Agree a lot; but can we consider that the President only in for a month??.....sm
Posted By: Cyndiee on 2009-03-02
In Reply to: minmum wage - sasha
I am not going back to partisan politics, I think there are going to have to be many changes and many "solutions" before this economy can evea start to turn around, I pray it is sooner rather than later, but President Obama really has been condemned by many before he could even finish saying the oath of office....there is a lot of thinking and work that has to be done.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
I actually agree with you, I don't think the president's children should
sign up, or fight in Iraq, this would be a terrorist dream to have the president's daughters as a hostage...BUT the truth is there are usually few if any, on the left or right, who are willing to sacrifice their children for the things that they think are soooo noble enough for our children to sacrifice themselves for. I think this is the whole point. My thing is don't ask your countrymen to do anything that you wouldn't do yourself, left or right.
I agree. Thank you, President Bush.
nm
I agree. Thank you President Bush.
I'm sorry that these other people will not allow you your tribute, but I will, and agree, wholeheartedly, and without reserve, especially on this issue.
I may not agree with some of the things that have occurred over the past eight years, but it is a fact. He has kept us safe since 9/11, and has been ever vigilante on his watch, with his policies he has put in place for the safety of our country, here at home.
Thank you, Mr. President. God bless you and yours.
I agree President should not be on TV shows
I was thinking this last night...how can we have respect for the Office of the President the president is not acting like a president but rather like a movie star. It is really unbecoming.
Carter = worst president ever...yes, I agree with you.
I won't flame you! I totally agree. Obama as president only weakens
this country and makes us ripe for the end. He does not support Israel. Keep your eyes on Israel. I look for them to bomb Iran before Bush's term is up because they know Obama will not suport them.
One month -- (sm)
That would be about the time we get a president and staff in there who actually know what to do.
About a month ago
I posted a link to the following OpEd article, which I was touting as the best idea I'd heard yet to resolve the economic crisis:
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 12/27/08:
The Real Bailout Needed is a Consumer Bailout
by Steven Leser Page 1 of 1 page(s)
www.opednews.com
5
votesBuzz up!
SAVE FAVORITESVIEW FAVORITES
The economic disaster that I predicted back in April of 2008 in these articles click here and here is here. What enabled me to predict what was coming was my evaluation of five key areas of the economy. They are:
1. Consumer savings and spending/ability to spend
2. Corporate income, health and spending/ability to spend
3. Government financial health and ability to spend
4. The lending and banking (and financial) system and its ability to extend credit
5. Inflation & scarcity of resources
I made the point that for the first time in American history, all five of these areas were problematic.
Looking at the same indicators now, eight months later, there are some real and some apparent changes. Number 4 - The lending, banking and financial system has been bailed out, but it is still reeling from the Lehman brothers’ bankruptcy, several bank failures, and the threatened failures or near failures of several more institutions. On the surface, Number 5, Inflation & scarcity of resources seems have improved. Indeed several news reports have suggested that Deflation is what is now the concern. This is an illusion.
The two main commodities driving up prices were energy and food, both because of supply fears. Both have come down in price/cost somewhat, energy in particular, but WHY have they come down in price. Is there suddenly more supply? No, there is no more supply. They are down due to a temporary decrease in demand. As soon as there is the beginning of a return to economic normalcy, and people start to use the additional income to consume, the price increases in both food and energy will return. The governments of the world should take NO action to try to deal with the apparent but temporary deflationary conditions.
Having stabilized the financial system and the auto industry with bailouts, the government should turn to the most critical economic issue, the one that really is threatening to make this a prolonged downturn and that is consumer savings, huge consumer debt and resulting inability for consumers and households to spend and buy goods and services. Businesses cannot survive without the consumer and yet the average household is completely broke and drowning in debt.
I conceived the idea for this article about a week ago and was dreading having to perform the requisite research into the actual numbers supporting my positions. Thankfully, another author on OpEdNews, James Quinn, wrote an excellent article that completely outlines just how terribly in debt the American Household now finds itself titled “The Great Consumer Crash of 2009.” Among his research, he found that "Household debt reached $13.8 trillion in 2007, with $10.5 trillion of that mortgage debt." He also had a chart that showed that the average household debt per person in 2007 was $47,000. As staggering as those numbers are, that was a year ago. It is likely that total household debt is now up to $15 Trillion Dollars.
This suggests several conclusions. First, as I said earlier, the consumer is too deep in debt to be the engine that this country needs to drive the country out of the recession/depression. Second, without intervention, consumer debt will stifle the country's productivity and economic growth for the next 5-10 years. Third, if the consumer is the main force that drives the economy and affects whether the economy grows or contracts (recession), but the consumer cannot power the economy because they are in debt, something has to be done to fix that. It's a slight alteration of the old Sherlock Holmes quote, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”. Turning the economy around with a broke consumer is impossible, so what remains? Bail out the consumer.
What would a Government Bailout of the Consumer Look Like?
The government bailout of the consumer that I am proposing dwarfs all other government bailouts to date. It probably is the largest government spending initiative by any measurement in the history of humankind. It involves the government offering to each consumer and household to pay all of their debt. In exchange, the consumers who agree to be bailed out will pay the government .125% more of their income in taxes each year for three years for every unit of debt that corresponds to one percent of their annual income up to a maximum of 12.5%. Let me illustrate:
Joe and Sally have a combined income of $100,000 per year. They have $60,000 in debt. They opt for a complete bailout of their debt. In return, they will pay an additional (60 x .125)% or an additional 7% in taxes for three years. So, the Government pays out $60,000, the government gets back $21,000 over three years (7% of Joe and Sally's $100,000 a year income or $7000 for three years), and Joe and Sally are debt free.
Another example is John. John makes $60,000 per year and has a mortgage of $150,000 and other debt of $8,000 of which $6,000 is taxes and $2000 is credit cards. John opts for the total bailout. The Government pays $158,000 and wipes out John's debt. John owes the government $7,500 additional in taxes each year for three years, or $22,500. Even though the Government paid more to bail John out, the payback is capped at 12.5% in additional taxes per year for three years.
