Your opinion on the job that President Obama is doing so far (1 Viewer)

Phurfur said:

flufhed said:

EasyMorningRebel said:

Fennis said:

Greetings gate

all of the Obamas bows, handshakes, and touchings that upset the Religious Right all in one article.

Michelle Obama Handshake the Latest First Family Greeting Mishap

Click to expand...

The religious right? Oh...fishing. Right.

Click to expand...

Huh?Isn't it the religious right that comes unglued at all things Obama, or have I been watching a spoof television show for the last couple years.

Click to expand...

Yup, spoof television. NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and the best part is that you believe them.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

But did they and their staffs actually read the crux of the bill? Silly to assume they didn't.

Click to expand...

Yesterday, President Yudhoyono and I announced a new Comprehensive Partnership between the United States and Indonesia. We are increasing ties between our governments in many different areas, and -- just as importantly -- we are increasing ties among our people. This is a partnership of equals, grounded in mutual interests and mutual respect.

Click to expand...

Statorama said:

From Obama's Indonesian speech today

Yesterday, President Yudhoyono and I announced a new Comprehensive Partnership between the United States and Indonesia. We are increasing ties between our governments in many different areas, and -- just as importantly -- we are increasing ties among our people. This is a partnership of equals, grounded in mutual interests and mutual respect.

Click to expand...

FU Barry. America does not equal Indonesia.

Click to expand...

White House edits stain its reliance on science

By DINA CAPPIELLO, Associated Press Dina Cappiello, Associated Press – 2 hrs 31 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The oil spill that damaged the Gulf of Mexico's reefs and wetlands is also threatening to stain the Obama administration's reputation for relying on science to guide policy.

Academics, environmentalists and federal investigators have accused the administration since the April spill of downplaying scientific findings, misrepresenting data and most recently misconstruing the opinions of experts it solicited.

Meanwhile, the owner of the rig that exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, Transocean Ltd., is renewing its argument that federal investigators are in danger of allowing the blowout preventer, a key piece of evidence, to corrode as it awaits forensic analysis. Testing had not begun as of last week, the company says, some two months after it was raised from the seafloor.

The blowout preventer could be a key piece of evidence in lawsuits filed by victims, survivors and others. Transocean was responsible for maintaining it while it was being used on BP's well. Investigators agreed to flush the control pods with fluid on Sept. 27 to prevent corrosion. But a Transocean lawyer wrote in his Nov. 3 letter that there have been no further preservation steps on the blowout preventer since then.

The latest complaint from scientists comes in a report by the Interior Department's inspector general, which concluded that the White House edited a drilling safety report in a way that made it falsely appear that scientists and experts supported the administration's six-month ban on new deep-water drilling. The AP obtained the report early Wednesday.

The inspector general said the editing changes by the White House resulted "in the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer reviewed." But it hadn't been. Outside scientists were asked only to review new safety measures for offshore drilling.

"There are really only a few people that know what they are talking about" on offshore drilling," said Ford Brett, managing director of Petroskills, a Tulsa, Okla.-based petroleum training organization. "The people who make this policy do not ... so don't misrepresent me and use me for cover," said Brett, one of seven experts who reviewed the report.

In a statement issued Wednesday, the White House insisted the review was properly coordinated and pointed to the inspector general's findings.

"Following a review that included interviews with peer review experts, the Inspector General found no intentional misrepresentation of their views...The decision to implement a six-month moratorium on deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico was correctly based on the need for adequate spill response, well containment and safety measures, and we stand behind that decision," White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton said.

Last month, staff for the presidential oil spill commission said that the White House's budget office delayed publication of a scientific report that forecast how much oil could reach the Gulf's shores. Federal scientists initially used a volume of oil that did not account for the administration's various cleanup efforts, but the government ultimately cited smaller amounts of oil.

The same report said that President Barack Obama's energy adviser, Carol Browner, mischaracterized on national TV a government analysis about where the oil went, saying it showed most of the oil was "gone." The report said it could still be there. It also said that Browner and the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Jane Lubchenco, contributed to the public's perception the report was more exact than it was by emphasizing peer review.

The new inspector general report said Browner's staff implied that scientists had endorsed the drilling moratorium, by raising a reference to peer review in the drilling safety report. At least one outside expert who was involved said he was convinced afterward that it wasn't a deliberate deception, and Interior Department officials told the inspector general they didn't deliberately make changes to cause confusion.

"There was no intent to mislead the public," said Kendra Barkoff, a spokeswoman for Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who also recommended in the May 27 safety report that a moratorium be placed on deep-water oil and gas exploration. "The decision to impose a temporary moratorium on deep-water drilling was made by the secretary, following consultation with colleagues including the White House."

After one of the reviewers complained, the Interior Department promptly issued an apology during a conference call, in a formal letter and during a personal meeting in June.

All seven experts asked to review the Interior Department's work expressed concern about the change made by the White House, saying that it differed in important ways from the draft they had approved.

"We believe the report does not justify the moratorium as written, and that the moratorium as changed will not contribute measurably to increased safety and will have immediate and long-term economic effects," the scientists wrote earlier this year to Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Sens. Mary Landrieu and David Vitter. "The secretary should be free to recommend whatever he thinks is correct, but he should not be free to use our names to justify his political decisions."

Those complaints were similar to those of other scientists.

"Their estimates always seemed to be biased to the best case," said Joseph Montoya, a biology professor at Georgia Tech. "A number of scientists have experienced a strong push back."

The inspector general's report said the administration did not violate federal rules because the executive summary did not say the experts approved of the moratorium and because the department publicly clarified what the experts said and had offered a formal apology.

Click to expand...

SEOUL, South Korea – Leaders of 20 major economies on Friday refused to back a U.S. push to make China boost its currency's value, keeping alive a dispute that raises fears of a global trade war amid criticism that cheap Chinese exports are costing American jobs.

A joint statement issued by the leaders including President Barack Obama and China's Hu Jintao tried to recreate the unity that was evident when the Group of 20 rich and developing nations held its first summit two years ago during the global financial meltdown.

But deep divisions, especially over the U.S.-China currency dispute, left G-20 officials negotiating all night to draft a watered-down statement for the leaders to endorse.

"Instead of hitting home runs sometimes we're gonna hit singles. But they're really important singles," Obama told a news conference after the summit.

