of 2009/2010 and continued governmental meddling threatens the economy's ability to pull us out of this funk.[/QUOTE]No doubt. And, while I'm no real fan of George W. Bush and the Republican majority (then minority) in the Senate while he was in office, the blame for the housing crisis can't be laid at his feet. The biggest culprit in this debacle were legislators who, for years, have created false housing incentives to curry favor with their own constituents. Starting with the the G. I. Bill, the creation of HUD, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and many, many more programs, the government did more to create this mess than anyone else. So what do they do now? Hold hearings on why the "free market" failed. Virtually no one in the predominantly left-of-center media are doing much to scrutinize government's role.

Bush II had a ton of flaws. Ignoring the risks caused by Fannie and Freddie wasn't one of them, however. The article below is from the NY Times in 2003. And, while the proposal involved the creation of a new federal agency, there was little else Bush could do. Fannie and Freddie had been legislatively created and propped up long before he came on the scene. It wouldn't have been possible to eliminate these two quasi-entities overnight, but it was possible to make them more responsible. Guess who stopped him in his tracks?

[quote][b]New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae[/b]

By STEPHEN LABATON.

September 11, 2003

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

"There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises," Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

"The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises," Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. "We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight," the independent agency that now regulates the companies.

"These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator," he added.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.

Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission.

After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.

"We welcome the administration's approach outlined today," Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members.

Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.

Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a "responsible proposal."

The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525. Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.

"The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied," said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. "Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work."

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

"These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

"I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing," Mr. Watt said."[/quote]

This is hilarious. Remember Ricardo? How Jackson says that he is probably a "generic" person who used to post Democratic talking points and probably was one of many who were trying to show "grass roots" support for Obama and his administration?

Do a search for Ellie Light on Google and see what comes up.

It appears that someone has been sending the same talking points to newspaper editorial sections and blogs. The text is almost identical and defends Obama and his policies. I read somewhere that this letter has shown up in 60+ (at last count) newspapers around the country, claiming to live in the area where the paper publishes.

A number of people are trying to track "her" web presence and discover where she's been posting from by "her" posts on blogs and such. I saw one such blog where they were linking the posts back to people who are connected loosely with Demorcats and Obama's administration. Personally, I think some of what I saw there was a bit tenuous.

I would think that if the Obama administration actually looked to do this to help tehmselves, they would have done it differently - certainly changed the name of the poster, the statements made, etc.

What I do find interesting is a comment I saw one person make related to this - what does it say about newspaper media (at least) that this letter has been published in so many newspaper's editorial sections, with all the other submissions that are presented? 60+ news papers is a LOT of newspapers around the country.

Has anyone noticed that [url]www.recovery.gov[/url] hasn't been updated since Octoboer 30, 2009? At least as far as the home page goes, where they are supposed to be summarizing the money that has been spent and the supposed effect it's having.

[QUOTE=El Queso]This is hilarious. Remember Ricardo? How Jackson says that he is probably a "generic" person who used to post Democratic talking points and probably was one of many who were trying to show "grass roots" support for Obama and his administration?

Do a search for Ellie Light on Google and see what comes up.

It appears that someone has been sending the same talking points to newspaper editorial sections and blogs. The text is almost identical and defends Obama and his policies. I read somewhere that this letter has shown up in 60+ (at last count) newspapers around the country, claiming to live in the area where the paper publishes.

A number of people are trying to track "her" web presence and discover where she's been posting from by "her" posts on blogs and such. I saw one such blog where they were linking the posts back to people who are connected loosely with Demorcats and Obama's administration. Personally, I think some of what I saw there was a bit tenuous.

I would think that if the Obama administration actually looked to do this to help tehmselves, they would have done it differently - certainly changed the name of the poster, the statements made, etc.

What I do find interesting is a comment I saw one person make related to this - what does it say about newspaper media (at least) that this letter has been published in so many newspaper's editorial sections, with all the other submissions that are presented? 60+ news papers is a LOT of newspapers around the country.[/QUOTE]Take those blinders off! What the Democrats do, the Republicans are doing. I always thought Ricardo address directly to the issues or the post at hand. Only the "shadow cabinet" in BA could not stomach it. Obama has shown poor leadership so far, but the Nobel Peace Prize was an indicator that the rest of the world is desperate for a different American president and foreign policy.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt]Obama has shown poor leadership so far, but the Nobel Peace Prize was an indicator that the rest of the world is desperate for a different American president and foreign policy.[/QUOTE]Maybe so, but it also shows how much we shouldn't necessarily give a rat's ass what the rest of the world thinks! According to the prize's own guidelines, Obama wasn't even eligible for the gift. That's already been discussed. Obama should never have accepted that prize because he did not earn it.

Yes, everyone knows that the committee giving Obama the prize was making a statement on the few words that Obama said toward "peace" during his campaign. But in my view, he's been rather ineffective and hasn't really done much. How can anyone really say he's lived up to a Nobel Prize?