There is another component to my proposal. The Government will pass legislation limiting the amount of credit that can be granted to consumers by percentage of annual income and type of debt so that the country will not again find itself in a position where a huge percentage of consumers are over leveraged. The government would also make it illegal to charge the kinds of percentage rates on credit cards we have seen in the past. Also, for those opting for the bailout, any negative reports on their credit ratings would be wiped clean.
The total potential Government bailout outlay is the total of household debt or $15 Trillion Dollars. Actual bailout total will be lower because although many consumers would opt for this bailout, many others would not depending on each households circumstances, so the total amount that the Government would put out would be considerably less than $15 Trillion, but it would not surprise me to see the amount exceed $5-8 Trillion, financed by Government bonds. The Government would get a percentage of that back in the temporary additional taxes I proposed, probably between 20% and 30% over three years. So, assuming that the Government outlays $5 Trillion for the bailout, it would get back $1 to $1.5 Trillion.
What everyone should understand is that in exchange for the government spending that money, we would have an American consumer that was essentially out of debt and per the additional legislation would never again get in debt to the point that the indebtedness would endanger the whole country's economic health. Households would be able to spend money again, and all of those businesses that currently hold consumer debt accounts would receive a sudden and massive infusion of cash and would be paid for all of that debt. The totality of this program would result in a massive boost to the economy. Considering this, even the money that the Government would not receive back from consumers that it bailed out, it would likely receive back and more from the money that it injected into the economy generating business, income and retail taxes. Another great benefit of a consumer bailout is the mortgage crisis would be over. Households would own their homes free and clear and the banks would have been paid in full. Other organizations like Visa would be back in good financial health. Visa is currently hurting and requesting government assistance. Helping the consumer as I have outlined is the right way to help banks, business and the financial industry and the economy at large. Everyone wins this way.
I also posted a link to Part 2, posted in response to the many comments the author received on the first article:
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 1/4/09:
The Real Bailout Needed is a Consumer Bailout - Part 2
by Steven Leser Page 1 of 2 page(s)
www.opednews.com
3
votesBuzz up!
SAVE FAVORITESVIEW FAVORITES
The excellent responses, even harsh criticism from some to my first article on my proposed Consumer Bailout http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Real-Bailout-Needed-is-by-Steven-Leser-081227-715.html helped crystallize some of the finer points of the proposal. They also made me surer than ever that the best thing to do to bring about a recovery is to address bailout efforts to the consumer.
To recap briefly before I go on, I wrote:
... the consumer is too deep in debt to be the engine that this country needs to drive the country out of the recession/depression. Second, without intervention, consumer debt will stifle the country's productivity and economic growth for the next 5-10 years. Third, if the consumer is the main force that drives the economy and affects whether the economy grows or contracts (recession), but the consumer cannot power the economy because they are in debt, something has to be done to fix that....
the consumers who agree to be bailed out will pay the government .125% more of their income in taxes each year for three years for every unit of debt that corresponds to one percent of their annual income up to a maximum of 12.5%. One of the more serious components of the current crisis that is just starting to become apparent is the catastrophic budget shortfalls in state and local budgets. Five to fifteen trillion dollars in additional taxable income for businesses all around the country would fix that portion of the crisis immediately as it seems to fix just about every other portion of the crisis. That is what I think is compelling about my bailout proposal. If you make a list of the problems in the economy and analyze the effect of this proposed consumer bailout, it eliminates them one by one from the bottom up...
There is another component to my proposal. The Government will pass legislation limiting the amount of credit that can be granted to consumers by percentage of annual income and type of debt so that the country will not again find itself in a position where a huge percentage of consumers are over leveraged. The government would also make it illegal to charge the kinds of percentage rates on credit cards we have seen in the past. Also, for those opting for the bailout, any negative reports on their credit ratings would be wiped clean.
Let me address some of the more important criticisms of the proposal:
Criticism 1 – This Consumer Bailout is not Affordable
Anytime you are talking about a government program costing in the trillions of dollars it is natural to have questions about how this program would be funded so these questions and criticisms are good and to be expected.
One thing that should be obvious is that those who would opt to have the government pay their debt would pay back on average between 20% and 30% of the money directly to the government in increased taxes over three years. That is part of the design of the bailout proposal.
Second, what happens with the money that is given by the government to consumer's creditors? Those creditors have to pay taxes on it. Whether the creditor is a bank, some other lending agency, Visa, or any other creditor, that business will pay taxes on that income. Let's assume a low average effective business tax rate of 25% to be conservative. Of the money lent to consumers, another 25% will be paid back to the government within one year in the form of taxes paid by creditors. Now we are up to 45%-55% of the total bailout being paid for by those who benefited most by it.
Third, what do the creditors do with the 75% of the money they receive that they do not have to pay in taxes? They invest it, they buy other goods and services, they pay salaries and other operating costs, pay back their own debt obligations, etc. Much of that also results in taxable income by those receiving this money. Let's assume that 2/3rds of that money, or 50% of the original outlay becomes additional taxable income. 25% of that (again, assuming an average effective business tax rate of 25% is 12.5% of the total bailout. Now we are up to 57.5% to 67.5% of the outlay by the federal government paid back to it in taxes. We can go another iteration and say that 50%-12.5% is 37.5% of the original outlay becomes taxable income for entities further down the road. We can say that 25% of that will probably end up being taxable income and results in another 6.25% of the original total outlay being paid back in taxes. Now we are up to 63.75% to 73.75% of the total bailout outlay being repaid.
Finally, what then happens to the economy when consumers are debt free, their former creditors are awash in cash, as a result Visa and the banks and lending industry are no longer in crisis, in fact the opposite? When there is more disposable income all around, more money is invested, lent (properly this time with the additional regulations I specified in place) and spent. We call that an expanding economy. What happens in an expanding economy? Federal income tax receipts grow. Some of that is already accounted for in my above explanations, but some isn't. I don't know if we get back to 100% of the bailout being paid back directly or indirectly, but if we don't, we get close.