Other leaders also tried to portray the summit as a success, pointing to their pledges to fight protectionism and develop guidelines next year that will measure the imbalances between trade surplus and trade deficit countries.

The G-20's failure to adopt the U.S. stand has underlined Washington's reduced influence on the international stage, especially on economic matters. In another setback, Obama also failed to conclude a free trade agreement this week with South Korea.

The biggest disappointment for the United States was the pledge by the leaders to refrain from "competitive devaluation" of currencies. Such a statement is of little consequence since countries usually only devalue their currencies — making it less worth against the dollar — in extreme situations like a severe financial crisis.

The statement decided against using a slightly different wording favored by the U.S. — "competitive undervaluation," which would have shown the G-20 taking a stronger stance on China's currency policy.

The crux of the dispute is Washington's allegations that Beijing is artificially keeping its currency, the yuan, weak to gain a trade advantage.

U.S. business lobbies say that a cheaper yuan costs American jobs because production moves to China to take advantage of low labor costs and undervalued currency.

A stronger yuan would shrink the U.S. trade deficit with China, which is on track this year to match its 2008 record of $268 billion, and encourage Chinese companies to sell more to their own consumers rather than rely so much on the U.S. and others to buy low-priced Chinese goods.

But the U.S. position has been undermined by its own central bank's decision to print $600 billion to boost a sluggish economy, which is weakening the dollar.

Also, developing countries like Thailand and Indonesia fear that much of the "hot" money will flood their markets, where returns are higher. Such emerging markets could be left vulnerable to a crash if investors later decide to pull out and move their money elsewhere.

Obama said China's currency policy is an "irritant" not just for the United States but for many of its other trading partners. The G-20 countries — ranging from industrialized nations such as U.S. and Germany to developing ones like China, Brazil and India — account for 85 percent of the world's economic activity.

"China spends enormous amounts of money intervening in the market to keep it undervalued so what we have said is it is important for China in a gradual fashion to transition to a market based system," Obama said.

The dispute is threatening to resurrect destructive protectionist policies like those that worsened the Great Depression in the 1930s. The biggest fear is that trade barriers will send the global economy back into recession.

The possibility of a currency war "absolutely" remains, said Brazilian Finance Minister Guido Mantega.

Friday's statement is also unlikely to resolve the most vexing problem facing the G-20 members: how to fix a global economy that's long been marked by huge U.S. trade deficits with exporters like China, Germany and Japan.

Americans consume far more in foreign goods and services from these countries than they sell abroad.

The G-20 leaders said they will try to reduce the gaps between nations running large trade surpluses and those running deficits.

The "persistently large imbalances" in current accounts — a broad measure of a nation's trade and investment with the rest of the world — would be measured by what they called "indicative guidelines" to be determined later.

The leaders called for the guidelines to be developed by the G-20, along with help from the International Monetary Fund and other global organizations, and for finance ministers and central bank governors to meet in the first half of next year to discuss progress.

Analysts were not convinced.

"Leaders are putting the best face on matters by suggesting that it is the process that matters rather than results," said Stephen Lewis, chief economist for London-based Monument Securities.

"The only concrete agreement seems to be that they should go on measuring the size of the problem rather than doing something about it."

Click to expand...

Orange Crush said:

The Fed has an inflation target of 2% a year. That target has been the same for almost 20 years now (maybe more). The QE is only being used because other tools haven't gotten the job done. Inflation is now below 1% and falling, threatening deflation. Having a stable inflation rate in the U.S. is good for the rest of the world as they can better make projections regarding their businesses exports, tax policies, monetary policies, etc., etc., etc. China's goal is to keep their currency undervalued to promote their exports. This is usually inflationary, but so far they've been able to keep ahead of that with double-digit annual growth percentages. But that imbalance, it is argued, takes economic growth away from the rest of the world and transfers it to China. In the meantime, an offshoot of that policy is that China accrues a huge amount of dollars. Normally, that would make China's economy incredibly dependent on the other country's monetary policy. But because the dollar is the default global currency, China can use those dollars in trade for other goods (especially oil and natural gas). Still, the current set-up is not sustainable. Eventually, the currencies involved will adjust. The dollar will go down and the Chines yuan will go up.The rest of the world is concerned that QE may be the triggering point for that re-valuation, and they don't want that to happen just yet (or ever). It also reminds them of the problems to them for having the dollar be the default global currency -- their economies are strongly affected by U.S. monetary policy. But that's the price that is to be paid for global security paid for by the U.S., as well as U.S. consumption being the motor driving the entire world's economy. The rest of the world is just whining. Like the American voter, they want the good stuff without having to pay for it.

Click to expand...

Statorama said:

From Obama's Indonesian speech today

Yesterday, President Yudhoyono and I announced a new Comprehensive Partnership between the United States and Indonesia. We are increasing ties between our governments in many different areas, and -- just as importantly -- we are increasing ties among our people. This is a partnership of equals, grounded in mutual interests and mutual respect.

Click to expand...

FU Barry. America does not equal Indonesia.

Click to expand...

CrossEyed said:

Statorama said:

From Obama's Indonesian speech today

Yesterday, President Yudhoyono and I announced a new Comprehensive Partnership between the United States and Indonesia. We are increasing ties between our governments in many different areas, and -- just as importantly -- we are increasing ties among our people. This is a partnership of equals, grounded in mutual interests and mutual respect.

Click to expand...

FU Barry. America does not equal Indonesia.

Click to expand...

We're all just one big happy global community now, haven't you heard?

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

Since you're trying to catch me in a contradiction, Bueno, let me make myself clear: there are some things that Obama can do to help, like the C-17s deal, and I highly approve. That's not going to dent the overall percentages, though. Long term, Obama can really hurt our economy by giving into the unions and accepting protectionism. The fact that he has chosen not to do this is very good news IMO. But that's not going to affect short-term unemployment percentages either. There is NOTHING he can do, IMO, that will make those better or worse.

Click to expand...

Jewell said:

Scarborough: Top Democrats in the U.S. Senate Have All Told Me That Obama "Has No Idea What He’s Doing"

Could just be sour grapes.

Click to expand...