Sorry, it was a blatant use of a peace prize to influence events rather than recognize events and those who reacted to them and actually did something of use. I personally think that they can kiss my ass as far as telling us that they approve of our choice of presidents in such a manner. A simple speech by those who thought that way would have been fine.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt]Take those blinders off! What the Democrats do, the Republicans are doing. I always thought Ricardo address directly to the issues or the post at hand. Only the "shadow cabinet" in BA could not stomach it.[/QUOTE]The Republicans AND the Democrats have people who post the party line, undoubtedly. Of course there are lists of party talking points. But there has been no Republican proponent that has gone around to newspapers and blogs with the same wording, from the same person, defaming the President (opposite of what this person is doing). At the very least it just looks juvenile.

I agree with you related to Ricardo - I don't think he was the puppet that Jackson sees him as. However, I do believe that he was somehow affiliated with organizations whose aims are to do what I described above. Not a rote poster, but an arguer, of party points. Nothing more. He never posted on other things except jokes.

He obviously wasn't a monger and never showed an interest in getting together with any of us, which I took to mean he either wasn't interested and / or he didn't even live or visit BA. After all, he could have lived here and not been interested in mongering, but the only real draw for this website for such a person should be because he makes some friends among us, as I have (those who know me know I'm not a monger, although I am very sympathetic to the sport)

Which means he was only on the forum to defend the Democratic Party and Obama on a website for mongers and posters about other aspect of life in Argentina. It was stirring up more angst than normal in the politics forum and that was overpowering the actual purpose of the website - mongering and information about living / staying in Argentina. I think Jackson had every right to kick him out and indeed did the right thing.

[QUOTE=El Queso]Maybe so, but it also shows how much we shouldn't necessarily give a rat's ass what the rest of the world thinks! According to the prize's own guidelines, Obama wasn't even eligible for the gift. That's already been discussed. Obama should never have accepted that prize because he did not earn it.

Yes, everyone knows that the committee giving Obama the prize was making a statement on the few words that Obama said toward "peace" during his campaign. But in my view, he's been rather ineffective and hasn't really done much. How can anyone really say he's lived up to a Nobel Prize?

Sorry, it was a blatant use of a peace prize to influence events rather than recognize events and those who reacted to them and actually did something of use. I personally think that they can kiss my ass as far as telling us that they approve of our choice of presidents in such a manner. A simple speech by those who thought that way would have been fine.[/QUOTE]I have been travelling a great deal, the rest of the world is truly excited by Obama and what it could represent. The Nobel Prize is ridiculous, but can't you understand why the masses are so stimulated when you are not? Time, they achanging (Bob Dylan) don't get caught in a time warp.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt]I have been travelling a great deal, the rest of the world is truly excited by Obama and what it could represent. The Nobel Prize is ridiculous, but can't you understand why the masses are so stimulated when you are not? Time, they achanging (Bob Dylan) don't get caught in a time warp.[/QUOTE]As soon as they immigrate legally to the US, obtain citizenship and the right to vote, I'll give a sh*t about what they think about the US.

There are obvious reasons that foreigners aren't supposed to vote in our elections (of course there are exceptions for foreigners and the dead in Chicago) US elections are supposed to be individual expressions of self interests, which when taken in the aggregate (directly and via the electoral college) should indicate the direction the nation or particular portions of the nation want to go.

Since much of the nation cedes its individual self interests when it comes time to vote (think unions) this doesn't always work out perfectly. I can think of a recent example of this. These groups are aided by the main stream press.

As for Team Obama's spam campaign, it shouldn't surprise anyone that none of the 60+ media outlets that ran the piece bothered to verify anything about it. "If it is pro-Obama, it's good enough to print, air or carve in stone" has been the mantra of the main stream press since he started his campaign. If a high school teacher can use the internet to find out if a student has plagiarized a paper, an editorial staff can use that same internet to check any piece to see if it has run elsewhere or if the work belongs to someone else. To do anything less when considering running what could be pro-regime propaganda is tantamount to actively participating in the propaganda effort.

Guys,

Let's get a grip here. Every nation's foreign policy is an exercise in self interest, regardless of what their citizens believe about other countries leaders (in this case Obama).

After Obama's world apology tour resulted in a net gain of nada, we have the Muslim apology tour which netted us another attempted airline bombing and the same old "Death to the Great Satan". Got a lot of traction on that one, didn't he?

For all you flower children, hippies in a time warp, and peaceniks, the world does not work that way. America's foreign policy should be the same as every other nations: a policy of self interest. It is our government's duty to take care of its citizens, not another countries. We act in concert with others for our own benefit. That is just how it is.