Criticism 2 – This Bailout Proposal Penalizes People Who Have Kept Up With Their Bills
Of all the top criticisms, this one was the most difficult for me to understand. People who have kept up with their bills are still hurting in this economy. Their investments have suffered, they are at risk just like anyone else for layoffs, if they are small business owners, they might be getting less business or the people that owe them money may be having difficulty paying their bills. All of those things mean that no matter how thrifty you are, you are probably feeling ill effects from this economy or at the very least; the current crisis makes you more at risk to be hurt.
All of the people would benefit greatly from an economy that gets moving again. Those who do not request a bailout would not be financing those who do. This bailout is self-financing as I illustrated above.
Criticism 3 – This Bailout Encourages Bad Behavior
It definitely would encourage bad behavior if we don't include the additional legislation that I propose that specifies how much credit can be lent to a consumer based on his income. These limits are different depending on the type of debt that would be incurred. I'm guessing that total non-auto and non-mortgage credit would be such that the monthly payments could not exceed around 10% of monthly income of a household and total outstanding non-auto and non-mortgage debt could not exceed 5% of yearly household income. The legislation would also prevent lenders from charging exorbitant interest rates.
Criticism 4 – The New Legislation you propose that would Limit Creditors in How Much they can lend to Consumers is Unworkable
For people who earn almost all of their income from a straight salary, these limits are straightforward. For those whose income is commission based or dividend based or whose income is otherwise variable, or for those who have high net worth, there needs to be another section to the legislation that better deals with their circumstance. My suggestion would be that for people who have a net worth over $250K, they could have consumer debt up to 1/3rd of their net worth.
January 4, 2009 at 07:54:15
1 1 View Ratings | Rate It
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 1/4/09:
The Real Bailout Needed is a Consumer Bailout - Part 2
by Steven Leser Page 2 of 2 page(s)
www.opednews.com
3
votesBuzz up!
SAVE FAVORITESVIEW FAVORITES
Those with variable incomes and net worth below $250K should have their debt totals determined by the following
Take the mean and median of their last 48 months worth of income and apply the 10% consumer debt limit to whichever figure is smaller..
Criticism 5 – This Bailout Could Result in Inflationary issues, Perhaps Even Hyperinflation.
Inflation is a concern, but I believe the risks can be managed. The bailout would be financed by issuing more bonds and as I already wrote, would be almost completely paid back either directly or by its effects on the economy. This bailout would not be financed by printing money. The Fed would have to be involved and would probably have to raise interest rates concurrently to ward off inflation. If you listen today to the government, the fed and private groups, they are all saying we are in a dangerous Deflationary situation. I still think there are inflationary risks with food and energy if we start to consume in similar quantities as prior to the beginning of the current crisis, but as I said I think this can be managed..
Criticism 6 – This Bailout is Really a Bailout of the Banking/Lending/Consumer Finance Sector (or other hated group) and I don't want to Bail them Out.
It seems that everyone wants to punish someone and everyone forgets that if we set out to punish people instead of focusing on what is going to fix this economy, we all will end up suffering for it. Libertarians want to punish the households and consumers who borrowed too much, Progressives want to punish the banks and consumer finance industry, Republicans want to punish organized Labor. For the current crisis to happen it required mistakes by consumers/households, banks, credit card companies, those who provide the underlying securities and financing for banks and credit card companies (the bond market, etc) and the government for failing to oversee all of the above and take action when things trended the wrong way. Now is not the time to concentrate on blame and recriminations. In fact, my bailout proposal bails out everyone, which is one of the reasons it has been a lightning rod for criticism. Everyone's pet economic and ideological whipping boys are helped.
We need everyone to have a 'Jeffersonian Louisiana Purchase' moment. What I mean by that is you have Jefferson, who was in his time probably close to what a Libertarian is today and believed that the government only had a the smallest amount of powers, i.e. only those specifically outlined in the constitution and no more. He did not believe in the elastic clause, and he definitely did not believe what his ideological opposites did, that if the Constitution did not explicitly forbid the government from doing something, that the government could do it.
Jefferson was given an opportunity to purchase the Louisiana territory from France but the problem was that the Constitution did not explicitly give him the power to make that deal. Recognizing that the purchase would solve several strategic issues for the country, not to mention more than double its territory, Jefferson made the deal. The point of this long-winded anecdote is that we are in an emergency. Exigency dictates that we accept that we may need to look beyond what would normally be the boundaries of our ideology to resolve the situation
------------------------
What I did not hear from those who criticized the idea is any alternate solution that resolved the current crisis and certainly none that addressed the issue of the overwhelming number of US households drowning in debt. Indeed, those who criticized the idea of bailing out consumers never acknowledged the seriousness of the household debt situation. As I wrote in the first article:
James Quinn, wrote an excellent article that completely outlines just how terribly in debt the American Household now finds itself titled "The Great Consumer Crash of 2009." Among his research, he found that "Household debt reached $13.8 trillion in 2007, with $10.5 trillion of that mortgage debt." He also had a chart that showed that the average household debt per person in 2007 was $47,000. As staggering as those numbers are, that was a year ago. It is likely that total household debt is now up to $15 Trillion Dollars.
Before thinking about the economy in terms of the overwhelming debt of the average household, I thought that infrastructure spending was the best way to pull the economy out of crisis. The adding of jobs and putting people back to work that would be accomplished by infrastructure spending is great. This does not address the debt issues, however. The unemployed would then be able to pay their rent/mortgage and try to keep up with payments on whatever debt they have, but there will still be little of the spending that is needed to fuel a recovery. I think the infrastructure-spending plan alongside a consumer bailout is a good idea, but by itself, it is going to make very little difference. This economy is going nowhere if we fail to address household debt.
she must have her quota in for the month
x
I am pro-choice up the the end of 3rd month.
I am definitely against partial-birth abortion.
and don't forget the new *word of the month*
racist. They've added that since hurricane Katrina.
keep your head in the sand - a month ago
they are VERY_CLOSE, this is no black sheep in his family....
1000 bucks a month
That is a lot to pay for health insurance. There does need to be reform so that it is more affordable, I just don't see how mandatory coverage is going to do it.
They forgot about 9/11 about a month after it happened.
i pay off my cards EVERY month, living
x
I don't have a white history month, either, but I'm okay with that.
X
If we did have a white history month
we would be called racists.