Jewell said:

Scarborough: Top Democrats in the U.S. Senate Have All Told Me That Obama "Has No Idea What He’s Doing"

Could just be sour grapes.

Click to expand...

As part of Google’s “Street View” operation, fleets of specially outfitted cars drove through multiple countries collecting photos, video and, as Google now admits, sensitive personal information from WiFi connections. Yet in late October, the Federal Trade Commission abruptly ended its investigation of “Street View” – a decision that came on the heels not only of Google’s admission that its surveillance was much more serious than previously disclosed but only days after a $30,000-a-head fundraiser for President Obama at the home of a Google executive.

The FTC’s decision came only four days after Google admitted a key fact it had long denied: that “Street View” did capture URLs, e-mails and passwords. In addition to Google’s credibility being shredded, this news should raise serious questions about eavesdropping, wiretapping and consumer protection.

With the FTC’s incredible decision not to investigate, consumers must turn to Congress to get to the bottom of these serious privacy violations.

Click to expand...

Statorama said:

FTC washes hands of Google case after Google sponsors $30,000 per person fundraiser for Obama

As part of Google’s “Street View” operation, fleets of specially outfitted cars drove through multiple countries collecting photos, video and, as Google now admits, sensitive personal information from WiFi connections. Yet in late October, the Federal Trade Commission abruptly ended its investigation of “Street View” – a decision that came on the heels not only of Google’s admission that its surveillance was much more serious than previously disclosed but only days after a $30,000-a-head fundraiser for President Obama at the home of a Google executive.

The FTC’s decision came only four days after Google admitted a key fact it had long denied: that “Street View” did capture URLs, e-mails and passwords. In addition to Google’s credibility being shredded, this news should raise serious questions about eavesdropping, wiretapping and consumer protection.

With the FTC’s incredible decision not to investigate, consumers must turn to Congress to get to the bottom of these serious privacy violations.

Click to expand...

More Google/Obama ties

Click to expand...

Orange Crush said:

Statorama said:

FTC washes hands of Google case after Google sponsors $30,000 per person fundraiser for Obama

As part of Google’s “Street View” operation, fleets of specially outfitted cars drove through multiple countries collecting photos, video and, as Google now admits, sensitive personal information from WiFi connections. Yet in late October, the Federal Trade Commission abruptly ended its investigation of “Street View” – a decision that came on the heels not only of Google’s admission that its surveillance was much more serious than previously disclosed but only days after a $30,000-a-head fundraiser for President Obama at the home of a Google executive.

The FTC’s decision came only four days after Google admitted a key fact it had long denied: that “Street View” did capture URLs, e-mails and passwords. In addition to Google’s credibility being shredded, this news should raise serious questions about eavesdropping, wiretapping and consumer protection.

With the FTC’s incredible decision not to investigate, consumers must turn to Congress to get to the bottom of these serious privacy violations.

Click to expand...

More Google/Obama ties

Click to expand...

And you're just as concerned regarding corporate ties to Republican officeholders and the quid pro quos that they receive, yes?

Click to expand...

Statorama said:

From Obama's Indonesian speech today

Yesterday, President Yudhoyono and I announced a new Comprehensive Partnership between the United States and Indonesia. We are increasing ties between our governments in many different areas, and -- just as importantly -- we are increasing ties among our people. This is a partnership of equals, grounded in mutual interests and mutual respect.

Click to expand...

FU Barry. America does not equal Indonesia.

Click to expand...

It starts with the word "neighbor.'' And that is what I talked about down there and sought their partnership, their equal partnership in we of the Western Hemisphere coming together to truly develop, fully, the potential this hemisphere has.

Click to expand...

Jewell said:

Scarborough: Top Democrats in the U.S. Senate Have All Told Me That Obama "Has No Idea What He’s Doing"

Could just be sour grapes.

Click to expand...

Orange Crush said:

Statorama said:

FTC washes hands of Google case after Google sponsors $30,000 per person fundraiser for Obama

As part of Google’s “Street View” operation, fleets of specially outfitted cars drove through multiple countries collecting photos, video and, as Google now admits, sensitive personal information from WiFi connections. Yet in late October, the Federal Trade Commission abruptly ended its investigation of “Street View” – a decision that came on the heels not only of Google’s admission that its surveillance was much more serious than previously disclosed but only days after a $30,000-a-head fundraiser for President Obama at the home of a Google executive.

The FTC’s decision came only four days after Google admitted a key fact it had long denied: that “Street View” did capture URLs, e-mails and passwords. In addition to Google’s credibility being shredded, this news should raise serious questions about eavesdropping, wiretapping and consumer protection.

With the FTC’s incredible decision not to investigate, consumers must turn to Congress to get to the bottom of these serious privacy violations.

Click to expand...

More Google/Obama ties

Click to expand...

And you're just as concerned regarding corporate ties to Republican officeholders and the quid pro quos that they receive, yes?

Click to expand...

Statorama said:

Orange Crush said:

Statorama said:

FTC washes hands of Google case after Google sponsors $30,000 per person fundraiser for Obama

As part of Google’s “Street View” operation, fleets of specially outfitted cars drove through multiple countries collecting photos, video and, as Google now admits, sensitive personal information from WiFi connections. Yet in late October, the Federal Trade Commission abruptly ended its investigation of “Street View” – a decision that came on the heels not only of Google’s admission that its surveillance was much more serious than previously disclosed but only days after a $30,000-a-head fundraiser for President Obama at the home of a Google executive.

The FTC’s decision came only four days after Google admitted a key fact it had long denied: that “Street View” did capture URLs, e-mails and passwords. In addition to Google’s credibility being shredded, this news should raise serious questions about eavesdropping, wiretapping and consumer protection.

With the FTC’s incredible decision not to investigate, consumers must turn to Congress to get to the bottom of these serious privacy violations.

Click to expand...

More Google/Obama ties

Click to expand...

And you're just as concerned regarding corporate ties to Republican officeholders and the quid pro quos that they receive, yes?

Click to expand...

Nixon resigned for less.

Click to expand...

bueno said:

timschochet said:

Since you're trying to catch me in a contradiction, Bueno, let me make myself clear: there are some things that Obama can do to help, like the C-17s deal, and I highly approve. That's not going to dent the overall percentages, though. Long term, Obama can really hurt our economy by giving into the unions and accepting protectionism. The fact that he has chosen not to do this is very good news IMO. But that's not going to affect short-term unemployment percentages either. There is NOTHING he can do, IMO, that will make those better or worse.