If you don't believe the above, then prove it by giving up all your worldly possessions to the poor, joining the Peace Corps, go to some under developed country and help the natives.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Guys let's get a grip here. Every nation's foreign policy is an exercise in self interest, regardless of what their citizens believe about other countries leaders (in this case Obama)

After Obama's world apology tour resulted in a net gain of nada, we have the Muslim apology tour which netted us another attempted airline bombing and the same old "Death to the Great Satan", got a lot of traction on that one didn't he?

For all you flower children, hippies in a time warp, and peaceniks, the world does not work that way. America's foreign policy should be the same as every other nations, a policy of self interest. It is our governments duty to take care of its citizens not another countries. We act in concert with others for our own benefit. That is just how it is.

If you don't believe the above then prove it by giving up all your worldly possessions to the poor, joining the Peace Corps, go to some under developed country and help the natives.[/QUOTE]Now, I have never smoke pot in my life, and quoting Bob Dylan does not make me a flower child. I am not naive enough not to know that countries act in their self interest, Iraq was a perfect example, it was all about oil. Ah, I had a difficult time convincing all those people driving SUVs who were cursing him. So, maybe, Bush was a Boy Scout once upon a time and you bought cookies from him. And if you still think nothing has changed since the Berlin War came down, you just qualify to work for the State Dept. By the way, I am in the process of donating all my worldly possessions to the poor (but only to well-developed women) in undeveloped countries. And thank you, I am my own Peace Corp and you are welcome to join me.

I guess what we're trying to say, Black Shirt, is that of all the reasons to think positive about Obama, saying that the rest of the world is excited about what Obama can do (for them! Is one of the emptiest, shallowest, and for American interests, farthest reasons to like Obama.

The rest of the world would have been happy with anyone who didn't represent Bush's ideals (and I've said before that neither did I like Bush and what he did with Iraq) The fact that the rest of the world at one point endorsed Obama doesn't put any meat in the thought that Obama might actually have something to contribute. Their only interest, personal / country interest, was that the US would not be as strong internationally with Obama in the driver's seat.

For us, those who are citizens of a country that was once proud of being made up of individuals who cared about being personally responsible for themselves and making conditions right for the pursuit (not the guarantee) of happiness, we've gone down the wrong road. We seem now to be a bunch of whiny pussies who want the government, Big Papa, not even Big Brother, to put His big strong arms around us and take care of us.

[QUOTE=El Queso]I guess what we're trying to say, Black Shirt, is that of all the reasons to think positive about Obama, saying that the rest of the world is excited about what Obama can do (for them! Is one of the emptiest, shallowest, and for American interests, farthest reasons to like Obama.

The rest of the world would have been happy with anyone who didn't represent Bush's ideals (and I've said before that neither did I like Bush and what he did with Iraq) The fact that the rest of the world at one point endorsed Obama doesn't put any meat in the thought that Obama might actually have something to contribute. Their only interest, personal / country interest, was that the US would not be as strong internationally with Obama in the driver's seat.

For us, those who are citizens of a country that was once proud of being made up of individuals who cared about being personally responsible for themselves and making conditions right for the pursuit (not the guarantee) of happiness, we've gone down the wrong road. We seem now to be a bunch of whiny pussies who want the government, Big Papa, not even Big Brother, to put His big strong arms around us and take care of us.[/QUOTE]Like you, I am a believer of individual responsibility, old fashioned work ethics and initiative. The wrong road can be explained this way, " wealth & life becoming too easy". In Chinese folklore, a fortune can be lost within 3 generations. Before the days of trust funds, insurance, etc. The lazy, well-fed and foolish 3rd generation could be counted to squander the fortune that their grandparents made, and their parents protected.

Yes, Obama is still a question mark. Right now, the opposition would love to see him fail, but what would that accomplish? Another 4 years down the drain.

Here's how the world really works:

- We shouldn't care (and I certainly don't care) how the rest of the world "feels" about the USA, because their "feelings" are irrelevant to us.

- The rest of the world doesn't care what we "feel" about them, because our "feelings" are irrelevant to them.

- No country ever cares how any other country "feels" about them, because to them the other country's "feelings" are irrelevant.

In summation:

- Every country in the world makes every decision about their country based on their own self-interests.

- No country ever makes any decision based on their "feelings" about any other country.

Get it?

Obama doesn't, but then he's...

[size=3][I]Obama: the [strike]dumbest[/strike] most inept President ever![/i][/size]

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Black Shirt]I am a believer of individual responsibility, old fashioned work ethics and initiative.[/QUOTE]Liberals always say that, it's just that they never actually mean it when it comes to patronizing their constituency groups.

[QUOTE=Jackson]Here's how the world really works:

- We shouldn't care (and I certainly don't care) how the rest of the world "feels" about the USA, because their "feelings" are irrelevant to us.

- The rest of the world doesn't care what we "feel" about them, because our "feelings" are irrelevant to them.

- No country ever cares how any other country "feels" about them, because to them the other country's "feelings" are irrelevant.

In summation:

- Every country in the world makes every decision about their country based on their own self-interests.