How many of you would leave your 4-month-old special-needs baby to run for VP? nm
It took spending 1-1/2 BILLION dollars a month...sm
over years on the war in Iraq to get us to this point, borrowing from other countries, the highest deficit ever, printing money by the government with no gold behind it to drive the value of our dollar down around the world. Nothing to do with the democrats. When Bush became president we had a huge surplus. Did you forget that?
Wow, spot on . . .10 billions dollars a month . . .
for that war. For what? OIL. That money could go a long way to making sure EVERYBODY had healthcare and dramatically speed up the process of developing alternative energy sources! Why can no one see how much sense this makes?
Chrysler closing all 30 plants for 1 month.
x
If customary deference to a sitting president by president elect
for the rest of us who understand such concepts as respect and traditional protocol, it would qualify as a darned good reason.
I agree, that goes for both sides. I don't agree with those starting trouble over...sm
on your board either, but then some of you come and take it out on the people who only post here and we have nothing to do with the fights over there.
I enjoy communicating with liberals and occasionally do learn something from conservative posters, so I refuse to let the driveby, no moniker, one-sided finger pointers, self-indulging posters drive me off.
I would if he were president now...nm
x
Why does President need help with a way out?
That's really scary. I do think if we have any troops come home, it'll be before elections - and not a minute before necessary to have the greatest impact on election results. Wallace should wonder if the families of fallen soldiers would be offended at THAT kind of rank political maneuvering. I know I am.
And what happened to SPREADING DEMOCRACY (like margarine?) in Iraq? Chalabi just appointed the head Taliban judge to office in Iraq, the one who outlawed female education in Afghanistan and sponsored public executions for not wearing burkhas. Is that what we promised the Iraqi people? The whole thing is a huge mess. All the billions and billions Congress authorized for rebuilding Iraq went into Halliburton and other crony pockets and the job was never done. We can't train more Iraqi police units because as soon as we give them guns and tanks they use them on our soldiers. That's why Bush can't tell the truth about how that's going, but that doesn't stop him from continuing to fudge the numbers.
Sadly, Bush won't take any help even if it's offered - not in his game plan apparently.
We need this man as our next president
Someone who can speak so elequently without having to read word from word from notes or prompters.
Someone who knows what the different races are about, understands, and embraces heritages of all backgrounds.
Someone who can meet with our enemies to try and stop the violence and come to agreements.
Someone who is intelligent.
Someone who isn't married to "bad baggage" that will disgrace our white house.
Someone who isn't a war mongerer or voted for the war.
Someone who is truthful to the American people and not deceiptful (sp?) trying to hide things they have done.
Someone who doesn't think they should just be annointed to the white house but actually needs to "earn" the publics vote.
Someone who doesn't believe they should win just because they are from a certain race or gender.
Someone who is calm under fire, can think and act with a clear mind, and doesn't lash out, spew racial or ethnic slurs.
Someone who wants a better country for all people and not just themselves and their close friends and family.
Someone who is relatively "new" to Washington and not the same ol "stuff".
Someone who is working towards our future and not living or trying to live in the past.
Comment: Who cares that people Obama knows (but clearly doesn't share the same viewpoint of which he has had to say over and over and over and over) throws out biggoted or hateful things. You have them on all sides. Hillary's got her people (Ferraro and others) coming out with biggoted and hateful statements and you've got John McCain's people (Cunningham and others) coming out with their biggoted and hateful statements and they too have had to distance themselves. Unfortunately they die away quickly but Obama has to keep repeating himself on the same story. I have a good relationship with my minister, but it doesn't mean I agree with everything he says and if he said terrible things just because I have a good relationship with him doesn't mean I agree with him. - Just get tired of Obama having to repeat the same things over and over. Kind of reminds me of the line in a movie I heard once. "I don't know how many different ways I can tell you the same story." - and - "Have IQ's just dropped sharply since I've been away".
It's true we are not going to be able to change a true biggot. Some people will just not vote for him because he's part black, just like some other people will also not vote for Hillary because she's a woman. I just hope there are enough good Americans to overcome that and do the right thing (at least what I believe is the right thing). But it is getting tiring listening to the opponents stir up a bunch of hateful things trying to get the people to vote against him and time and time again I read this board and will read the same comments over and over "did you hear what Obama's minister said". It's like listening to a broken record and I always think - they're not actually bring this up again???
I believe our country needs a lot of healing. We've got a long way to go on the racial issues/hatred towards one race or another. We've got to try to make amends with the people who we fear and call our enemies, when in fact the people we should be fearing is our own government. We've put years and years into believing our government is going to be truthful with us, but when you have a VP who says "so" when he is told that 2/3 of Americans don't believe in the war and feel we should have not gone to war (DH and I sat with our mouths open), those are the people I consider terro**rists by putting fear in the American people's mind where there should be no fear.
So for that and all the reasons I listed above that is why I'm voting for Obama.
He is NOT my president ...
I didn't vote for him .. Another thing, I will NOT vote for McBush (errr ... McCain). I was a Hilary fan all the way until she couldn't get the nomination .. now I'll switch gears to Obama. Frankly, I think I would could do a better job than Bush .. at least I'd use my common sense!! 
This is who we want for President?
When you look at this video (link below), I promise you
> will NOT BELIEVE your eyes and ears. Take a look at the You
> Tube link below and pass it on. This is a view of John
> McCain that you probably won't see on the Network news.
> If it weren't serious, it would be hilarious.
>
> p;nb sp;
Probably for the best. Once someone becomes President,
it seems like even if they are an excellent choice, they have to use far too much of their time, skill and energy just defending themselves from the other side. No one ever really wins, least of all, US.
Either way, the next president is
only in for one term. McCain will simply be too old and by then health will be a major factor. Obama, on the other hand, simply will not be able to come through with all of his promises due to the current situation with our economy. I do believe if he is elected that many who voted for him will see him for what he truly is, an inexperienced leader who has no clue. His strings are pulled by the extreme left. Either way, we are in for a rough 4 years.
next president
The question is not what the next president HAS done, the question is what he WILL do.
That's if he becomes president. He can't
veto anything as a senator. That's the prez's job.