Click to expand...

I disagree, and doubt we will ever see eye to eye on this issue. What he is doing that hurts employment is he has created a climate of uncertainty in which business owners are afraid to invest. By contrast, Reagan and Clinton both created an environment of certainty in which business owners weren't afraid to invest. Obama is the worst leader that I have ever seen in my lifetime. He is certainly the most anti-business leader we have ever had.

Click to expand...

Fensalk said:

Jewell said:

Scarborough: Top Democrats in the U.S. Senate Have All Told Me That Obama "Has No Idea What He’s Doing"

Could just be sour grapes.

Click to expand...

Obama was elected because he wasn't a Washington insider. Are you telling me that the people who voted for him should be upset that he is doing things in ways that upset the Washington establishment? He was hired to upset the apple cart, change the way Washington does things. I suppose some insiders will view this as Obama not knowing what he is doing. Maybe in some cases they are right. But he promised he would do this, for good or for bad, and he won the election and right to do it. Perhaps Obama misread what the public wanted him to do though. Obama campaigned on changing things and being an outsider, and he was elected. Correlation does not equal causation though. Maybe he wasn't hired for hope and change. He may have simply been hired to fix the economy, regardless of what he campaigned on.

Click to expand...

Fensalk said:

Jewell said:

Scarborough: Top Democrats in the U.S. Senate Have All Told Me That Obama "Has No Idea What He’s Doing"

Could just be sour grapes.

Click to expand...

Obama was elected because he wasn't a Washington insider. Are you telling me that the people who voted for him should be upset that he is doing things in ways that upset the Washington establishment? He was hired to upset the apple cart, change the way Washington does things. I suppose some insiders will view this as Obama not knowing what he is doing. Maybe in some cases they are right. But he promised he would do this, for good or for bad, and he won the election and right to do it. Perhaps Obama misread what the public wanted him to do though. Obama campaigned on changing things and being an outsider, and he was elected. Correlation does not equal causation though. Maybe he wasn't hired for hope and change. He may have simply been hired to fix the economy, regardless of what he campaigned on.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

bueno said:

timschochet said:

Since you're trying to catch me in a contradiction, Bueno, let me make myself clear: there are some things that Obama can do to help, like the C-17s deal, and I highly approve. That's not going to dent the overall percentages, though. Long term, Obama can really hurt our economy by giving into the unions and accepting protectionism. The fact that he has chosen not to do this is very good news IMO. But that's not going to affect short-term unemployment percentages either. There is NOTHING he can do, IMO, that will make those better or worse.

Click to expand...

I disagree, and doubt we will ever see eye to eye on this issue. What he is doing that hurts employment is he has created a climate of uncertainty in which business owners are afraid to invest. By contrast, Reagan and Clinton both created an environment of certainty in which business owners weren't afraid to invest. Obama is the worst leader that I have ever seen in my lifetime. He is certainly the most anti-business leader we have ever had.

Click to expand...

I have heard this over and over again from conservatives. It gets repeated like gospel and no one bothers to dissect it. It makes little sense to me. Obama would like to impose cap and trade, but he hasn't done it and now he won't. He would like to increase taxes on the top 2%, but he hasn't done it and now it looks like he won't, either. The "uncertainty" argument suggests that businesses would prefer having cap and trade imposed rather than being unsure if it's going to be imposed, which is absurd. It also suggests that, now that Obamacare has passed, businesses would prefer that Congress not tiniker with it- don't want to have uncertainty about what might happen!

In any event, I don't really buy that uncertainty over government action or inaction is what prevents businesses from investing. They invest when they start selling their products, and that's when they hire more people as well. For Obama to affect employment in the United States in the short term, he would have to dampen consumerism. I don't think he's done this, and I don't know how he could if he wanted to.

Click to expand...

Orange Crush said:

Statorama said:

Orange Crush said:

Statorama said:

FTC washes hands of Google case after Google sponsors $30,000 per person fundraiser for Obama

As part of Google's "Street View" operation, fleets of specially outfitted cars drove through multiple countries collecting photos, video and, as Google now admits, sensitive personal information from WiFi connections. Yet in late October, the Federal Trade Commission abruptly ended its investigation of "Street View" – a decision that came on the heels not only of Google's admission that its surveillance was much more serious than previously disclosed but only days after a $30,000-a-head fundraiser for President Obama at the home of a Google executive.

The FTC's decision came only four days after Google admitted a key fact it had long denied: that "Street View" did capture URLs, e-mails and passwords. In addition to Google's credibility being shredded, this news should raise serious questions about eavesdropping, wiretapping and consumer protection.

With the FTC's incredible decision not to investigate, consumers must turn to Congress to get to the bottom of these serious privacy violations.

Click to expand...

More Google/Obama ties

Click to expand...

And you're just as concerned regarding corporate ties to Republican officeholders and the quid pro quos that they receive, yes?

Click to expand...

Nixon resigned for less.

Click to expand...

That's rich.

We just witnessed an election where corporations poured billions of dollars into campaign re-election efforts, favoring Republicans over Democrats on a 6:1 to 9:1 ratio, , but the Dems looking into that would be showing how they are "anti-business" whereas Republicans looking into Democrats is corruption worse than Nixon.

Ok, got it.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

bueno said:

timschochet said:

Since you're trying to catch me in a contradiction, Bueno, let me make myself clear: there are some things that Obama can do to help, like the C-17s deal, and I highly approve. That's not going to dent the overall percentages, though. Long term, Obama can really hurt our economy by giving into the unions and accepting protectionism. The fact that he has chosen not to do this is very good news IMO. But that's not going to affect short-term unemployment percentages either. There is NOTHING he can do, IMO, that will make those better or worse.

Click to expand...

I disagree, and doubt we will ever see eye to eye on this issue. What he is doing that hurts employment is he has created a climate of uncertainty in which business owners are afraid to invest. By contrast, Reagan and Clinton both created an environment of certainty in which business owners weren't afraid to invest. Obama is the worst leader that I have ever seen in my lifetime. He is certainly the most anti-business leader we have ever had.

Click to expand...