- No country ever makes any decision based on their "feelings" about any other country.

Get it?

Obama doesn't, but then he's.

[size=3][I]Obama: the [strike]dumbest[/strike] most inexperienced President ever![/i][/size]

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]It is a given that self interest is the basic fundamental ruling each country's foreign policy. But the world is a very diverse place, and different cultures demand different approaches. Acting like armed missionaries with a divine mission everywhere, we will not only get our asses spank, but it will drain our resources.

Without getting into a bunch of detailed arguments, I'll just say it makes a lot of sense for a new US president to be setting a tone of peaceful cooperation and collaboration on the world front.

Dear Sid- Will you be watching Obama's speech tomorrow?

I am looking forward to your detailed and impartial analysis.

You know, as far as Obama representing the US internationally, I think this says an awful lot:

[url]http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/11/obama-emperor-akihito-japan.html[/url]

The President of the United States, elected to serve and protect the Constitution (the only power any citizen of the United States should ultimately be under fealty to) leader of a country who threw off the shackles of King George and chose to be beholden to no monarchy, submitted to the Japanese Emperor.

Look at that bow. It's idiotic. He bows so low the elderly gentleman Japanese Emperor Akihito probably couldn't have matched it if he wanted to! Obama didn't even bow to the point where he could have still looked into the emperor's eyes, as two opponents would do in tae kwon do, for example, when sparring. I'm not suggesting they should be sparring, but in the world of martial arts, he submitted completely and left himself open to attack. As I'm sure everyone is aware, Japan has quite a martial tradition. To me this seems a disgrace.

Look down farther in the article where they show how other world leaders greet the emperor.

I don't like Bush's approach to getting us into Iraq. I think it was wrong. But at least he wasn't a pussy and I didn't feel like he was inviting dangerous elements to feel more comfortable in attacking us. Yes, definitely I believe he could have done it with a lighter footprint.

But let me just say that I think Obama is a pussy foreign policy-wise and I don't think it bodes well for the United States.

He needs to take the middle ground with foreign policy as well, not giving in, not submitting, but acknowledging firmly that we need a change and moving forward boldly in something.

I sure don't see any of that. I see a lot more bowing.

George Washington said it in his departing address to the people and it was repeated by Ronald Reagan in his departure speach, Big Government is the enemy of freedom, for the larger the governmet becomes the smaller each individuals freedom becomes.

Obama is the sultan of Big Government.

If you want to "Freeze" spending then you have to get Congress to bring down "entitlement" spending which accounts for the largest part of the budget. Also stop any additional spending of "bailout" or "stimulus" funds.

Obama's "Freeze" is smoke and mirrors, at total of $250 billion over 10 years isn't a drop in the bucket as far as what is needed!

[QUOTE=Sidney]You can be sure of 100% bullshit, health care idiocy, budget saving tokenism, minimal green jobs crap, and more maniacal spending! And his mentally deprived and blind parishioners will applaud with mucho gusto!

Objective Sid[/QUOTE]Objective, self-proclaimed as usual. At this moment, American Idol could use you.

Well, the speech is over, the opposition rigid and stoneface. My thoughts were that had it been James Earl Jones delivering the speech rather than the youthful Obama, the whole chamber would have been one chanting evangelical gathering with the Republicans rushing to kiss his feet.

I miss Bobby Jindal.

In the middle of the road, this was a spectacular speech in the same way that Sienfeld was a show of substance.

This episode was entitled "The absurdity of hope. "

Obama telling us that we need more clean nuke plants, we'll have to make hard decisions about off shore drilling and we need to be fiscally responsible was high comedy. Does he think anyone believes him?

"We're gonna save $250B." Interesting concept. But, if we passed your healthcare plan, we'd spend another $1T, so the net outflow of taxpayer money is still $750B. Makes me wonder if he learned 'new math' at those fancy schools.

Then he launches into healthcare and repeats the same lies he's been throwing around for months (it is budget neutral, fixes medicaid, brings down premiums, covers all Americans) He has the balls to say that we should go back and pass the legislation that is before the Congress. Err. What? You mean the one that has cost the Dems NJ and VA gubernatorial elections and "Teddy Kennedy's seat" in the Senate? [Side note, David Rodham Gergen might have been correct when he called it "Teddy Kennedy's Seat" I think I saw a receipt for it at the Kennedy museum, seems that Big Joe bought it back when he was a bootlegger during prohibition.] 2012 is a long ways away but logic like this is going to help him really become JC II (no, not Jesus, I mean Jimmy Carter)

Obama was trying to pull a Clinton. That is to say he was trying to take the high ground (strategic not moral) from the Republicans on energy, the economy, etc. While trying to slide his agenda underneath it and throwing a few organic, gluten-free bones to the cook left (repeal 'don't ask don't tell' -- yeah, I've been hearing the masses call for that.)

He followed this with a good five minutes of blaming Bush for all of his problems.