I did nto say he should not have run for president. I said...
that all the fuel skinheads need (which I am not one of--my hair is very long) is a black man running for president. My gosh--I knew somebody would read things incorrectly. I think skin heads are horrible people. As I said, his color is not an issue for me!
He is your president too
"To those whose respect I have yet to earn." Another question might be how far to the center he will take himself. If socialism means equality and opportunity for all Americans, if it means we can now begin to heal the division that have separated us in the past and of late, if it means that American is still the place where all things are possible, if it means we rise or fall as one nation and one people, if it means this is our chance to answer our call to progress, if it means it is our time to restore prosperity and promote the call to peace, if it means we have rediscovered the fundamental truth, that out of many we are one, and if it means we have told the world we are who we say we are, then I say bring it on.
We'll just be taking this thing one step at a time. Step number one. Try a little hope in place of the fear.
He's NOT president yet
And yet here he is giving another press conference. He has no business giving any press conferences as though he is president. He is NOT president yet. Yes, he will be on January 20th but that date hasn't arrived yet. I'm sick of him sticking his face in front of the camera giving everytime he turns around. He is commenting on issues he has no business commenting on. These are for the President to talk about. Yes, I know Bush is a bumbling baboon, but he is still the president until Obama is sworn in. This guy is just plain arrogant! If this is how the next four years are going to be I hope they do go by fast.
One President.........sm
Washington, D.C. — Over the course of the last two months President-elect Barack Obama and the Presidential Transition Team (PTT) have replaced their campaign maxim, "Change We Can Believe In," with a new mantra: "We Only Have One President at a Time."
It is a slogan that has already worn out.
Obama and the PTT have used this phrase repeatedly in response to reporters' questions on the economy, federal bailouts, foreign policy, national security, the military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, the future of "Gitmo" and the Russian decision to shut down the delivery of natural gas to Western Europe through Ukrainian pipelines.
During this week's Oval Office photo-op with President George W. Bush and former Presidents Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, and William Jefferson Blyth Clinton, Obama used the "one president at a time" dodge to avoid answering a reporter's hurled interrogatory about Israeli military operations in Gaza. The response from those in the lineup, and apparently most in the mainstream media, is to nod approvingly at Obama's sagacity every time they hear him say it.
The only trouble is — it simply isn't true.
While the current, former and future commanders-in-chief went off to snack and chat, Senator Joe Biden, the soon-to-be vice president of the United States, headed off to Andrews Air Force Base to commence a hastily convened, week-long "congressional fact finding mission" to Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Absent from the secret itinerary divulged by Mr. Biden were other places with even more pressing problems: India — a U.S. ally still recovering from the brutal Mumbai terror attack and on the brink of attacking Pakistan. The Ukraine — a NATO applicant, threatened by interference from Moscow and this week's natural gas cutoff. And Israel — an American ally facing the threat of U.N. sanctions for acting in self defense to protect its citizens from Iranian-supplied rockets and mortars being fired from Gaza by Hamas, and which now faces attacks from Iranian-supported Hezbollah terror in Lebanon.
While the potentates of the press gush over the forthcoming "history-making inaugural," the Biden "Codel" — Washington-speak for "congressional delegation" — to select trouble-spots has made some little-noted history of its own. Unlike Obama, Biden did not surrender his Senate seat. This week, when Congress reconvened, Biden insisted on being sworn in as Delaware's senior senator and retaining his position as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Unlike Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Dan Quayle and AL Gore — who all ascended to vice presidency of the Unites States from the Senate and did nothing to interfere in diplomatic issues between election and inaugural — Biden is now dabbling about in the affairs of state.
Biden defends his actions by pointing to the company he is keeping on this trip: fellow Senators John Kerry, D-Mass., Jack Reed, D-R.I., Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lindsay Graham, R-S.C. Earlier in the week, perhaps forgetting the post he will occupy on Jan. 20, Biden said, "I'm a still a Senate man." None of the media all-stars covering the PTT thought to ask Obama what he thought of this response. Notably, Hillary Rodham Clinton — soon to become the next secretary of state — was neither included in the CODEL nor available for comment about the propriety of such an unprecedented adventure.
None of this bodes well for the new administration or for America's interests in a very dangerous world. The situations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are certainly important. But so too are outcomes in Gaza and Lebanon, our relationship with India and the effects of an increasingly tense standoff between Russia and Ukraine. All of these places and problems matter to U.S. national security, and all are perhaps in more urgent need of attention.
Obama can't have it both ways. He cannot claim on the one hand that "we have only one president" and then dispatch his future vice president on a thinly-disguised CODEL to diddle in diplomacy without having world leaders take note of what the incoming administration considers to be important. In permitting the Biden CODEL to go forward and approving the itinerary, Obama has sent a signal — intentionally or not — to allies and adversaries alike.
From Moscow to Tehran, Caracas to Beijing, London to Delhi, in virtually every world capital, foreign leaders and their intelligence services are now making judgments about the next leader of the free world. They learned something about his wisdom, seriousness and maturity this week when he picked Leon Panetta, a man with "intelligence deficit disorder," to head the CIA. Perhaps they also had a little chuckle when he chose a TV celebrity doctor to become surgeon general to deal with bio-terrorism and possible pandemics. Hopefully the Biden CODEL trip to Southwest Asia did not lead them to conclude that Obama is not a man of his word.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,478606,00.html
Maybe because THIS president knows which
He isn't trying to clean up the mess daddy left behind when he left office.
Obama is a MUCH BETTER president in 3 months than GW Bush ever was. Period.
The president SAID
WORDS WORDS WORDS that's all he used. Smooth talking, sweet, pretty words.
Don't be fooled. What government says and what government does are two very very different things.
Sorry...but he is not MY President. He is THE President....
that little distinction is important to me, I don't much care if not important to anyone else. Yes, it would have been better if he had just said ANYthing just a wee bit strong...hey Mahmoud...couldn't you just stop beating the crap out of protestors in front of the TV cameras? Bad form old boy. Makes you look bad.
Bomb Iran? Barack Obama? If they launched a nuclear strike and obliterated Israel (sorry, palestine, collateral damage), what do you think Barack Obama would do? That is a serious question now.