It also suggests that, now that Obamacare has passed, businesses would prefer that Congress not tiniker with it- don't want to have uncertainty about what might happen!

Click to expand...

Phurfur said:

timschochet said:

bueno said:

timschochet said:

Since you're trying to catch me in a contradiction, Bueno, let me make myself clear: there are some things that Obama can do to help, like the C-17s deal, and I highly approve. That's not going to dent the overall percentages, though. Long term, Obama can really hurt our economy by giving into the unions and accepting protectionism. The fact that he has chosen not to do this is very good news IMO. But that's not going to affect short-term unemployment percentages either. There is NOTHING he can do, IMO, that will make those better or worse.

Click to expand...

I disagree, and doubt we will ever see eye to eye on this issue. What he is doing that hurts employment is he has created a climate of uncertainty in which business owners are afraid to invest. By contrast, Reagan and Clinton both created an environment of certainty in which business owners weren't afraid to invest. Obama is the worst leader that I have ever seen in my lifetime. He is certainly the most anti-business leader we have ever had.

Click to expand...

I have heard this over and over again from conservatives. It gets repeated like gospel and no one bothers to dissect it. It makes little sense to me. Obama would like to impose cap and trade, but he hasn't done it and now he won't. He would like to increase taxes on the top 2%, but he hasn't done it and now it looks like he won't, either. The "uncertainty" argument suggests that businesses would prefer having cap and trade imposed rather than being unsure if it's going to be imposed, which is absurd. It also suggests that, now that Obamacare has passed, businesses would prefer that Congress not tiniker with it- don't want to have uncertainty about what might happen!

In any event, I don't really buy that uncertainty over government action or inaction is what prevents businesses from investing. They invest when they start selling their products, and that's when they hire more people as well. For Obama to affect employment in the United States in the short term, he would have to dampen consumerism. I don't think he's done this, and I don't know how he could if he wanted to.

Click to expand...

Nobody knows what will happen with Obamacare that is why it has to be repealed. Obamacare is part of the uncertainty.

Why do you think businesses are sitting on $2 trillion and are not expanding? It is the same reason consumers aren't spending, uncertainty about the future.

Since you reject the obvious explanation what do you think is the cause of the problem?

Click to expand...

Phurfur said:

Orange Crush said:

Statorama said:

Orange Crush said:

Statorama said:

FTC washes hands of Google case after Google sponsors $30,000 per person fundraiser for Obama

More Google/Obama ties

Click to expand...

And you're just as concerned regarding corporate ties to Republican officeholders and the quid pro quos that they receive, yes?

Click to expand...

Nixon resigned for less.

Click to expand...

That's rich.

We just witnessed an election where corporations poured billions of dollars into campaign re-election efforts, favoring Republicans over Democrats on a 6:1 to 9:1 ratio, , but the Dems looking into that would be showing how they are "anti-business" whereas Republicans looking into Democrats is corruption worse than Nixon.

Ok, got it.

Click to expand...

That's rich.Unions gave millions to only one party, there is no ratio. In 2008 Unions gave $400 million to Democratic candidates. I think their employers should have the same right to contribute as the employees. Why do you have a problem with that?

Click to expand...

Orange Crush said:

Go read what I was originally replying to. It's Statorama implying that Obama is doing something for Google because Google gave money to Obama. My problem, currently, is with Statorama's hypocrisy. I don't recall him making any similar posts concerned about corporations getting Republicans to do things in return for their campaign contributions.Oh, and by the way, did anyone else watch 60 minutes tonight, and the little bit regarding **** Cheney's "Haliburton exception" to Federal Clean Water laws?

Click to expand...

Fensalk said:

Jewell said:

Scarborough: Top Democrats in the U.S. Senate Have All Told Me That Obama "Has No Idea What He’s Doing"

Click to expand...

Obama was elected because he wasn't a Washington insider. Are you telling me that the people who voted for him should be upset that he is doing things in ways that upset the Washington establishment? He was hired to upset the apple cart, change the way Washington does things. I suppose some insiders will view this as Obama not knowing what he is doing. Maybe in some cases they are right. But he promised he would do this, for good or for bad, and he won the election and right to do it.

Click to expand...

Fensalk said:

Perhaps Obama misread what the public wanted him to do though. Obama campaigned on changing things and being an outsider, and he was elected. Correlation does not equal causation though. Maybe he wasn't hired for hope and change. He may have simply been hired to fix the economy, regardless of what he campaigned on.

Click to expand...

Statorama said:

Orange Crush said:

Go read what I was originally replying to. It's Statorama implying that Obama is doing something for Google because Google gave money to Obama. My problem, currently, is with Statorama's hypocrisy. I don't recall him making any similar posts concerned about corporations getting Republicans to do things in return for their campaign contributions.Oh, and by the way, did anyone else watch 60 minutes tonight, and the little bit regarding **** Cheney's "Haliburton exception" to Federal Clean Water laws?

Click to expand...

The reason why I do what I do here is because you won't hear about these issues on your nightly news. Or CNN. If you want to hear a diatribe about the evils of Haliburton or whatever other things Republicans are into, just watch the news or read a newspaper. They don't need me to post links about it to keep people informed on those matters.If Issa doesn't investigate this, you'll never hear about it outside of what I post.Think about it.

Click to expand...

greenroom said:

Statorama said:

Orange Crush said:

Go read what I was originally replying to. It's Statorama implying that Obama is doing something for Google because Google gave money to Obama. My problem, currently, is with Statorama's hypocrisy. I don't recall him making any similar posts concerned about corporations getting Republicans to do things in return for their campaign contributions.Oh, and by the way, did anyone else watch 60 minutes tonight, and the little bit regarding **** Cheney's "Haliburton exception" to Federal Clean Water laws?

Click to expand...

The reason why I do what I do here is because you won't hear about these issues on your nightly news. Or CNN. If you want to hear a diatribe about the evils of Haliburton or whatever other things Republicans are into, just watch the news or read a newspaper. They don't need me to post links about it to keep people informed on those matters.If Issa doesn't investigate this, you'll never hear about it outside of what I post.Think about it.

Click to expand...