The cherry on top was 'transparency." I can't believe he had the bad sense to touch on "transparency" anywhere in this speech. Politically speaking, I'd have left that for another day (I. E. Never) He is so isolated in his 'cone of brilliance' (copyright wildwallye 2010) that he doesn't even realize that his form of 'transparency' (Reid, Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel making executive decisions (and payoffs) that would effect every American, with no oversight, in a smoke-filled, union-bought room) was perhaps one of the most crystallizing elements of his colossal and spectacular healthcare reform failure (which was to our mutual benefit)

He came off as arrogant and aloof (a comment from a democrat friend last night) and made sure that he was "perfectly clear" that he is a snake oil salesman. I don't think too many viewers missed that.

In my opinion, he failed miserably. Which (again in my opinion) is good for the country.

I am sure that my friends and admirers on the left will chalk my following comments up to a knee-jerk reaction due to my rabid bigotry, homophobia, misogyny and host of other fatal flaws. However, as a student of many things, executive management success and failure among them, I see many things about Obama that lead me to believe that he is predisposed to be a dreadful chief executive (whether POTUS or CEO of an evil company in the private sector)

I heard 'someone' make an excellent point today: no matter the subject nor the audience (excluding his teleprompter presentation to third graders) Obama is the least experienced person in the room. He doesn't have actual first hand knowledge or expertise in anything, other than community agitating. He may look the part and sound 'presidential' (just add re-verb) but the assumed knowledge and experience bestowed upon him by an adoring media is absolutely unfounded. Pick a subject: economics, international relations, national defense, business, and US government. He has no experience (other than OTJ training he's got over the last year at our great, mutual expense) in any of these areas and it shows.

I have worked with many senior executives at large corporations, over the years. Every so often, I come across one that leaves me scratching my head and wondering "how the f*ck did this knucklehead get this gig?" The typical profile of guys within this group is: white, 40-something, well groomed, looks 'good' in a suit (with standard issue Hermes tie) jocular, college ring (in these cases, I think this is an attempt to verify that the wearer actually attended college) and modest intelligence (able to discern the need for an umbrella when his head gets wet walking outside, etc) These guys aren't stupid but woefully inadequate for their jobs. They have themselves up on a pedestal and probably spend a good part of the day staring out the window thinking about how important they are. But, when it comes down to the business at hand, they are completely incapable. A fact that becomes embarrassingly obvious when subordinates start doing the things that the boss should be doing and when the boss looks to the subordinate for approval on an idea or opinion.

Sooner or later, their shortcomings become too glaring for their employers to overlook any more. Usually, these guys get moved around within the company to avoid to getting sued for firing an oldster and to prevent them from putting the firm in harms way. Some bounce from company to company (they must be good at interviewing and look the part because they keep getting hired).

I have not undertaken a study of how these guys get to these positions (married boss's daughter, screwed boss's wife, fraternity brother, social promotion, whatever) but they are everywhere. While, I am certain that there are plenty of them throughout Washington (and on both sides of the aisle) I never really contemplated the possibility of one of these guys holding the office of the POTUS, but here we are.

My lefty brethren, I respect personal opinions that differ from mine and your right to voice them. I have lots of liberal friends (or at least lots of friends who happen to be more liberal than me -- joking) and have greatly enjoyed humanities throughout my life (90% of which are taught or produced by liberals) That said, let me be clear (can you hear the ringing re-verb in my voice?), Obama is one of these guys (albeit with a dangerous twist, his agenda and his hatred of what America stands for and what makes America exceptional) and his boss (the 65% of the electorate that is not hopelessly stuck in the extreme left, lunatic fringe) has figured it out. We can't fire him for a few more years, but we can try to ensure that he does no more damage to the country.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]I am sure that my friends and admirers on the left will chalk my following comments up to a knee-jerk reaction due to my rabid bigotry, homophobia, misogyny and host of other fatal flaws. However, as a student of many things, executive management success and failure among them, I see many things about Obama that lead me to believe that he is predisposed to be a dreadful chief executive (whether POTUS or CEO of an evil company in the private sector)

I heard 'someone' make an excellent point today: no matter the subject nor the audience (excluding his teleprompter presentation to third graders) Obama is the least experienced person in the room. He doesn't have actual first hand knowledge or expertise in anything, other than community agitating. He may look the part and sound 'presidential' (just add re-verb) but the assumed knowledge and experience bestowed upon him by an adoring media is absolutely unfounded. Pick a subject: economics, international relations, national defense, business, and US government. He has no experience (other than OTJ training he's got over the last year at our great, mutual expense) in any of these areas and it shows.

