The Alien in the White House

[Mark B. Morrow]

Obama had a democrat-controlled Congress (including a filibuster-proof Senate) pass the healthcare bill (with no support from the opposition party AND members of his own party), and since it was passed, the costs have grown to more than reported, the coverage less than promised, the long-term sustainability highly questionable, and many companies trying to determine if they should even keep the coverages for their workers they already have.

 

If that is your criteria for accomplishment, then do you call the Iraq War a greater accomplishment (given that it had bipartisan support)?

 

I give Axelrod credit for parsing Obama's language very carefully, but when you have....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2pZSvq9bto&NR=1

 

.....you get.....

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYjyU25bW3Y

 

Obama never had a filibusterproof Senate majority when the 60 included Lieberman (I) and Bluedogs like Ben Nelson. There were Republicans who might have supported HCR like Snowe and Grassley but they were threatened with electoral abandonment by the party. As it turned out, the Republicans were never interested in any sort of compromise or even cooperation with Obama as evidenced by the numerous holds on nominees by Shelby/Chambliss and others too timid to go public.

 

If anything, Obama wasted too much time trying to pick up bipartisan support.

 

The fact is that there is little the feds could do to stop the oil spill. That was BPs responsibility and they failed miserably.

 

I would rather have a President who remains cool if aloof, than one who makes empty threats like "dead or alive". Bush's incompetence dwarfs any shortcomings of the Obama administration to date.

Edited June 11, 2010 by Mark B. Morrow

[Roadtrip]

Not much Obama could be doing, everything that can be done is being done.

 

That's not true. I am not a big fan of Sean Hannity, but I was watching his program a few nights ago and he interviewed three different people who proposed and demonstrated what looks to me like solutions that could work. You can watch a video of these solutions here. The first solution that was demonstrated was fairly mind boggling in its simplicity: Who knew that ordinary hay would sop up crude oil out of the water like a "Sham-Wow"? These people contacted the government, and their solutions fell on deaf ears.

 

In addition, to this day -- nearly two months into the crisis -- Obama has not contacted BP CEO Tony Hayward to share or discuss or brainstorm possible solutions.

 

I don't usually subscribe to conspiracy theories, but it seems to me that, given a problem of this magnitude, Obama would at least explore every possible solution, which includes discussing the problem with its perpetrator. Instead of being intent on solving the problem, Obama and his administration seem to be more focused on assigning blame. That is NOT a quality of good leadership -- especially when a crisis exists. Obama's handling of this crisis is like Gene Kranz, flight director for Apollo 13, blaming the government and government contractors for the catastrophe on Apollo 13, threatening civil and criminal litigation -- and then taking time off to play golf while the ordeal played itself out. (Those familiar with story of Apollo 13 know the exact opposite to be true: Kranz recognized the problem, explored every possible solution, and worked the problem through who knows how many countless sleepless hours until its resolution -- without assigning blame to anyone at the time.)

 

Obama's only training in problem solving is derived from his background as a "community organizer." As a "community organizer," Obama's chief role was to identify and assign blame to those who perpetrated "social injustice." He was good at assigning blame for the problems of the people he represented, but he was incorrect in identifying the root of the problem, which was the people he represented. Thus, for Obama, it's always someone else's fault, and it's up to them to fix the problem.

 

It seems to me that if Obama really cared about resolving this crisis, he would be taking a more proactive role -- like entertaining alternative solutions as discussed above. But he's not doing that. His immediate fix is a moratorium on offshore drilling (in spite of offshore drilling's unbelievably stellar record up until the BP disaster). It's almost like he's got an agenda. Oh, wait! He does have an agenda -- which is to vilify the entire fossil-fuel industry. This disaster helps his cause (even if it destroys the livelihoods of thousands of people).

 

Americans have an unreal expectation of the US president being some kind of superman,

the same thing happened with Bush after Katrina.......

 

Again, not true. What Americans expect from their president is leadership, or a least the perception of leadership, or at a minimum, the perception of a leader who actually gives a shit about people who are suffering from a widespread disaster. Instead, as Ranger pointed out, we have a president who is aloof, who seems more preoccupied with his golf game and entertaining celebrities. Even George W. Bush, as badly as some perceive he handled Katrina, wasn't as aloof during that crisis as Obama is during this crisis. Nobody expects our president to be "some kind of superman." What we do expect of our president (when a crisis situation presents itself) is to be involved and to provide solutions.

 

Blaming others and talking about whose "ass to kick" regarding the problem is a downright childish approach to a serious problem.

[jpd80]

I think I understood your point.

 

My point is that Obama (and his campaign) were all too happy to perpetuate this misconception when he was running for office, and now that something (admittedly beyond his control) has occurred, he (Obama) is perceived by many as aloof and unengaged.

Every politician thinks he has the all answers until he is put into the spotlight.

GW ran on a platform of being a more domestic orientated platform that the International Clinton, and then 911 happened.....

 

I don't mean this as being disrespectful to either man, just the fact that the world isn't always as we imagine, I guess Obama is learning some painful lessons about being all things to all people and then achieving precious little.

 

Sometimes a dose of stark reality is good for the soul. Unfortunately, Obama's reality check is a lot of peoples ruined livelihoods and destruction of American coastline and aquatic life.....

[jpd80]

 

Again, not true. What Americans expect from their president is leadership, or a least the perception of leadership, or at a minimum, the perception of a leader who actually gives a shit about people who are suffering from a widespread disaster. Instead, as Ranger pointed out, we have a president who is aloof, who seems more preoccupied with his golf game and entertaining celebrities.

 

The desperation I hear is that people genuine think that not enough is being

done quickly enough to stop this tragedy from becoming worse every day.

This was a disaster waiting to happen, a series of events that revealed just how quickly protection control measures can be defeated.

 

Apart from some spin doctor speech to the press, Obama and his people would add little to helping BP solve this problem. If that's what the American public really want, then yes Obama's mug should be on every TV set making Americans feel better about themselves....

[RangerM]

Obama never had a filibusterproof Senate majority when the 60 included Lieberman (I) and Bluedogs like Ben Nelson.