My alternative would be as I stated above...say something strong or just don't say anything at all. The more he positions himself as, to use the original poster's words, a wimp...only emboldens an already dyed in the wool nutcase. "Undermine" the protestors...you mean shooting them dead and beating them senseless? They are already doing that. They don't need a hand slapping from the US as a "reason" to do so. lol. Sigh.
Thank you Mr. President - well said
Seeing as no other station seems to be reporting on the current events happening as we speak, I have been watching Fox news. As usual both MSNBC and CNN are not reporting major news events happening. What is going on in Iran is super huge. It affects so many people.
Fox news has been doing an excellent job of reporting - Shepard Smith is an excellent anchor man. Anyway...they have been reporting statements from the President as it happens. Here is the president's statement - Thank you Mr. President. Very well said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/20/republicans-pressure-obama-support-iranian-protesters/
Rush is right. I agree. Somebody's gotta agree.
....in many of his policies in his attempt to completely socialize America.
I hope he fails.
I hope he succeeds, however, in the office of president, and doing the right thing, and moves to the center.
However, it's not looking good. He's left of left so far, isn't he. Showing who he truly is, in his first acts as president.
Memo for the President
Memo for the President
By Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
t r u t h o u t | Statement
Wednesday 24 August 2005
Memorandum for: The President
From: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
Subject: Recommendation: Try a Circle of "Wise Women"
By way of re-introduction, we begin with a brief reminder of the analyses we provided you before the attack on Iraq. On the afternoon of February 5, 2003, following Colin Powell's speech before the UN Security Council that morning, we sent you our critique of his attempt to make the case for war. (You may recall that we gave him an "A" for assembling and listing the charges against Iraq and a "C-" for providing context and perspective.) Unlike Powell, we made no claim that our analysis was "irrefutable/undeniable." We did point out, though, that what he said fell far short of justification for war. We closed with these words: "We are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic."
To jog your memory further, the thrust of our next two pre-war memoranda can be gleaned from their titles: "Cooking Intelligence for War" (March 12) and "Forgery, Hyperbole, Half-Truth: A Problem" (March 18). When the war started, we reasoned at first that you might had been oblivious to our cautions. However, last spring's disclosures in the "Downing Street Memo" containing the official minutes of Tony Blair's briefing on July 23, 2002 - and the particularly the bald acknowledgement that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of war on Iraq - show that the White House was well aware of how the intelligence was being cooked. We write you now in the hope that the sour results of the recipe - the current bedlam in Iraq - will incline you to seek and ponder wider opinion this time around.
A Still Narrower Circle
With the departure of Colin Powell, your circle of advisers has shrunk rather than widened. The amateur architects of the Iraq war, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, seem still to have your ear. At a similar stage of the Vietnam War, President Lyndon Johnson woke up to the fact that he had been poorly served by his principal advisers and quickly appointed an informal group of "wise men" to provide fresh insight and advice. It turned out to be one of the smartest things Johnson did. He was brought to realize that the US could not prevail in Vietnam; that he was finished politically; and that the US needed to move to negotiations with the Vietnamese "insurgents."
It is clear to those of us who witnessed at first hand the gross miscalculations on Vietnam that a similar juncture has now been reached on Iraq. We are astonished at the advice you have been getting - the vice president's recent assurance that the Iraqi resistance is "in its last throes," for example. (Shades of his assurances that US forces would be welcomed as "liberators" in Iraq.) And Secretary Rumsfeld's unreassuring reminders that "some things are unknowable" and the familiar bromide that "time will tell" are wearing thin. By now it is probably becoming clear to you that you need outside counsel.
The good news is that some help is on its way. Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey has taken the initiative to schedule a hearing on September 15, where knowledgeable specialists on various aspects of the situation in Iraq will present their views. Unfortunately, it appears that this opportunity to learn will fall short of the extremely informative bipartisan hearings led by Sen. William Fullbright on Vietnam. The refusal thus far of the House Republican leadership to make a suitable conference room available suggests that the Woolsey hearing, like the one led by Congressman John Conyers on June 16, will lack the kind of bipartisan support so necessary if one is to deal sensibly with the Iraq problem.
Meanwhile, we respectfully suggest that you could profit from the insights of the informal group of "wise women" right there in Crawford. You could hardly do better than to ride your bike down to Camp Casey. There you will find Gold Star mothers, Iraq (and Vietnam) war veterans, and others eager to share reality-based perspectives of the kind you are unlikely to hear from your small circle of yes-men and the yes-woman in Washington, none of whom have had direct experience of war. As you know, Cindy Sheehan has been waiting to get on your calendar. She is now back in Crawford and has resumed her Lazarus-at-the-Gate vigil in front of your ranch. We strongly suggest that you take time out from your vacation to meet with her and the other Gold Star mothers when you get back to Crawford later this week. This would be a useful way for you to acquire insight into the many shades of gray between the blacks and whites of Iraq, and to become more sensitized to the indignities that so often confound and infuriate the mothers, fathers, wives, and other relatives of soldiers killed and wounded there.
Names and Faces
Here are the names, ages, and hometowns of the eight soldiers, including Casey Sheehan, killed in the ambush in Sadr City, Baghdad on April 4, 2004:
Specialist Robert R. Arsiaga, 25, San Antonio, Texas
Specialist Ahmed A. Cason, 24, McCalla, Alabama
Sergeant Yihjyh L. Chen, 31, Saipan, Marianas
Specialist Israel Garza, 25, Lubbock, Texas
Specialist Stephen D. Hiller, 25, Opelika, Alabama
Corporal Forest J. Jostes, 22, Albion, Illinois
Sergeant Michael W. Mitchell, 25, Porterville, California
Specialist Casey A. Sheehan, 24, Vacaville, California
Mike Mitchell's father, Bill, has been camped out for two weeks with Cindy Sheehan and others a short bike ride from your place. They have a lot of questions - big and small. You are aware of the big ones: In what sense were the deaths of Casey, Mike Mitchell and the others "worth it?" In what sense is the continued occupation of Iraq a "noble cause?" No doubt you have been given talking points on those. But the time has passed for sound bites and rhetoric. We are suggesting something much more real - and private.