Please don't act like this is not covered by the news. If you want to hear about the Republican slant everyone knows to go to Fox News. So don't act like you have to "warn" everyone when all the information is out there for people to view. The people that read this thread understand where and how to research the information so they can form a personal view. Just own up to the fact that you dislike the President of the United States and what he is doing, because he does not fit your views.

Click to expand...

In the terrific conference on the Constitution and the Financial Crisis that Co-Conspirator Todd and I were privileged to attend last week at Stanford Law School, one of the panelists (this was a panel looking at the peculiar incentives and disincentives created for corporate governance by having government as a controlling shareholder, as in GM) pointed out something I had completely missed and apparently a number of other people in that highly expert audience. A WSJ article of November 3, 2010, by Randall Smith and Sharon Terlep, points to a little-noticed IRS ruling on GM’s tax-loss carryforwards from years prior to the bailout. The amount at issue is potentially $45 billion. (If someone has a link to the ruling, I’ll link here.)

Although ordinarily a company in the midst of major restructuring would have limits on its ability to use the carryforwards — and ordinarily the Treasury’s 61% stake would trigger such limitations — the IRS has ruled that companies receiving TARP bailout funds will not be subject to the restructuring limits. (Someone can correct me, since is from memory (one of my first assignments in practice back when I started as a tax lawyer was on this very question, but I have long since dropped out of corporate tax), but I believe this is a classic section 382 problem (corrected per comment).) The WSJ story puts the argument and counter-argument over the ruling this way:

But the federal government, in a little-noticed ruling last year, decided that companies that received U.S. bailout money under the Troubled Asset Relief Program won’t fall under that rule.

“The Internal Revenue Service has decided that the government’s involvement with these companies, both its acquisitions plus its disposals of their stock, means they should be exempt” from the rule, said Robert Willens, a New York tax consultant who advises investment banks and hedge funds.

The government’s rationale, said people familiar with the situation, is that the profit-shielding tax credit makes the bailed-out companies more attractive to investors, and that the value of the benefit is greater than the lost tax payments, especially since the tax payments would not exist if the companies fail.

In terms of the “internal” question as between GM and taxpayers, one takes the point that one can see this as saving money for the taxpayer or at least simply moving the losses from one pocket to another. That’s is so, at least on my fast read. But even granting that, in another way it’s part of the problem. The tax losses were generated under circumstances in which the losses and associated tax attributes, good and bad and with the tax code limitations as understood then, were about a company in which it was on one side and the Treasury as a revenue collection machine on the other. All of a sudden, the US government has a very different interest in the company, no longer at arms length, and so now we simply see it as a shift from the taxpayer’s right to left pockets, net position unchanged. That is true at this moment; it is not true of the situation seen over time.

But probably the biggest question the ruling raises is not about the “internal” question for GM and its USG owner, it is about its relative position to its competitors. Even if this is just shifting from one pocket to another now that the owner is the USG, it is not merely that for GM’s competitors, who have to cope with a company that, relative to them, now has in effect “found” money. Which, as the panelists at Stanford pointed out last week, is a real issue for the government as privileged competitor in the marketplace. Just saying that it doesn’t matter as between government and company is not the whole story; it is also how a change in otherwise long-standing rules changes the relative positions of competitors in the marketplace.

Click to expand...

The first former Guantánamo detainee to be tried in a civilian court was acquitted on Wednesday of all but one of more than 280 charges of conspiracy and murder in the 1998 terrorist bombings of the United States Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

Click to expand...

In the ruling, the judge, Lewis A. Kaplan of Federal District Court in Manhattan, barred prosecutors from using an important witness against Mr. Ghailani because the government had learned about the man through Mr. Ghailani’s interrogation while he was in C.I.A. custody, where his lawyers say he was tortured.

The witness, Hussein Abebe, would have testified that he had sold Mr. Ghailani the TNT used to blow up the embassy in Dar es Salaam, prosecutors told the judge, calling him “a giant witness for the government.”

Click to expand...

eoMMan said:

Is this where we get our massage updates now?

Click to expand...

Rate of Increase Rises Significantly as Companies Struggle to Keep up with the Rapidly Evolving Health Care Landscape

LINCOLNSHIRE, Ill. – Due to recent higher medical claim costs, an aging population and changes brought about by health care reform, employers can expect 2011 health care cost increases to be at their highest levels in five years, according to an analysis by Hewitt Associates, a global human resources consulting and outsourcing company. Next year, Hewitt projects an 8.8 percent average premium increase for employers, compared to 6.9 percent in 2010 and 6.0 percent in 2009.

According to Hewitt's analysis, the average total health care premium per employee for large companies will be $9,821 in 2011, up from $9,028 in 2010. The amount employees will be asked to contribute toward this cost is $2,209, or 22.5 percent of the total health care premium. This is up 12.4 percent from 2010, when employees contributed $1,966, or 21.8 percent of the total health care premium. Average employee out-of-pocket costs, such as copayments, coinsurance and deductibles, are expected to be $2,177 in 2011—a 12.5 percent increase from 2010 ($1,934). These projections mean that in a decade, total health care premiums will have more than doubled, from $4,083 in 2001 to $9,821 in 2011. Employees' share of medical costs—including employee contributions and out-of-pocket costs—will have more than tripled, from $1,229 in 2001 to $4,386 in 2011.

According to Hewitt, a variety of factors are driving the increase in projected health care cost increases for 2011. Employers are seeing an increase in the amount of charges and frequency of catastrophic claims. This is particularly true today, as slower levels of hiring have left employers with slightly older workforces who are more prone to costly medical conditions. Hewitt estimates that the most immediate applications of health care reform—including covering dependents to age 26 and the elimination of certain lifetime and annual limits—contributed approximately 1 percent to 2 percent of the 8.8 percent projected increase for 2011.

"After 18 months of waiting for health care reform to play out, employers find themselves in a very challenging cost position for 2011," said Ken Sperling, Hewitt's health care practice leader. "Reform creates opportunities for meaningful change in how health care is delivered in the U.S., but most of these positive effects won't be felt for a few years. In the meantime, employers continue to struggle to balance the significant health care needs of an aging workforce with the economic realities of a difficult business environment. While health care reform cannot be blamed entirely for employers' increasing cost, the incremental expense of complying with the new law adds fuel to the fire, at least for the short term.