Lieberman says (himself) that he caucuses with the democrats. You can say "bluedog" about Nelson all you want. The only thing that meant in the process was the price BRIBE (remember the "Cornhusker kickback"?) was a bit costlier.

 

There were Republicans who might have supported HCR like Snowe and Grassley but they were threatened with electoral abandonment by the party. As it turned out, the Republicans were never interested in any sort of compromise or even cooperation with Obama as evidenced by the numerous holds on nominees by Shelby/Chambliss and others too timid to go public.

In light of Spector's flip to--and subsequent support by--the dems and Reid's self-evident bribes-for-votes, what makes you think Snowe or Grassley didn't vote on principle, instead of being a high-priced prostitute like Nelson?

If anything, Obama wasted too much time trying to pick up bipartisan support.

I guess the hallmark of a great leader is his willingness to run roughshod over the opposition. There are many despots in history I suppose you admire then?

The fact is that there is little the feds could do to stop the oil spill. That was BPs responsibility and they failed miserably.

I'll agree with the first statement. The second is only your opinion since you are speaking in the past tense; given that BP hasn't given up and is still working to solve the problem (present tense)

I would rather have a President who remains cool if aloof, than on who makes empty threats like "dead or alive". Bush's incompetence dwarfs any shortcomings of the Obama administration to date.

So, Bush gets an "F", and Obama gets an "Incomplete". I guess Clinton was right. Obama didn't answer the phone.

 

So far, Obama's most animated response has been "kick ass". Many aren't so stirred by such statesmanship.

Edited June 11, 2010 by RangerM

[RangerM]

Every politician thinks he has the all answers until he is put into the spotlight.

GW ran on a platform of being a more domestic orientated platform that the International Clinton, and then 911 happened.....

No question that noone can ever know what they will do when put in a particular situation, until they get there.

 

Bush's actions on 9/12-and-on were judged by the American people with an 80+% approval rating. Obama's actions (or the appearance of the lack of) after this event have been judged negatively by the majority of Americans.

I don't mean this as being disrespectful to either man, just the fact that the world isn't always as we imagine, I guess Obama is learning some painful lessons about being all things to all people and then achieving precious little.

 

Sometimes a dose of stark reality is good for the soul. Unfortunately, Obama's reality check is a lot of peoples ruined livelihoods and destruction of American coastline and aquatic life.....

He will be judged accordingly. IMO, Obama hasn't failed at what he's done during this crisis, as much as he's failed to appear to be doing anything at all.

[RangerM]

It's based how other nations view the people that passed universal health care in their respective. They are generally recognized as national heroes in later years. This is true even when the bill was seriously flawed or heavily disputed.

Odds are, America's demographics will undermine the healthcare bill (on the costs alone, just as they are now doing in Canada and Europe which have aging populations). This bill is fatally flawed.

 

War depends on whether the person won it or lost it, and whether it had any positive affect the future outcome of the country. Generally all wars start out with high public approval and become despised if they don't go well. Iraq did not go very well...

 

If by some magic, Iraq turns into a freedom loving Democracy, then I'll totally reassess the Bush administration and their foreign policy achievements, and consider Iraq a success. Sadly though, this as about as likely as the Israelis and Palestinians getting along with each other.

You might want to remind Obama that he's doing exactly the same thing that Bush would have done, then.

 

Apparently Obama (based on what he's done since assuming office) thinks the (formerly Bush) Iraq policy is just alright by him.

[jpd80]

He will be judged accordingly. IMO, Obama hasn't failed at what he's done during this crisis, as much as he's failed to appear to be doing anything at all.

Yes, I agree.

Obama has not connected with the people on this issue and it will cost him dearly.....

[grbeck]

It's based how other nations view the people that passed universal health care in their respective. They are generally recognized as national heroes in later years. This is true even when the bill was seriously flawed or heavily disputed.

 

Would that be those European nations - Great Britain, Portugal, Spain, Greece and Ireland - in danger of defaulting because of high spending (even with high taxes)?

 

For that matter, how many people in California still view as "heroes" those politicians who pushed through spending initiatives that are now pushing the state towards insolvency? Please remember that, on the last thread addressing this topic, it was proven that the root of the problem lies with California's addiction to spending.

 

War depends on whether the person won it or lost it, and whether it had any positive affect the future outcome of the country. Generally all wars start out with high public approval and become despised if they don't go well. Iraq did not go very well...

 

If by some magic, Iraq turns into a freedom loving Democracy, then I'll totally reassess the Bush administration and their foreign policy achievements, and consider Iraq a success. Sadly though, this as about as likely as the Israelis and Palestinians getting along with each other.

 

As I showed on the previous discussion, no less a personage than Vice President Joe Biden proclaimed Iraq a "success" on Larry King Live. Apparently, the reassessment has begun, and by no less than the Obama Administration.

[retro-man]

I can only conclude that RangerM and Roadtrip must see this disaster as a real Godsend. You're practically salivating at the chance to close in for the kill like a bunch of jackals on a wounded gazelle. I'm very happy for you.

 

Obama was meeting with the families of the victims yesterday, not playing golf. How many days has Obama spent at his ranch in Texas? How many times has he sequestered away at Camp David with his family and Joe Biden? How many Presidents - from Roosevelt on down - tried to get a health care bill passed? The Republicans haven't given him jack-diddley-squat since he got in office.

 

If he had a "fillibuster proof majority" in the senate, you might reflect for just one moment on how that came to be. But, speaking of taking responsibility, you still can't for the life of you figure that one out, can you?