I have worked with many senior executives at large corporations, over the years. Every so often, I come across one that leaves me scratching my head and wondering "how the f*ck did this knucklehead get this gig?" The typical profile of guys within this group is: white, 40-something, well groomed, looks 'good' in a suit (with standard issue Hermes tie) jocular, college ring (in these cases, I think this is an attempt to verify that the wearer actually attended college) and modest intelligence (able to discern the need for an umbrella when his head gets wet walking outside, etc) These guys aren't stupid but woefully inadequate for their jobs. They have themselves up on a pedestal and probably spend a good part of the day staring out the window thinking about how important they are. But, when it comes down to the business at hand, they are completely incapable. A fact that becomes embarrassingly obvious when subordinates start doing the things that the boss should be doing and when the boss looks to the subordinate for approval on an idea or opinion.

Sooner or later, their shortcomings become too glaring for their employers to overlook any more. Usually, these guys get moved around within the company to avoid to getting sued for firing an oldster and to prevent them from putting the firm in harms way. Some bounce from company to company (they must be good at interviewing and look the part because they keep getting hired)

I have not undertaken a study of how these guys get to these positions (married boss's daughter, screwed boss's wife, fraternity brother, social promotion, whatever) but they are everywhere. While, I am certain that there are plenty of them throughout Washington (and on both sides of the aisle) I never really contemplated the possibility of one of these guys holding the office of the POTUS, but here we are.

My lefty brethren, I respect personal opinions that differ from mine and your right to voice them. I have lots of liberal friends (or at least lots of friends who happen to be more liberal than me -- joking) and have greatly enjoyed humanities throughout my life (90% of which are taught or produced by liberals) That said, let me be clear (can you hear the ringing re-verb in my voice? Obama is one of these guys (albeit with a dangerous twist, his agenda and his hatred of what America stands for and what makes America exceptional) and his boss (the 65% of the electorate that is not hopelessly stuck in the extreme left, lunatic fringe) has figured it out. We can't fire him for a few more years, but we can try to ensure that he does no more damage to the country.[/QUOTE]Yes, Father Knows Best, that program while great is now extinct.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt]Yes, Father Knows Best, that program while great is now extinct.[/QUOTE]A great program from the past, extinct. Kind of like great men from the past (our founding fathers) - they are extinct as well. Does that mean their ideas are extinct?

I have a few questions. I really wish someone who is so enamored and hopefull regarding Obama would answer a few questions honestly:

1. How do you feel about Obama's multiple, very high-profile promises that the healthcare reform process was going to be open and televised on C-SPAN? And the fact that that particular process turned out to be one of the most hidden processes, full of back-room deals and far from transparent? Showed up on C-SPAN for a few moments at a dog-and-pony show.

2. How do you feel about the fact that Obama promised no lobbyists in his adminsitration. That he wouldn't take money from them and they wouldn't find a job in his administration. The fact that he broke this promise.

3. What about his promises to ban earmarks? The first spending bill that he signed had 9000 earmarks in it! He knew how to use his pen to approve the bill - could he not have vetoed it? Is he more concerned about doing things rapidly with no thought in lieu of doing what's right?

4. He blames Republicans for not being able to get his "projects" passed. How can that be when the Democrats, for a year, have had a super majority? Up until Scott Brown, they couldn't even fillibuster! Is it because what he's trying to do in many cases goes against too many people who call themselves independents and Democrats that those in power know it would be political suicide to do all this crap?

5. How do you feel about ANY president who basically says "I'm going to ignore the feelings of large portions, perhaps even a majority, of the populace and push hard for what I think is right for you whether you want it or not. And I'm going to do all this behind your backs, in back rooms, making deals to get it done?" And you folks are the same ones who had problems with Bush pushing Iraq down your throats?

6. How do you feel when the president is so wrong about the Supreme Court ruling recently related to campaign finance/advertisement when he says that that is going to leave our election process open to influence from foreign corporations? The law actually says that foreign corporations cannot contribute to candidates or pay for political advertisements AT ALL. Who is writing his speeches, and how does someone who is supposedly so up on the law make such a big mistake? Does he care about free speech at all? Would he like to see that no one can tell the truth about candidates when it gets close to election time, so that lies can't be exposed?

Now, think about all of these questions above - and what is it, exactly, that makes you feel like anything he said in the SOTU address is honest?

[QUOTE=Sidney]Can you get me a job on American Idol? [/QUOTE]Sid, you could be the new Simon Cowell! Ripping into every young hopeful with brutal honesty. Ratings would go through the roof!!

[QUOTE=El Queso]A great program from the past, extinct. Kind of like great men from the past (our founding fathers) - they are extinct as well. Does that mean their ideas are extinct?

I have a few questions. I really wish someone who is so enamored and hopefull regarding Obama would answer a few questions honestly:

1. How do you feel about Obama's multiple, very high-profile promises that the healthcare reform process was going to be open and televised on C-SPAN? And the fact that that particular process turned out to be one of the most hidden processes, full of back-room deals and far from transparent? Showed up on C-SPAN for a few moments at a dog-and-pony show.