"Companies cannot afford to take a 'wait and see' approach to health care benefits. Now is the time for organizations to be bolder about the strategies, programs and tactics they're using to contain cost and motivate employees to engage in their own health," added Sperling.

2010 Cost Increases by Major Metropolitan Area

In 2010, a few U.S. markets experienced rate increases significantly higher than the national average. Five major metropolitan areas in California, for example, experienced rate increases of 10 percent or higher: Los Angeles (10.2 percent), Orange County (10.6 percent), Sacramento (10.7 percent), San Diego (10.8 percent), and San Francisco (10.4 percent). Other U.S. cities experiencing higher-than-average rate increases included Charlotte (9.7 percent); Newark, NJ (10.8 percent); Philadelphia (10 percent); and Tampa (9.2 percent). Conversely, Columbus, Ohio (4.3 percent); Dallas/Ft. Worth (3.7 percent); Portland, OR (4.6 percent); and Washington D.C. (4.0 percent) experienced lower-than-average rate increases in 2010.

"Similar to 2009, workers in California saw higher health care increases this year mainly because more companies in the state offer fully insured HMOs, and increases for these plans have been higher than average," said Bob Tate, Hewitt's chief health actuary and the leader of the annual cost study.

2010 Cost Increases by Plan Type

In 2010, Hewitt saw average cost increases of 7.8 percent for health maintenance organizations (HMOs), 6.9 percent for point-of-service (POS) plans and 6.3 percent for preferred provider organizations (PPOs).

For 2011, Hewitt forecasts that companies will have average cost increases of 8.5 percent for PPOs and POS plans. Companies will see an average cost increase of 9.4 percent for HMOs. That means from 2010 to 2011, the average cost per person for major companies will increase from $8,671 to $9,408 for PPOs; $9,373 to $10,254 for HMOs; and $9,747 to $10,575 for POS plans.

Employer Response to Rate Increases

According to a recent Hewitt survey of 600 large U.S. companies, employers have grown increasingly concerned about rapidly rising health care costs. Almost all (95 percent) of companies say managing costs is a top business issue. To mitigate these costs, employers continue to take a number of proactive steps. These include:

Increasing Employee Cost Sharing: With the cost of providing health care benefits continuing to rise, employers continue to pass some of these costs to employees. In a recent Hewitt survey, "increasing employee cost sharing" was ranked by employers as one of their top five health care tactic priorities over the next three to five years. Workers may see employers passing along these costs in different ways, including:

Shifting plan designs from fixed dollar copayments to coinsurance models, where employees pay a percentage of the out-of-pocket costs for each health care service.

Increasing deductibles out of pocket limits and cost sharing for use of non-network providers.

Managing Dependent Eligibility and Subsidies: An increasing number of employers are realizing they can significantly reduce health care costs by assessing the eligibility of covered dependents in their plans. About three-quarters of Hewitt's health and welfare administration clients have conducted dependent audits in the past five years to assess the eligibility of covered dependents.According to Hewitt's data, on average, 11 percent of people enrolled in an employer's health plan are ineligible. For a company with 10,000 enrollees, this can equate to millions of dollars in health care costs each year.

While still an emerging trend, a growing number of companies are charging premiums on a per-participant basis, rather than through a "lump sum" premium traditionally found within the "individual" and "family" pricing models. Companies may also be shifting more costs to employees by either requiring them to pay more for spousal coverage, or by applying surcharges to encourage dependent spouses to enroll in their own employer's plans. According to Hewitt's SpecSummary database of more than 1,200 companies, 13 percent currently impose a spousal surcharge.

Aggressive Vendor Management and Consolidation: Continuing a trend Hewitt has seen over the past three years, employers are aggressively managing vendor relationships. Programs and vendors that do not deliver measurable, near-term results are being replaced or eliminated. Employers continue to look for "best in class" vendors for certain services, while consolidating vendor relationships to secure volume discounts.

Improving Employee Health: According to recent Hewitt research, disease management and health improvement programs continue to remain a top priority for employers. More than half (53 percent) of companies currently have a disease management/health improvement strategy in place. Of those that don't, 11 percent planned to implement one in 2010 and another 75 percent planned to implement one in the next three to five years.

Also growing in popularity is employers' willingness to use penalties and financial incentives as a way to increase employee participation in these programs. Hewitt's recent survey of 600 large U.S. employers found that nearly one-half (47 percent) say they either already use or plan to use financial penalties over the next three to five years for employees who don't participate in certain health improvement programs. Of those companies, most say they will do so through additional employee cost shifting, such as higher benefit premiums (81 percent), an increase in deductibles (17 percent) and an increase in out-of-pocket expenses (17 percent).

"While employers have taken steps to mitigate costs in 2011, many organizations across all industries are already focused on developing multi-year strategies and a 2012 action plan aimed at resetting their health care programs to reflect today's cost realities and tomorrow's changing health insurance landscape," said Jim Winkler, managing principal and senior health care strategist at Hewitt. "In the wake of reform, rising costs and an increasingly unhealthy workforce, employers know they must reassess the role they play in engaging their workforce to be healthy, present and productive at work."

About Hewitt's Data

Hewitt's data is derived from the Hewitt Health Value Initiative™ database, which contains detailed census, cost and plan design information for 350 large U.S. employers representing 14.4 million participants and $51.9 billion in 2010 health care spending.

Click to expand...

The Obama administration has quietly forged ahead with its proposal to sell $60 billion worth of fighter jets and attack helicopters to Saudi Arabia unhampered by Congress, despite questions raised in legislative inquiries and in an internal congressional report about the wisdom of the deal.

The massive arms deal would be the single largest sale of weapons to a foreign nation in the history of the U.S., outfitting Saudi Arabia with a fully modernized, potent new air force.

"Our six-decade-long security relationship with Saudi Arabia is a primary security pillar in the region," Defense Sec. Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton wrote in a Nov. 16 letter to congress. "This package continues that tradition."

Click to expand...

Statorama said:

Yeah, that's right "independents", look at what you did.You did this.

Click to expand...