 

 

A few highlights: 2000 election: "The machine recount showed that Bush had won the Florida vote by a margin of 537 votes out of six million cast. Although he received 543,895 fewer individual votes than Gore nationwide, Bush won the election, receiving 271 electoral votes to Gore's 266." 2001: worst attack ever on US soil., 2002: Bush Administration begins focusing heavy attention on Iraq (which had nothing to do with 9/11) and invades with the "coalition of the willing" (Poland and the UK) in 2003 over almost universal global objection. By the way, how are we paying for that one again? It was off the books, right? Nah, that couldn't be having any effect on the economy. 2004 election: "Bush's 2.5% margin of victory was the narrowest ever for a victorious incumbent President, breaking Woodrow Wilson's 3.1% margin of victory against Charles Evans Hughes in the election of 1916." 2006, North Korea detonates a nuclear device. 2007, the US enters the most prolonged and severe recession since the Great Depression. What am I missing? The Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, waterboarding, torture, rendition, the Valerie Plame affair, the Downing Street memo, .....

 

from various sources: Bush's approval rating went below the 50% mark in AP-Ipsos polling in December 2004. Thereafter, his approval ratings and approval of his handling of domestic and foreign policy issues steadily dropped. Bush received heavy criticism for his handling of the Iraq War, his response to Hurricane Katrina and to the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse, NSA warrantless surveillance, the Plame affair, and Guantanamo Bay detention camp controversies. Polls conducted in 2006 showed an average of 37% approval ratings for Bush, the lowest for any second-term president at that point of his term since Harry S. Truman in March 1951, when Truman's approval rating was 28%, which contributed to what Bush called the "thumping" of the Republican Party in the 2006 mid-term elections. Throughout 2007, Bush's approval rating hovered in the mid-thirties, although in an October 17, 2007, Reuters poll, Bush received a lower approval rating of 24%, the lowest point of his presidency. By April 2008, Bush's disapproval ratings were the highest ever recorded in the 70-year history of the Gallup poll for any president, with 69% of those polled disapproving of the job Bush was doing as president and 28% approving. In September 2008, in polls performed by various agencies, Bush's approval rating ranged from 19%—the lowest ever—to 34%, and his disapproval rating stood at 69%. Bush left the White House as one of the most unpopular American presidents, second in unpopularity only to Richard Nixon. Editorials in Harper's Magazine, Rolling Stone, The Washington Post, Common Dreams NewsCenter, and The Nation have referred to Bush as "the worst president ever".

 

"I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being president." ~George Bush

[grbeck]

I can only conclude that RangerM and Roadtrip must see this disaster as a real Godsend. You're practically salivating at the chance to close in for the kill like a bunch of jackals on a wounded gazelle. I'm very happy for you.

 

Because, as we all know, during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Democrats and liberals were very careful to explain that disaster recovery is largely a state and local responsibility, and that the bungled responsibility to the storm reflected more poorly on them than on the federal government. (One hopes and prays that I don't have to explain to you just which levels of government are responsible for what during a disaster.)

 

They did not seek to make political hay out of the disaster. Kanye West never said that the response to the disaster shows that Bush doesn't care about black people. Spike Lee did not make a documentary that blamed virtually everything on Bush and the federal government while absolving New Orleans Mayor Roy Nagin of any responsibility. Those apparently never happened...Bush critics - not just on this board - did not view Hurricane Katrina as a Godsend.

 

Obama was meeting with the families of the victims yesterday, not playing golf. How many days has Obama spent at his ranch in Texas? How many times has he sequestered away at Camp David with his family and Joe Biden? How many Presidents - from Roosevelt on down - tried to get a health care bill passed? The Republicans haven't given him jack-diddley-squat since he got in office.

 

I guess that was after the fundraisers were over, and Paul McCartney went home. The last time I checked, "yesterday" was well into the second month of this disaster. Was Bush playing golf two months after Hurricane Katrina was over?

 

Apparently, those smarts that are supposedly part-and-parcel of merely holding leftist views don't include the ability to divine when a meeting is really a "save-your-ass-PR-photo op" because even your SUPPORTERS are starting to beat up on you. Someone just fell off the left-wing turnip truck.

 

Incidentally, since you like polls, you may want to chew on the results of this one: a recent Washington Post poll found that 69 percent had a negative view of the the federal response to the oil spill, as opposed to 62 percent who had a negative view of the federal response to Katrina.

 

A few highlights: 2000 election: "The machine recount showed that Bush had won the Florida vote by a margin of 537 votes out of six million cast. Although he received 543,895 fewer individual votes than Gore nationwide, Bush won the election, receiving 271 electoral votes to Gore's 266." 2001: worst attack ever on US soil., 2002: Bush Administration begins focusing heavy attention on Iraq (which had nothing to do with 9/11) and invades with the "coalition of the willing" (Poland and the UK) in 2003 over almost universal global objection. By the way, how are we paying for that one again? It was off the books, right? Nah, that couldn't be having any effect on the economy. 2004 election: "Bush's 2.5% margin of victory was the narrowest ever for a victorious incumbent President, breaking Woodrow Wilson's 3.1% margin of victory against Charles Evans Hughes in the election of 1916." 2006, North Korea detonates a nuclear device. 2007, the US enters the most prolonged and severe recession since the Great Depression. What am I missing? The Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, waterboarding, torture, rendition, the Valerie Plame affair, the Downing Street memo, .....

 

What you are missing is that, the last time I checked, President Obama voted for amendments to the Patriot Act when he was in the Senate (with the lame excuse that some cosmetic changes made it okay - after he had objected to the entire purpose of the act).

 

That he has done nothing to repeal it.

 

That he has not closed Guantanamo Bay.

 

That warrantless wiretapping is still entirely legal, well over a year into the Obama presidency. Read this:

 

The Obama administration formally adopted the Bush administration's position that the courts cannot judge the legality of the National Security Agency's (NSA's) warrantless wiretapping program, filing a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA late Friday.

 

In Jewel v. NSA, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is challenging the agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans. The Obama Justice Department claims in its motion that litigation over the wiretapping program would require the government to disclose privileged "state secrets." These are essentially the same arguments made by the Bush administration three years ago in Hepting v. AT&T, EFF's lawsuit against one of the telecom giants complicit in the NSA spying.

 

"President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. "But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration's cover-up of the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a 'secret' that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again."

 

(Now I'm sure that, somehow, someway, this is all the Republicans' fault.)