Questions
There are less ambitious - one might call them more tactical - questions that are also accompanied by a lot of pain and frustration. Those eight fine soldiers were killed by forces loyal to the fiercely anti-American Muqtada al-Sadr, the young Shia cleric with a militant following, particularly in Baghdad's impoverished suburbs. The ambush was part of a violent uprising resulting from US Ambassador Paul Bremer's decision to close down Al Hawza, al-Sadr's newspaper, on March 28, 2004.
And not only that. A senior aide of al-Sadr was arrested by US forces on April 3. The following day al-Sadr ordered his followers to "terrorize" occupation forces and this sparked the deadly street battles, including the ambush. Also on April 4, Bremer branded al-Sadr an "outlaw" and coalition spokesman Dan Senior said coalition forces planned to arrest him as well. In sum, before one can begin to understand the grief of Cindy, Bill, and the relatives of the other six soldiers killed, you need to know - as they do - what else was going on April 4, 2004.
You may wish to come prepared to answer specific questions like the following:
1. Closing down newspapers and arresting key opposition figures seem a strange way to foster democracy. Please explain. And how could Ambassador Bremer possibly have thought that al-Sadr would simply acquiesce?
2. Muqtada al-Sadr seems to have landed on his feet. At this point, he and other Shiite clerics appear on the verge of imposing an Islamic state with Shariah law and a very close relationship with Iran. With this kind of prospect, can you feel the frustration of Gold Star mothers when the extremist ultimately responsible for their sons' deaths assumes a leadership role in the new Iraq? Can you understand their strong wish to prevent the sacrifice of still more of our children for such dubious purpose?
Perhaps you will have good answers to these and other such questions. Good answers or no, we believe a quiet, respectful session with the wise women and perhaps others at your doorstep would give you valuable new insights into the ironic conundrums and human dimensions of the war in Iraq.
A member of our Steering Committee, Ann Wright, has been on site at Camp Casey from the outset and would be happy to facilitate such a session. A veteran Army colonel (and also a senior Foreign Service officer until she resigned in protest over the attack on Iraq), Ann has been keeping Camps Casey I and II running in a good-neighborly, orderly way. She is well known to your Secret Service agents, who can lead you to her. We strongly urge you not to miss this opportunity.
/s/
Gene Betit, Arlington, Virginia
Sibel Edmonds, Alexandria, Virginia
Larry Johnson, Bethesda, Maryland
David MacMichael, Linden, Virginia
Ray McGovern, Arlington, Virginia
Coleen Rowley, Apple Valley, Minnesota
Ann Wright, Honolulu, Hawaii
Steering Group Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
All the President's Friends
September 12, 2005
All the President's Friends
By PAUL KRUGMAN
The lethally inept response to Hurricane Katrina revealed to everyone that the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which earned universal praise during the Clinton years, is a shell of its former self. The hapless Michael Brown - who is no longer overseeing relief efforts but still heads the agency - has become a symbol of cronyism.
But what we really should be asking is whether FEMA's decline and fall is unique, or part of a larger pattern. What other government functions have been crippled by politicization, cronyism and/or the departure of experienced professionals? How many FEMA's are there?
Unfortunately, it's easy to find other agencies suffering from some version of the FEMA syndrome.
The first example won't surprise you: the Environmental Protection Agency, which has a key role to play in Hurricane Katrina's aftermath, but which has seen a major exodus of experienced officials over the past few years. In particular, senior officials have left in protest over what they say is the Bush administration's unwillingness to enforce environmental law.
Yesterday The Independent, the British newspaper, published an interview about the environmental aftermath of Katrina with Hugh Kaufman, a senior policy analyst in the agency's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, whom one suspects is planning to join the exodus. The budget has been cut, he said, and inept political hacks have been put in key positions. That sounds familiar, and given what we've learned over the last two weeks there's no reason to doubt that characterization - or to disregard his warning of an environmental cover-up in progress.
What about the Food and Drug Administration? Serious questions have been raised about the agency's coziness with drug companies, and the agency's top official in charge of women's health issues resigned over the delay in approving Plan B, the morning-after pill, accusing the agency's head of overruling the professional staff on political grounds.
Then there's the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, whose Republican chairman hired a consultant to identify liberal bias in its programs. The consultant apparently considered any criticism of the administration a sign of liberalism, even if it came from conservatives.
You could say that these are all cases in which the Bush administration hasn't worried about degrading the quality of a government agency because it doesn't really believe in the agency's mission. But you can't say that about my other two examples.
Even a conservative government needs an effective Treasury Department. Yet Treasury, which had high prestige and morale during the Clinton years, has fallen from grace.
The public symbol of that fall is the fact that John Snow, who was obviously picked for his loyalty rather than his qualifications, is still Treasury secretary. Less obvious to the public is the hollowing out of the department's expertise. Many experienced staff members have left since 2000, and a number of key positions are either empty or filled only on an acting basis. There is no policy, an economist who was leaving the department after 22 years told The Washington Post, back in 2002. If there are no pipes, why do you need a plumber? So the best and brightest have been leaving.
And finally, what about the department of Homeland Security itself? FEMA was neglected, some people say, because it was folded into a large agency that was focused on terrorist threats, not natural disasters. But what, exactly, is the department doing to protect us from terrorists?
In 2004 Reuters reported a steady exodus of counterterrorism officials, who believed that the war in Iraq had taken precedence over the real terrorist threat. Why, then, should we believe that Homeland Security is being well run?
Let's not forget that the administration's first choice to head the department was Bernard Kerik, a crony of Rudy Giuliani. And Mr. Kerik's nomination would have gone through if enterprising reporters hadn't turned up problems in his background that the F.B.I. somehow missed, just as it somehow didn't turn up the little problems in Michael Brown's résumé. How many lesser Keriks made it into other positions?
The point is that Katrina should serve as a wakeup call, not just about FEMA, but about the executive branch as a whole. Everything I know suggests that it's in a sorry state - that an administration which doesn't treat governing seriously has created two, three, many FEMA's.
Impeach the President!
Who cares about the troops at risk! Off with his head!