2. How do you feel about the fact that Obama promised no lobbyists in his adminsitration. That he wouldn't take money from them and they wouldn't find a job in his administration. The fact that he broke this promise.

3. What about his promises to ban earmarks? The first spending bill that he signed had 9000 earmarks in it! He knew how to use his pen to approve the bill - could he not have vetoed it? Is he more concerned about doing things rapidly with no thought in lieu of doing what's right?

4. He blames Republicans for not being able to get his "projects" passed. How can that be when the Democrats, for a year, have had a super majority? Up until Scott Brown, they couldn't even fillibuster! Is it because what he's trying to do in many cases goes against too many people who call themselves independents and Democrats that those in power know it would be political suicide to do all this crap?

5. How do you feel about ANY president who basically says "I'm going to ignore the feelings of large portions, perhaps even a majority, of the populace and push hard for what I think is right for you whether you want it or not. And I'm going to do all this behind your backs, in back rooms, making deals to get it done?" And you folks are the same ones who had problems with Bush pushing Iraq down your throats?

6. How do you feel when the president is so wrong about the Supreme Court ruling recently related to campaign finance / advertisement when he says that that is going to leave our election process open to influence from foreign corporations? The law actually says that foreign corporations cannot contribute to candidates or pay for political advertisements AT ALL. Who is writing his speeches, and how does someone who is supposedly so up on the law make such a big mistake? Does he care about free speech at all? Would he like to see that no one can tell the truth about candidates when it gets close to election time, so that lies can't be exposed?

Now, think about all of these questions above - and what is it, exactly, that makes you feel like anything he said in the SOTU address is honest?[/QUOTE]I am not going to answer point by point as I have not follow domestic politics for the last 3 years. All this time, I have been on the road, and there are periods in which I actually have not read any good papers or watch american tv. However, I do have better understanding and interest on American foreign policy. Instead, I will make some points about Obama that will put my viewpoints in perspective to those venom (sometimes) spouted by the very vocal majority on the board.

1. No doubt, Obama is inexperienced but he is our president and there is some learning pains. Romney would have been my choice. McClain was 8 years too late, and Palin is a joke. I think the fiscal crisis was a disaster for Obama, in the same way, that 9/11 was a boon to Bush. Both came at the same time in their presidency.

2. Somehow, Obama has to show that he is boss, I believe he has been undercut by his own party over his agenda. Reid and Pelosi have their own interests and they are very powerful. He light reprimanded them in his speech, there was alot of flinching when he call upon both parties to solve the problem of gridlock and self interest. Nobody is volunteering to do the right thing. There seem no cure for this American political disease. You know, the Romans were in total control, they build their cities to last, and their civilization decline because their political institutions got weak.

3. So we are coming home from Afghanistan and Iraq, and what do have to show for it. Since there have been no successful repeats of 9/11, perhaps, you could term the war on terrorism a major win. But the US is concentrating on security, while China is concentrating on commerce. They are due to overtake Japan as the #2 economy in the world anytime soon. By the way, how many of the forum have travelled to China more than the token visit to Hong kong. So our foreign policy.

While not answering directly to your valid questions, I believe Obama promised too much, and is now in disaray for now. However, I supend final judgement.

"The more one talk, the more one show that they know nothing". So I stop while perhaps still ahead.

Republicans still don't get it. They are not the only people in the country. There are many people, in the middle as well as on the left, who understand Democratic viewpoints and values and want to see them expanded.

Having lost power, angry in the face of a shift away from their values, the right has gone into full spin and attack mode. This shows their true colors. This strategy has had some success, but risks backfiring as most people are getting real tired of the partisan bickering.

Obama promised many things and hasn't delivered on some of them. I agree. He was too optimistic. Including, he did not get away from 'Washington politics' like he said he would. He loses points here. Those that only focus on these things alone are going to give him a poor grade. Those that take a broader view of all his efforts, in the context of the recession and deficits he inherited, are likely to give him a higher grade. He gave himself a B+. I tend to agree with this.

Obama supporters are not 'enamored' with him. Stop with these silly characterizations. He has had some mis-steps. But on balance, we view his positions and direction as more progressive and therefore superior to those from the right.

The left is not satisfied with the status quo, which the right is seeking to protect.

[QUOTE=Esten]Republicans still don't get it...angry in the face of a shift away from their values...[/QUOTE]Esten,

Do you really interpret the Gubernatorial elections in Virgina and New Jersey, and Scott Brown's election in Massachusetts as proof that the country is shifting [I]away[/i] from conservative values?

Thanks,

Jackson

Although I doubt he know what great sense he makes in his first salvo:

[QUOTE=Esten]Republicans still don't get it. They are not the only people in the country.[/QUOTE]You are correct many republicans (and most democrats) do not get it. However, if you dispense with your preconceived notions (I. E. Bible-thumping, homophobic bigots who want old people to eat dog food) about what a conservative is, you will find that conservatives do get it.