 

That the current economic disaster does not stem from "deregulation," but from the real estate bust. The real estate bust had its roots in actions by Congress and the Clinton presidency in the early 1990s. Banks were forced to loosen lending standards in an effort to get more low income people into their own homes. (Note - forcing banks to reduce lending standards does not constitute deregulation.)

 

Many low-income people signed up for interest-only loans and adjustable rate mortgages. The banks, having developed their original lending standards for a reason, knew that theses mortgages were a bad deal. They therefore bought default insurance on them from companies like AIG. Those loans becames a ticking time bomb.

 

Meanwhile, in 1997, the (Republican) Congress and President Clinton repealed the capital gains tax on the proceeds from the sale of a residence, which further encouraged speculation in real estate. Prices began to rise dramatically, which meant that even borrowers with good credit and decent incomes needed exotic mortgages in order to afford a house.

 

When people were faced with sudden jumps in their monthly mortgage payments, they (predictably) defaulted on the loans. The banks knew that this would happen, which is why they bought insurance. AIG (and other, similar companies) paid off on the claims until they couldn't pay any more because they were broke. At that point, the banks were left holding the bag on bad loans that they were forced to give.

 

The auto companies also rode the bubble - people were using home equity loans from rapidly escalating values to buy SUVs and luxury sedans. When home values collapsed, and Wall Street went with it, so did sales of new vehicles, particularly the most profitable ones.

 

The party had to end, and it did, but that doesn't mean that "deregulation" is the culprit. It looks more like a lot of government intervention - however well-intentioned - and manipulation of the economy.

 

As for the 2000 election, it was a close one, but that I fail to see how that is Bush's fault. Nor has any fraud on Bush's part ever been proven, so don't even go there, unless you want me to measure you for a tinfoil hat. We've had close elections before - you may want to check the results of the 1960 election. We've also had elections where the candidate won because he received more votes in the electoral college, even though he received a greater number of popular votes. Check the results of the election of 1876.

 

A few highlights: 2000 election: "The machine recount showed that Bush had won the Florida vote by a margin of 537 votes out of six million cast. Although he received from various sources: Bush's approval rating went below the 50% mark in AP-Ipsos polling in December 2004. Thereafter, his approval ratings and approval of his handling of domestic and foreign policy issues steadily dropped. Bush received heavy criticism for his handling of the Iraq War, his response to Hurricane Katrina and to the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse, NSA warrantless surveillance, the Plame affair, and Guantanamo Bay detention camp controversies. Polls conducted in 2006 showed an average of 37% approval ratings for Bush, the lowest for any second-term president at that point of his term since Harry S. Truman in March 1951, when Truman's approval rating was 28%, which contributed to what Bush called the "thumping" of the Republican Party in the 2006 mid-term elections. Throughout 2007, Bush's approval rating hovered in the mid-thirties, although in an October 17, 2007, Reuters poll, Bush received a lower approval rating of 24%, the lowest point of his presidency. By April 2008, Bush's disapproval ratings were the highest ever recorded in the 70-year history of the Gallup poll for any president, with 69% of those polled disapproving of the job Bush was doing as president and 28% approving. In September 2008, in polls performed by various agencies, Bush's approval rating ranged from 19%—the lowest ever—to 34%, and his disapproval rating stood at 69%. Bush left the White House as one of the most unpopular American presidents, second in unpopularity only to Richard Nixon. Editorials in Harper's Magazine, Rolling Stone, The Washington Post, Common Dreams NewsCenter, and The Nation have referred to Bush as "the worst president ever".

 

And this proves exactly what? Have you seen Obama's popularity figures lately? Let me guess - when people don't like Bush, it's because they've seen the light. When they don't like Obama, they are "jackals." Sounds more to me like someone is a crybaby who can't accept the rather ugly truth.

 

You don't like Bush. We've figured that one out, trust me. You believe that Republicans and conservatives are inherently evil, and that your side can do no wrong, never mind that this view often leads you to write posts that are rather amusing to other posters who don't go through life wearing partisan blinders

 

Part of your problem appears to be that, one, none of us like Bush as much as you loath him, which means we aren't blinded by partisanship.

 

And, two, we don't have our lips planted firmly to the current President's posterior, which enables us to see things rather clearly. The view from up here is much more accurate.

Edited June 11, 2010 by grbeck

[mikem12]

Because, as we all know, during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Democrats and liberals were very careful to explain that disaster recovery is largely a state and local responsibility, and that the bungled responsibility to the storm reflected more poorly on them than on the federal government. (One hopes and prays that I don't have to explain to you just which levels of government are responsible for what during a disaster.)

 

They did not seek to make political hay out of the disaster. Kanye West never said that the response to the disaster shows that Bush doesn't care about black people. Spike Lee did not make a documentary that blamed virtually everything on Bush and the federal government while absolving New Orleans Mayor Roy Nagin of any responsibility. Those apparently never happened...Bush critics - not just on this board - did not view Hurricane Katrina as a Godsend.

 

 

 

I guess that was after the fundraisers were over, and Paul McCartney went home. The last time I checked, "yesterday" was well into the second month of this disaster. Was Bush playing golf two months after Hurricane Katrina was over?

 

Apparently, those smarts that are supposedly part-and-parcel of merely holding leftist views don't include the ability to divine when a meeting is really a "save-your-ass-PR-photo op" because even your SUPPORTERS are starting to beat up on you. Someone just fell off the left-wing turnip truck.

 

Incidentally, since you like polls, you may want to chew on the results of this one: a recent Washington Post poll found that 69 percent had a negative view of the the federal response to the oil spill, as opposed to 62 percent who had a negative view of the federal response to Katrina.

 

 

 

What you are missing is that, the last time I checked, President Obama voted for amendments to the Patriot Act when he was in the Senate (with the lame excuse that some cosmetic changes made it okay - after he had objected to the entire purpose of the act).

 

That he has done nothing to repeal it.

 

That he has not closed Guantanamo Bay.

 

That warrantless wiretapping is still entirely legal, well over a year into the Obama presidency. Read this:

 

The Obama administration formally adopted the Bush administration's position that the courts cannot judge the legality of the National Security Agency's (NSA's) warrantless wiretapping program, filing a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA late Friday.