President Bush
Surely you don't mean that. I think in years to come we will be sorry we thought such thoughts. Time will tell, maybe long after he is president. Will we apologize for attacking him or will we try and justify why we thought the way we did. He is a good president. Like the rest of us, he is not perfect. He is faithful to his family, and that should speak volumes.
Bush as president, OMG
I hear ya, Lurker. When Bush first ran, I warned friends, this guy will ruin America, he is a dummy. Well, he got into office..I dont believe legally..I truly believe the vote was fixed. I have read the conclusion by the University of Chicago which did a recount and Gore would have gotten in..But,. however, we had the Supreme Court Five who decided all of our fates..Anyway, when Bush was running once again, I could not believe it..I warned my friends, family, anyone I could speak to..do not vote this guy in..He will destroy America and the world..Now, Im sitting here, three years to go with Bush and Im watching it come to reality..I fear what the next three years have to hold..God help us all.
She's as clueless as the president...nm
It authorized the President
to take action as he saw fit, including use of military force. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Again, I think it's a moot point, as the deed is done and can't be undone.
My Letter to the President
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Mr. President:
Are you proud of your accomplishments as president? I have highlighted just a few for you below. You and those you surround yourself with have:
• KILLED over 3600 AMERICAN TROOPS.
• MAIMED over 25,000 AMERICAN TROOPS.
• KILLED nearly 70,000 IRAQI CIVILIANS and 650,000 IRAQIS TOTAL have died as a result of US INVASION.
• Orchestrated WAR on IRAQ when the 9/11 TERRORISTS were MOSTLY SAUDI.
• Allowed NO-BID CONTRACTS for IRAQ war reconstruction and MONEY UNACCOUNTED FOR.
• DESTABILIZED MIDDLE EAST, now wanting TO SELL WEAPONS to Arab “allies.”
• Incurred the LARGEST NATIONAL DEBT IN OUR HISTORY, nearing 9 TRILLION.
• Shown INCOMPETENCE and INEFFECTIVENESS in response to HURRICANE KATRINA.
• Shown DISRESPECT FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL, initially attempting to reduce veterans’ benefits for those who put their lives at risk for this country in the past and leaving those who serve in Iraq without needed supplies.
• Done nothing about NEARLY 50 MILLION AMERICANS UNINSURED.
• CUT EDUCATION LOANS and REDUCED PELL GRANTS.
• Shown DISREGARD for THE CONSTITUTION of the United States of America with the so-called Patriot Act.
• Shown DISREGARD for the SAFETY and HEALTH of our ENVIRONMENT, for example, withdrawing the US from the Kyoto Protocol agreement and opening public land for oil drilling.
• Shown HYPOCRISY and FAVORITISM by COMMUTING SCOOTER LIBBY’S SENTENCE. July 19, 2005, Washington Post: “PRESIDENT BUSH SAID yesterday that he will fire anyone in the administration found to have committed a crime in the leaking of a CIA operative's name.”
• ALLOWED Attorney General ROBERTO GONZALEZ, a representative of truth and justice, TO REMAIN in government office AFTER HE LIED about his presence at a meeting regarding the questionably-timed firings of eight US attorneys.
Past presidents during my lifetime have not always behaved admirably, but your behavior and record in office reveal a decidedly un-Christian lack of ethics and morality exceeding that of any except perhaps Richard Nixon. Where did you leave your oft-professed Christianity? I pray the nation survives your destructive administration, and I pray you begin to live a truly honorable life from this day on.
Sincerely,
It is not our choice who becomes president
Whether we like or dislike someone, vote or not vote for them, they are not elected by the people. I totally understand when people say "so'n'so is not my President. I felt that way when Bill Clinton was in. He campaigned as one person and once he got in the office all the promises he made, all the "changes" he said he'd bring never happened. He was a totally different person than what he campaigned as and therefore he was "not my president". The same was with Hillary. All I kept thinking was great, here we go again...this country is going to be without another president for 4 years. I was hoping for the best and luckily it worked out for the country's best to not have her in there. In actuality the people who have the money control who is put in there. We saw that with the Bush/Gore campaign (even though I'm thankful Gore didn't get in). I highly doubt all of Obama's donations are from people who send in $5 and $10. Although I leaning more towards him over McCain. To call someone names (retarded, hillbilly, etc) is childish and an insult to the people who are actually "special" and hillbillies. Also calling them the antichrist is also another stupid remark put out by people who don't understand. Sure Bush is not among the brightest who have held the office. He should have been impeached a long time ago (but we have the dems Pelosi and others) who stopped that (why I don't know). So, no Bush is not the brightest, he has committed war crimes (IMO). But Clinton was no better. If there was a contest in the worst President I would not be able to decide between the two. Neither of them know or care what the regular person (me and my family and friends) are going through. They don't know we're struggling with paying bills, grocery shopping, paying for gas, etc. Hillary Clinton fortunately is out of the race. I sweated that one. We won't even begin to go into all the lies and crooked campaigning she did. Why people don't remember what it was like when she and Billy were in there I can't understand. Clinton's presidency was the worst ever. Each time a President gets in their the economy gets worse. We end up more in debt as time goes on. So to say its worse with Bush than Clinton, you also have to say it was worse with Clinton than Bush Sr, worse with Bush Sr than Regan, etc, etc. We just go further and further into debt and each campaign are promised that they have a solution to get the debt down. I'm no Bush fan, but one thing that is a fact is that people have been paying lower taxes with Bush than Clinton. I found a fact sheet that showed what people paid for taxes under Bush and what they paid under Clinton. Clinton was awful. It was a dark time for our country. He misrepresented our country and made us look like fools. I counted every day until he left office and then in those last few hours was rewarded with learning how much more crooked he was by giving out pardons like it was candy at a halloween party. I also think Bush is awful, but the country would have been worse off with Gore (the Bore), and Kerry (Mr. Lerch). John McCain would be the worse thing that happened to this country, but I always have to remember...my vote doesn't count. Whoever "big brothers" want in there they will put in there.
The next president will be chosen, but not by you sm
The people that take the time to vote will decide the election and you will not be one of them. It is not a predetermined thing. Take the few minutes that it takes and exercise your right to vote.
|