I didn't think GM could pull off their IPO, but they did. It's especially impressive, in a better-than-expected kind of way, that government has reduced its stake to less than 30%.* (That $45 billion tax subsidy was just a gift, really. We don't want any stock for that.) Kausfiles has two official fallback positions:

1) Suckers: GM found a lot of them, even though a) by its own admission, it lacks "effective internal controls" over its finances; b) it's still saddled with the UAW, which is already pledging 'no more concessions' and even making some trouble; c) its Opel subsidiary is hemorhaging money at a rate of billions a year; d) a high Opel official declared the IPO "premature" while noting that "there is still too much red tape and inefficiency;" e) it has surrendered a majority stake in its promising Chinese joint venture to its Chinese partner f) its bailout plan assumes it will maintain a market share of 19 percent, but its share most recently fell to 18.3 percent, part of a decades-long decline; g) who knows what accounting gimmickry was used to dress up the books; h) the government has intervened in GM's decisionmaking more than it's let on; i) we don't know if GM's new products (like the Chevrolet Cruze) will have traditional GM reliability--the company better hope not; and j) the name "General Motors' is now so tarnished that the company is removing it from auto show displays, hoping buyers will not associate "Buick" or "Chevrolet" with such a negative brand .... P.S.: GM stock purchasers won't be suckers, of course, if their shares rise. So far, they've risen 3.6 percent, even though the NYT reported that "several of the people involved in the offering said they expect to see a potential 10 to 20 percent jump in the share price on Thursday, typical for an initial offering."

2) It's all about China: Even if GM is now a solid investment, that might have very little to do with its future North American operations and everything to do with Chinese operations. Simply put, the most obvious route to big profitability isn't selling American-made Buicks to the Chinese, or even Chinese-made Buicks to the Chinese. It's selling Chinese-made Buicks in the United States--and all over the globe. Let the UAW try to organize the workers in Shanghai. ... Michigan Democrat John Dingell says he has "full faith that GM will continue to make good on the American taxpayers' investment in it ...and, most importantly, continue to invest right here in the U.S. and put Americans back to work." Alternatively, GM will decide to make a lot of money. If the latter course gets chosen, Obama's intervention still saved lots of jobs, but only temporarily.** And it helped create a branded Chinese competitor for Ford ...

__________

* Update: actually, the government apparently failed to get its stake to below 30 percent. The latest estimate is 33 percent.

** I favored the bailout, though I thought Obama should have driven a much harder bargain, especially with the UAW (whose contract would have been voidable in a normal bankruptcy). That would have given"new GM" a better chance of survival and served as a stronger deterrent to future executives and labor leaders who might put their firms at risk. ...

Click to expand...

WASHINGTON -- At a private meeting on Tuesday afternoon, George Soros, a longtime supporter of progressive causes, voiced blunt criticism of the Obama administration, going so far as to suggest that Democratic donors direct their support somewhere other than the president.

The Hungarian-American financier was speaking to a small side gathering of donors who had convened in Washington D.C. for the annual gathering of the Democracy Alliance -- a formal community of well-funded, progressive-minded individuals and activists.

According to multiple sources with knowledge of his remarks, Soros told those in attendance that he is "used to fighting losing battles but doesn't like to lose without fighting."

"We have just lost this election, we need to draw a line," he said, according to several Democratic sources. "And if this president can't do what we need, it is time to start looking somewhere else."

Michael Vachon, an adviser to Soros, did not dispute the comment, though he stressed that there was no transcript of a private gathering to check. Vachon also clarified that the longtime progressive giver was not referring to a primary challenge to the president.

"Mr. Soros fully supports the president as the leader of the Democratic Party," said Vachon. "He was not suggesting that we seek another candidate for 2012. His comments were made in a private, informal conversation that was about the need for progressives to be more forceful in promoting their agenda. He was stressing the importance of being heard by elected officials."

Dissatisfaction with the Obama administration was not limited to Soros's private gathering with donors. On Wednesday morning, Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina received several tough questions during his address to the Democracy Alliance. According to a source in the room, he was pressed multiple times as to why the administration has declined to be more combative with Republicans, both in communication and legislative strategy. Another source in the room said the exchange was not entirely contentious as people were simply expressing frustration about the fact that "we just came out of an election where the right wing and the Republicans distorted what was going on."

Requests for comment from the White House were not returned, though a Democratic operative sympathetic to the administration said that Soros's dissatisfaction with the White House was "hardly news." Sources who relayed that and other exchanges insisted on anonymity, citing the strict rules against talking to the press that come with being part of the gathering.

The tone nevertheless was said to be notably different this year than in past years. In 2008, representatives for Obama were received relatively warmly when they pitched the need to shepherd funds to the presidential campaign. Other progressive institutions were left -- somewhat bitterly -- looking for scraps. But, by and large, the donor base felt their investment had been wise, with Democrats regaining control of the White House and padding their majorities in Congress.

This year, following a drubbing in the 2010 elections and some stalling on major legislative items, the dynamics were notably different. As one attendee put it: "It was a sober atmosphere... people are looking for answers but they are not unwilling to do the work."

While Soros's comment gave some attendees the impression that he'd cheer a primary challenge to the president, the point, sources say, was different. Rather, it is time to shuffle funds into a progressive infrastructure that will take on the tasks that the president can't or won't take on.

"People are determined to help build a progressive infrastructure and make sure it is there not just in the months ahead but one that will last in the long term," said Anna Burger, the retired treasury secretary of SEIU. "Instead of being pushed over by this election it has empowered people to stand up in a bigger way."

"There was frustration," said one Democratic operative who attended the meetings. The main concern was about messaging. I think they are frustrated that the president isn't being more direct. But I did not get the sense that anyone's commitment to the progressive movement was wavering... The general consensus is that support has to move beyond being about one person and more about a movement. I don't know if we've moved beyond there."

One of those "movement" ventures is an outside-government arm to match conservatives in the 2012 elections. For several weeks, discussions have been led by Media Matters for America founder David Brock about the need to create a group that will run advertisements, conduct opposition research and perform rapid response functions. Those talks continued this past week, though disputes have begun to emerge about the most effective role for such a group. As one activist who is involved with the Democracy Alliance noted:

"There are a handful of funders committed to the idea of taking on corporate interests in politics... I think the [supreme Court's] Citizens United decision [allowing unlimited corporate donations in campaigns] intellectually caused a shift to want to deal with corporate money. The election results split the partners in the Democracy Alliance, not down the middle, between those who say let's fight back and those who say we have to change the rules."

Click to expand...