 

In Jewel v. NSA, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is challenging the agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans. The Obama Justice Department claims in its motion that litigation over the wiretapping program would require the government to disclose privileged "state secrets." These are essentially the same arguments made by the Bush administration three years ago in Hepting v. AT&T, EFF's lawsuit against one of the telecom giants complicit in the NSA spying.

 

"President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. "But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration's cover-up of the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a 'secret' that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again."

 

(Now I'm sure that, somehow, someway, this is all the Republicans' fault.)

 

That the current economic disaster does not stem from "deregulation," but from the real estate bust. The real estate bust had its roots in actions by Congress and the Clinton presidency in the early 1990s. Banks were forced to loosen lending standards in an effort to get more low income people into their own homes. (Note - forcing banks to reduce lending standards does not constitute deregulation.)

 

Many low-income people signed up for interest-only loans and adjustable rate mortgages. The banks, having developed their original lending standards for a reason, knew that theses mortgages were a bad deal. They therefore bought default insurance on them from companies like AIG. Those loans becames a ticking time bomb.

 

Meanwhile, in 1997, the (Republican) Congress and President Clinton repealed the capital gains tax on the proceeds from the sale of a residence, which further encouraged speculation in real estate. Prices began to rise dramatically, which meant that even borrowers with good credit and decent incomes needed exotic mortgages in order to afford a house.

 

When people were faced with sudden jumps in their monthly mortgage payments, they (predictably) defaulted on the loans. The banks knew that this would happen, which is why they bought insurance. AIG (and other, similar companies) paid off on the claims until they couldn't pay any more because they were broke. At that point, the banks were left holding the bag on bad loans that they were forced to give.

 

The auto companies also rode the bubble - people were using home equity loans from rapidly escalating values to buy SUVs and luxury sedans. When home values collapsed, and Wall Street went with it, so did sales of new vehicles, particularly the most profitable ones.

 

The party had to end, and it did, but that doesn't mean that "deregulation" is the culprit. It looks more like a lot of government intervention - however well-intentioned - and manipulation of the economy.

 

As for the 2000 election, it was a close one, but that I fail to see how that is Bush's fault. Nor has any fraud on Bush's part ever been proven, so don't even go there, unless you want me to measure you for a tinfoil hat. We've had close elections before - you may want to check the results of the 1960 election. We've also had elections where the candidate won because he received more votes in the electoral college, even though he received a greater number of popular votes. Check the results of the election of 1876.

 

 

 

And this proves exactly what? Have you seen Obama's popularity figures lately? Let me guess - when people don't like Bush, it's because they've seen the light. When they don't like Obama, they are "jackals." Sounds more to me like someone is a crybaby who can't accept the rather ugly truth.

 

You don't like Bush. We've figured that one out, trust me. You believe that Republicans and conservatives are inherently evil, and that your side can do no wrong, never mind that this view often leads you to write posts that are rather amusing to other posters who don't go through life wearing partisan blinders

 

Part of your problem appears to be that, one, none of us like Bush as much as you loath him, which means we aren't blinded by partisanship.

 

And, two, we don't have our lips planted firmly to the current President's posterior, which enables us to see things rather clearly. The view from up here is much more accurate.

 

 

 

++2

[Bored of Pisteon]

This may surprise you, but I personally agree with you. Every day I'm more convinced that Obama never should have won the Democratic nomination. He's simply not sure where he's going, or how to get there. It seems like he wanted to be president, but he didn't know what to do when he got there.

 

Well when you have a presidental candidate like this appearing on daytime talk shows to tittilate the morally and mentally bankrupt viewers of these types of shows.

 

 

 

 

You now understand why people in this country are incurably ignorant! Wow, are people in this country really stupid in 2010 or what?

[30 OTT 6]

Where's Howard Dean?. I think America is really aching for a heart-felt "Yee-haw!".

[RangerM]

I can only conclude that RangerM and Roadtrip must see this disaster as a real Godsend.

Thanks for having that low of an opinion of me Retro, but no, I don't see this disaster as a "Godsend".

 

However, perhaps you should. Here's why......

 

Right now you have the left (including Obama) seeking to capitalize on this disaster by using it as an excuse to seek greater regulation up to (and including) a moratorium on all oil recovery in the Gulf. BUT, they also want the oil companies not only to pay for restitution to those affected (with which I agree), but also to pay their employees while they aren't working. Also, they want BP to not pay dividends (regardless of whether the company can afford it or not).

 

Were it not BPs liability (and if this had really been Obama's doing), I swear he'd declare the Gulf disaster a jobs' stimulus plan, and call it "Cash for Clunkers Clean-up". </cynicism>

Edited June 11, 2010 by RangerM

[NickF1011]

 

OMG!! TIME magazine didn't like the Bush administration? Say it ain't so!! Also in breaking news: Sun is hot.

[Mysterio]

Odds are, America's demographics will undermine the healthcare bill (on the costs alone, just as they are now doing in Canada and Europe which have aging populations). This bill is fatally flawed.

 

No, the current system is fatally flawed. We already pay more than any other country on health care. The bill, while not a final solution, is a step in the right direction because it aims to reduce costs.

 

You might want to remind Obama that he's doing exactly the same thing that Bush would have done, then.

 

Apparently Obama (based on what he's done since assuming office) thinks the (formerly Bush) Iraq policy is just alright by him.

 

Obama would never invaded Iraq. He's merely trying to stabilize the country in order to justify leaving ASAP, using the only short term strategy he has available.

 

You're just trying pass the buck to Obama, like you're doing to the oil spill.

Edited June 11, 2010 by Mysterio

[Mysterio]

Thanks for having that low of an opinion of me Retro, but no, I don't see this disaster as a "Godsend".

 

However, perhaps you should. Here's why......

 

Right now you have the left (including Obama) seeking to capitalize on this disaster by using it as an excuse to seek greater regulation up to (and including) a moratorium on all oil recovery in the Gulf. BUT, they also want the oil companies not only to pay for restitution to those affected (with which I agree), but also to pay their employees while they aren't working. Also, they want BP to not pay dividends (regardless of whether the company can afford it or not).