True conservatism, at least from my perspective, is based consistent historical conservative values (no, not that homosexuality is evil, etc. Which are founded upon the strength of the individual, which of course is rooted in freedom. The bigger and more intrusive the government the smaller and more limited the personal freedom.

With freedom comes responsibility. Personal freedom demands personal responsibility (I. E. You have to take care of yourself and your own well being) That said, as a moral and just society, it is incumbent upon us to take care of those that cannot care for themselves. The bounty of America's greatness has enabled us, throughout our history to care for the weaker members of society (although not perfectly) However, the big government has encroached upon our liberties over many years and the demarcation between those that can and those that cannot fend for themselves has been artificially raised. While the stated intent of those enacting such policies may have been founded on 'good intentions,' the results have been the enslavement of millions of Americans (a constituency that is disproportionately made up of minorities) who are now dependent upon the government to survive, having been rendered unable to fend for themselves by the 'good intentions' of elitist politicians.

An anonymous Chinese proverb (often misattributed to Lao Tzu, Confucius and Guan Zhong) states: "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a life time." Unfortunately, we have proven this and its counter argument to be true.

Thomas Jefferson knew a thing or two about the founders' vision for the future of this nascent country. They were was not looking to create a nanny state, they were looking to create a facilitator for the pursuit and fulfillment of individual interests which in the aggregate translate to national success. That goal has been realized and compounded daily within this great country for more than 200 years. Another great man put it this way: "If we look to the answer as to why for so many years we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on earth, it was because here in this land we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before. Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on earth. The price for this freedom at times has been high, but we have never been unwilling to pay the price." Ronald Reagan, despite the repeated attempts to revise history by his detractors was right.

Reagan was also right in stating the ". Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden."

This is consistent with the quote attributed to Jefferson "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take everything you have."

That belief is held by a plurality of Americans. The latest proof of which is the Rassmusen poll that found 59% agree that government is not the solution, which is consistent with the Gallop poll of mid-2009 that had more than 50% of the US populace identifying itself as conservative (little "c" not big "C")

[quote]There are many people, in the middle as well as on the left, who understand Democratic viewpoints and values and want to see them expanded. [/QUOTE]Yes, you are correct, there are. As stated above, there seems to be proof that more than 'many,' in fact a majority, do so.

[quote=]Having lost power, angry in the face of a shift away from their values, the right has gone into full spin and attack mode. This shows their true colors. This strategy has had some success, but risks backfiring as most people are getting real tired of the partisan bickering.[/QUOTE]Please cite some examples of what you mean by attack mode. As for partisan bickering, there has been none since November 2009, when the Democrat party achieved super majorities in both houses of congress (actually, due to the contested election in MN, it was later than that) The Republicans have had no voice in Washington, since the 2009 election. A point so eloquently made by our glorious leader when he said "I won, you lost" at a 'bipartisan' meeting at the White House, early this year.

[quote=]Obama promised many things and hasn't delivered on some of them. I agree. He was too optimistic. Including, he did not get away from 'Washington politics' like he said he would. He loses points here. Those that only focus on these things alone are going to give him a poor grade. Those that take a broader view of all his efforts, in the context of the recession and deficits he inherited, are likely to give him a higher grade. He gave himself a be+. I tend to agree with this. [/QUOTE]He hasn't delivered on anything (thank God, and I do) He was not in office when the initial steps were taken to stabilize the financial sector (much of which I disagreed with) His contribution to the economy was the 'stimulus' bill, a $757B steaming pile of rotten pork which has hurt rather than helped the economy and exploding our deficit (contrary to his revisionist historical account the other night) He hasn't delivered on any of his promises because he cannot. He is not capable nor does he have the knowledge and / or experience to do so. Further, his ego is an impenetrable barrier to any ideas not consistent with his vision for a neo-fascist, socialist utopia. It is laughable that in the state of the union address he welcomed 'new ideas' from Republicans and tried to cast blame on them for not proffering, thus forcing democrats to go it alone. I guess he forgot about the "I won, you lost" meeting. If you want to grade his efforts and intentions, feel free. We have been busy 'dumbing' down America for years. You can give him a participation trophy for being present and for voting present. He deserves an 'incomplete' grade because he has delivered nothing.

[quote=]Obama supporters are not 'enamored' with him. Stop with these silly characterizations. He has had some mis-steps. But on balance, we view his positions and direction as more progressive and therefore superior to those from the right.[/QUOTE]Yes, and you and your fellow believers (Gallop found 21% of Americans identify themselves as liberal) have every right to continue to believe in Obama (and the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus)

[quote=]The left is not satisfied with the status quo, which the right is seeking to protect.[/QUOTE]This is a completely flatulent statement. I can smell it from here and it stinks. "Not satisfied with the status quo?" That's a little broad isn't it? What is your solution? If something isn't perfect, let's destroy it because we can't afford to do nothing? Now that is change you can believe in.