 

Were it not BPs liability (and if this had really been Obama's doing), I swear he'd declare the Gulf disaster a jobs' stimulus plan, and call it "Cash for Clunkers Clean-up". </cynicism>

 

BP Is an obscenely wealth company, with something like $100 billion worth of assets over existing liabilities. Also makes close to $20 billion a year. It would be pretty absurd to suggest that they shouldn't pay for the bulk of the costs. Suggesting we don't increase safety regulations after this incident is even more silly.

 

And if you're really that cynical, I suppose you deserve the low opinion Retro has of you. :P

[RangerM]

No, the current system is fatally flawed. We already pay more than any other country on health care. The bill, while not a final solution, is a step in the right direction because it aims to reduce costs.

On March 18, the CBO said the healthcare reform bill would save $140 Billion (138-143 depending on your source) from the deficit. Then on May 11, the same CBO said they revised this number down $115 Billion for a net savings of $25 Billion.

 

None of their calculations included the "Doc Fix" which according to the CBO (March 19) is expected to cost $208 Billion.

 

This would amount to a net deficit in the Healthcare legislation of $183 Billion. Now that's federal deficit. What about the costs to individuals? For some, it lowers the out-of-pocket expense (true enough). However for small businesses like the one I work for, we are cringing in anticipation at our renewal this coming November. As it is, we know our former subsidiary company (now independent of ours), just went through a renewal, and their group health insurance premiums went up by about 40%. What that meant is the employees are now responsible for contributing a greater share of the burden. In my company's case, if we were to take a 40% rate increase, I'm not sure we could continue to provide insurance to our employees (and family) at no cost to them any longer. It's just too much to bear.

 

Basically I ask, what good is it if it "aims to reduce costs" and doesn't?

Obama would never invaded Iraq. He's merely trying to stabilize the country in order to justify leaving ASAP, using the only short term strategy he has available.

He probably would not have invaded Iraq, especially given he voted against the surge, even though his administration takes credit for the success in Iraq calling it a "great achievement" (Joe Biden on Larry King on Feb 11, 2010).

 

However, exactly HOW does the strategy to "stabilize the country in order to justify leaving ASAP" differ from the Bush administration? I didn't hear a timeline in there (or in Biden's Larry King appearance, either)

You're just trying pass the buck to Obama, like you're doing to the oil spill.

How? How exactly am I passing the buck? What have I said that indicated I blame him (personally) for the oil spill? I called him "aloof", but I don't recall saying it's Obama's fault; except his own responses and demeanor (and I fail to see how that could be attributed to anyone other than Obama).

BP Is an obscenely wealth company, with something like $100 billion worth of assets over existing liabilities. Also makes close to $20 billion a year.

And this has WHAT to do with anything....anything at all?

It would be pretty absurd to suggest that they shouldn't pay for the bulk of the costs. Suggesting we don't increase safety regulations after this incident is even more silly.

Exactly WHO has said that BP should not pay for all the costs attributed to the spill? It wasn't me, or if you think it was, please provide the citation.

 

There have been about 30,000 to 35,000 wells drilled in the Gulf. Yes, the current crisis is terrible, but to say this incident is indicative of a systemic shortcoming is simply ignoring the facts.

And if you're really that cynical, I suppose you deserve the low opinion Retro has of you. :P

Retro can think of me what he wants. I harbor no ill will toward him, because I understand that he and I are simply on opposite ends of the spectrum on certain issues. I give him credit for being intellectually honest, even if I don't see things as he does.

 

I can disagree with someone and not hate them, and I believe Retro can, too.

[retro-man]

Retro can think of me what he wants. I harbor no ill will toward him, because I understand that he and I are simply on opposite ends of the spectrum on certain issues. I give him credit for being intellectually honest, even if I don't see things as he does.

 

I can disagree with someone and not hate them, and I believe Retro can, too.

The respect is mutual. I apologize for impugning your character (you too roadtrip). And for that matter, for dragging the old Republican skeleton out of the closet. Time to let that one go. It will take more than 17 months to straighten out 30 years of bad policy, and 8 years of bad policy on steroids, though. Perhaps Obama could have conducted himself in some way that would have given his critic no room for complaint. I don't know what that would be.

[Mysterio]

On March 18, the CBO said the healthcare reform bill would save $140 Billion (138-143 depending on your source) from the deficit. Then on May 11, the same CBO said they revised this number down $115 Billion for a net savings of $25 Billion.

 

None of their calculations included the "Doc Fix" which according to the CBO (March 19) is expected to cost $208 Billion.

 

This would amount to a net deficit in the Healthcare legislation of $183 Billion. Now that's federal deficit. What about the costs to individuals? For some, it lowers the out-of-pocket expense (true enough). However for small businesses like the one I work for, we are cringing in anticipation at our renewal this coming November. As it is, we know our former subsidiary company (now independent of ours), just went through a renewal, and their group health insurance premiums went up by about 40%. What that meant is the employees are now responsible for contributing a greater share of the burden. In my company's case, if we were to take a 40% rate increase, I'm not sure we could continue to provide insurance to our employees (and family) at no cost to them any longer. It's just too much to bear.

 

Basically I ask, what good is it if it "aims to reduce costs" and doesn't?

 

The link you gave is a Republican party source, who have an agenda to push. That source can't be taken seriously.

 

Like you, if I were to dismisses any possibility of the reform bill working out, and just asserted that it will fail (with implications of personal ruin as well?), then I'd hate the bill too. On the hand, if it does fix the current system or even starts the process of fixing the current system, it will likely be seen as a huge long-term success.

 

He probably would not have invaded Iraq, especially given he voted against the surge, even though his administration takes credit for the success in Iraq calling it a "great achievement" (Joe Biden on Larry King on Feb 11, 2010).

 

However, exactly HOW does the strategy to "stabilize the country in order to justify leaving ASAP" differ from the Bush administration? I didn't hear a timeline in there (or in Biden's Larry King appearance, either)

 

How? How exactly am I passing the buck? What have I said that indicated I blame him (personally) for the oil spill? I called him "aloof", but I don't recall saying it's Obama's fault; except his own responses and demeanor (and I fail to see how that could be attributed to anyone other than Obama).

 

And this has WHAT to do with anything....anything at all?

 

Exactly WHO has said that BP should not pay for all the costs attributed to the spill? It wasn't me, or if you think it was, please provide the citation.

 

There have been about 30,000 to 35,000 wells drilled in the Gulf. Yes, the current crisis is terrible, but to say this incident is indicative of a systemic shortcoming is simply ignoring the facts.

 

You may not be saying it directly, but you are obviously directing innuendo at Obama, especially when you were implying a very cynical view of Obama a few posts earlier. For the war, since Bush started it the blame should fall on him and so will its consequences. I don't see how you can imply Obama is either in agreement with Bush on the merits of the war, or is doing anything but to end the war. You're also implying Obama has bad intent when he is suggesting that BP should pay for it. Given the wealth of BP, all I'm saying that BP can easily pay for all costs and that there is nothing sinister about suggesting this.

 

And seriously, an oil spill of this magnitude is a nuclear bomb going off. You can't ever, under any circumstances let one accidentally go off out of 30,000. If one does, like it is now, reforms are needed. Especially given BP's lousy safety record, and the fact they didn't use blow-out valves as I understand it.

Edited June 12, 2010 by Mysterio

[RangerM]

The link you gave is a Republican party source, who have an agenda to push. That source can't be taken seriously.

Ok, here's the same information directly from the CBO. It provides exactly the same information I cited. Can you take that source seriously?

Like you, if I were to dismisses any possibility of the reform bill working out, and just asserted that it will fail (with implications of personal ruin as well?), then I'd hate the bill too. On the hand, if it does fix the current system or even starts the process of fixing the current system, it will likely be seen as a huge long-term success.

I dismiss the liklihood of it "working out" because of the substantial track record to draw from (including observations of other countrys' systems, their bloated costs, and rationing). How about you?

 

You may not be saying it directly, but you are obviously directing innuendo at Obama, especially when you were implying a very cynical view of Obama a few posts earlier.

I have a cynical view of government (in general), the people in charge, and the way such things are often spinned. The "goodwill gifts" (think Iran-Contra affair); "Read my lips, no new...."; The definition of "is", etc.

 

For the war, since Bush started it the blame should fall on him and so will its consequences. I don't see how you can imply Obama is either in agreement with Bush on the merits of the war, or is doing anything but to end the war.

You're reading too much in what I said. I said Obama isn't doing (not didn't do) anything different now than I believe Bush would have done. Bush would want us out of there asap, too. (and if you don't believe that, you're more cynical than me) I can at least give Obama credit for maintaining sanity in that regard.

 

You're also implying Obama has bad intent when he is suggesting that BP should pay for it. Given the wealth of BP, all I'm saying that BP can easily pay for all costs and that there is nothing sinister about suggesting this.

I've said BP should pay for it, not based on their "wealth" but their liability. What are you talking about?

And seriously, an oil spill of this magnitude is a nuclear bomb going off. You can't ever, under any circumstances let one accidentally go off out of 30,000. If one does, like it is now, reforms are needed. Especially given BP's lousy safety record, and the fact they didn't use blow-out valves as I understand it.

I don't know enough about what safety measures BP uses, and I'd bet you don't know of "BP's lousy safety record" as it compares to any other industrial operation, either. Hell, BP was about to be AWARDED for their record just before this happened.

 

"

Call it a tragic irony.

 

BP, now under federal scrutiny because of its role in the deadly Gulf of Mexico explosion and oil spill, is one of three finalists for a federal award honoring offshore oil companies for "outstanding safety and pollution prevention."

 

The winner of the award - chosen before the April 20 oil rig incident - was to be announced this coming Monday at a luncheon in Houston. But the U.S. Department of Interior this week postponed the awards ceremony, saying it needs to devote its resources to the ongoing situation resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion and fire.

"

Edited June 12, 2010 by RangerM

[RangerM]

The respect is mutual. I apologize for impugning your character (you too roadtrip). And for that matter, for dragging the old Republican skeleton out of the closet. Time to let that one go. It will take more than 17 months to straighten out 30 years of bad policy, and 8 years of bad policy on steroids, though. Perhaps Obama could have conducted himself in some way that would have given his critic no room for complaint. I don't know what that would be.

I've observed the passion in your posts over the years, but after your emotions have run their course, your intellect takes over. I'm no different. It's good to know that you and I can disagree, and know that we don't remain hostile.

 

Of course now, Obama's critcs are coming from both sides. (right and left) Maybe that's the sign of a good leader, when you piss-off everyone? I don't believe that, but it worked for Truman anyway (after historians had time to ruminate).

[Mysterio]

Ok, here's the same information directly from the CBO. It provides exactly the same information I cited. Can you take that source seriously?

 

Like the Republican party, you're citing a technical document that basically means very little. Why don't you read the actual CBO report http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/114xx/doc11439/WHCC_Presentation-4-12-10.pdf who says the bill will not increase the federal deficit?

 

I dismiss the liklihood of it "working out" because of the substantial track record to draw from (including observations of other countrys' systems, their bloated costs, and rationing). How about you?

 

The track record of every nation that implemented universal health is one of total success in nearly all cases, and the people who created those programs are seen as nation heroes for generations to come. I can only assume you'll change your mind.

 

I have a cynical view of government (in general), the people in charge, and the way such things are often spinned. The "goodwill gifts" (think Iran-Contra affair); "Read my lips, no new...."; The definition of "is", etc.

 

Given your Ayn Rand references in your signature I suspect your cynicism has more to do with your ideology and not factual evidence. Also, two of those three incidents came from Republicans. Perhaps you have a problem with government when only Republicans are in charge?

 

You're reading too much in what I said. I said Obama isn't doing (not didn't do) anything different now than I believe Bush would have done. Bush would want us out of there asap, too. (and if you don't believe that, you're more cynical than me) I can at least give Obama credit for maintaining sanity in that regard.

 

But that's irrelevant, like I've been saying. The war is Bush's fault and always will be, no matter what Obama does. It's pretty obvious since 2006 that the war was a disaster and everyone wanted out, regardless of party.

 

I've said BP should pay for it, not based on their "wealth" but their liability. What are you talking about?

 

Again, it's your innuendo. You agree with making BP pay for all costs, but you've also been implying that there's something wrong the Democrats when they say the same thing.

 

I don't know enough about what safety measures BP uses, and I'd bet you don't know of "BP's lousy safety record" as it compares to any other industrial operation, either. Hell, BP was about to be AWARDED for their record just before this happened.

 

"

Call it a tragic irony.

 

BP, now under federal scrutiny because of its role in the deadly Gulf of Mexico explosion and oil spill, is one of three finalists for a federal award honoring offshore oil companies for "outstanding safety and pollution prevention."

 

The winner of the award - chosen before the April 20 oil rig incident - was to be announced this coming Monday at a luncheon in Houston. But the U.S. Department of Interior this week postponed the awards ceremony, saying it needs to devote its resources to the ongoing situation resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion and fire.

"

 

Well, from the first link in google: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/08/new-report-reveals-bp-s-long-history-of-safety-problems.html

 

The first set of reports center on the firm's Alaska operations, and were put together by an internal committee and external lawyers in 2001, 2004, and 2007. The 2004 report found "a pattern of the company intimidating workers who raised safety or environmental concerns" and that "managers shaved maintenance costs by using aging equipment for as long as possible." In 2006, the report points out, the 2000 Prudhoe Bay pipeline spill was blamed on a corroded pipeline.

 

But the problems extended further than Alaska. In 2002 the firm was found to be falsifying inspections of fuel storage tanks in California. They settled a lawsuit by the South Coast Air Quality Management District for $100 million.

 

In 2005, the ProPublica report found, in an investigation into an explosion at a Texas City refinery that killed 15 people, that "significant process safety issues exist at all five U.S. refineries, not just Texas City." In a pattern that now seems familiar, a BP spokesperson at the time said it would update its safety systems. "But last year, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration fined the firm $87 million for not improving safety at that same Texas plant."

 

NEWSWEEK's Michael Isikoff and Michael Hirsh reported last month that Environmental Protection Agency investigators had wanted to charge top corporate officers who, "they were convinced, had knowledge of the safety deficiencies at Texas City and failed to take corrective action." That request was turned down by the Bush Justice Department—part of a pattern of lax oversight. As the NEWSWEEK report noted, BP has spent tens of millions on lobbying while it fends off accusations about poor safety practices.

 

I'd say BP has a awful safety record, and the award was a joke that could be given to any company regardless of track record. Corporate awards like these often are jokes, and it seems like every company won something shortly before they F-up.

Edited June 12, 2010 by Mysterio

[RangerM]

Like the Republican party, you're citing a technical document that basically means very little. Why don't you read the actual CBO report http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/114xx/doc11439/WHCC_Presentation-4-12-10.pdf who says the bill will not increase the federal deficit?

For one thing, your source is dated April 12. The CBO revised the savings DOWN by $115 Billion on May 11. My information is more current than yours.

 

AND, if the "doc fix" is included in the cost calculations (and since that is a healthcare cost, it only seems fair that it be included, don't you agree?), this puts an additional $208 Billion on the Federal liabilities.

 

In the same document you cite, it says (referencing the technical document).......

We estimated that, if those changes were made, the legislation would increase federal deficits during the decade beyond 2019 relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade in a broad range around one-quarter percent of GDP.

The track record of every nation that implemented universal health is one of total success in nearly all cases.....

Define what is a "total success", and then name one country with similar demographics (and population distribution) as the United States that is now a total success, please.

 

Given your Ayn Rand references in your signature I suspect your cynicism has more to do with your ideology and not factual evidence. Also, two of those three incidents came from Republicans. Perhaps you have a problem with government when only Republicans are in charge?

Cynicism comes from experience. I only went back 30 years (nice round number). Would you like me to go further?

 

But that's irrelevant, like I've been saying. The war is Bush's fault and always will be, no matter what Obama does. It's pretty obvious since 2006 that the war was a disaster and everyone wanted out, regardless of party.

Then why does Biden call Iraq one of this (Obama's) administration one of its "greatest achievements"?

Again, it's your innuendo. You agree with making BP pay for all costs, but you've also been implying that there's something wrong the Democrats when they say the same thing.

 

BP should pay the cost of cleanup and restitution for damaged property and economic damage to those whose lives are directly affected. That is where I leave it, and AFAIK the democrats have said the same thing.

 

Here's the part where the dems go too far.......(link to story)

 

It has been suggested that ON TOP of BPs already mounting liability (that has been established that we agree on), the dems want all deepwater activities in the Gulf related to oil recovery suspended (a moratorium). This would also affect much industry in the states of TX, LA, MS, and AL. As restitution for idling all those workers, BP should also pay them, as well. That is going too far, and were I BP (and the other affected companies), I would slap them with a lawsuit if they tried.

 

You cannot have the Government telling companies they cannot do business (and workers cannot work) simply because they are in the same business (or one that is related to it) as BP, and expect BP pay for it.

 

Even the experts advising the Obama administration say a moratorium goes too far.

 

Not only that, but it's been suggested that BP pay the government for lost oil royalties. First they say you can't pump, then you must pay them for not pumping.

 

So you see, the dems and I aren't saying the "same thing".

I'd say BP has a awful safety record, and the award was a joke that could be given to any company regardless of track record. Corporate awards like these often are jokes, and it seems like every company won something shortly before they F-up.

Then why does the administration that you hold in such high regard go along with it?

 

I'm not here to defend BP, except to say that there is no company I've done consulting for that has no "history". I'm more interested in BPs response to the crisis, and while I may agree that BP has a huge liability on their hands, I am not interested in seeking revenge as you seem to be.

Edited June 12, 2010 by RangerM