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

[Rayderr]

Obama's approval rating, according to Gallup Daily: 63% approve, 28% disapprove.

But in here it is skewed the opposite and then some....Yeah, no alia voting in here...

Gallup poll, most recent, has him up to 65% approve, 29% disapprove.Not bad so far.

Rasmussen has it at 55-44.

 

[TheFanatic]

Obama tax plan declares war on Small Businesses

But in a typical year, he said, Johnson and her husband earn about $515,000 from various entities related to the schools. They claim around $90,000 in deductions -- much of it contributions to charity -- reducing their taxable income to around $425,000. Johnson said the sum they take home in wages is "substantially less."

I don't really understand this part. When it says that they "earn" $515,000, what does that mean exactly?

Sorry, but I'm not going to be crying over someone who earns $500K a year having to pay an extra $23K in taxes. I doubt they will have to break out the Ramen noodles and bologna to survive....

 

[adonis]

Obama's approval rating, according to Gallup Daily: 63% approve, 28% disapprove.

But in here it is skewed the opposite and then some....Yeah, no alia voting in here...

Gallup poll, most recent, has him up to 65% approve, 29% disapprove.Not bad so far.

Rasmussen has it at 55-44.

They seem to be the outliers here with Gallup, ABC/WP, FNews all having Obama in the 60% range of approval.

Rasmussen Reports	04/24 - 04/26	1500 LV	55	44	[b] +11[/b]Gallup	04/23 - 04/25	1547 A	65	29	[b]+36[/b]ABC News/Wash Post	04/21 - 04/24	1072 A	69	26	[b]+43[/b]FOX News	04/22 - 04/23	900 RV	62	29	[b]+33[/b]

 

[shining path]

Obama's approval rating, according to Gallup Daily: 63% approve, 28% disapprove.

But in here it is skewed the opposite and then some....Yeah, no alia voting in here...

Gallup poll, most recent, has him up to 65% approve, 29% disapprove.Not bad so far.

Rasmussen has it at 55-44.

They seem to be the outliers here with Gallup, ABC/WP, FNews all having Obama in the 60% range of approval.
Rasmussen Reports 04/24 - 04/26 1500 LV 55 44 +11Gallup 04/23 - 04/25 1547 A 65 29 +36ABC News/Wash Post 04/21 - 04/24 1072 A 69 26 +43FOX News 04/22 - 04/23 900 RV 62 29 +33

Avg of the polls = 63% approve 32% disapprove (+31)Pretty strong numbers given the economic crisis.

 

[The Jerk]

I'm way late to this party. Real life, you know.

What's not to like?

We were promised a government that would have:

the most comprehensive vetting process of cabinet/leadership personnel in history

a budget free of earmarks

an administration free of lobbyists

the most open and transparent administration in history

We have gotten... uh... well... none of that.

The most important item is the last one. Nationalizing health care is a perfect example of subterfuge and back door governing. The White House and Congressional leadership don't want one of the most massive expansions in entitlements in the nation's history to have a full airing in the public. How could any leadership not allow for discussion of pros and cons, alternatives and refinements to occur when facing such an enormous and momentous expansion of government role and spending?

Of course, given all of the other areas in which the Obama administration has deviated from its promises, it can hardly be a surprise that the concept of transparent governing was nothing but empty rhetoric.

The best part of all is that the health costs are going to be paid for by massive energy taxes misleadingly labeled "cap and trade" and this policy is being touted as being able to create jobs when research has shown that a similar plan in Spain resulted in a loss of 2.2 jobs for every "green" job created and an average cost per green job of $744,000. As a bonus, only one in ten green jobs is considered to be permanent. Although I cannot speak for the veracity of the research and if there is an ideological bent to the researcher, would it not perhaps be in the best interests of the U.S. to look into this further before committing to this approach? I mean, what if these numbers are even close to true?

So we are going to implement nationalized health care that has failed in the UK, France and Canada, to be paid for by an environmentally activist energy policy that has supposedly failed in Spain.

And of course we are not going to raise taxes on the majority of Americans. I would have much more respect if the administration simply acknowledged the obvious, that taxes must be raised to compensate for increased government spending. It was embarrassing that Joe Biden's response to Lesley Stahl on 60 minutes last night when asked about deficits, enormous government spending and taxes, was to state that the only way to avoid deficits was to reduce energy and health care costs in the U.S.

What?

Good thing reducing spending and increasing taxes aren't on the table, Joe. And besides, taxing corporations as part of cap and trade will result in much if not all of these taxes being passed onto the average U.S. taxpayer anyway.

So the real kick in the pants is that my little boys are going to pay for the inability of the current generation to suck it up and deal with financial realities and a government that is interested in expanding its power and ability to tax but cannot admit the obvious when it comes to basic accounting.

Edit: I want to be clear that I can understand and support some assistance in health care and other areas as there are many of my fellow countrymen who are struggling right now. I just wish that it could be done openly and without misdirection and deceit. Most of all, I would like to see the President and Congressional leaders be more interested in the long term strength of the country than their political party.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Not the biggest deal in the world, but it's a promise I would have liked to see Obama keep: he's now 1 for 11 on posting bills on the internet for five days before signing them.

 

[tommyboy]

i wonder how many more days or months it will take for Obama voters to come to realize that virtually everything he sold them in the campaign was total bs and that he's played them for fools.

 

[jonessed]

i wonder how many more days or months it will take for Obama voters to come to realize that virtually everything he sold them in the campaign was total bs and that he's played them for fools.

Everything but the economy is playing second fiddle right now. The Democrats and Obama will live and die by it. They have been given a reprieve based on Bush, but that will only last so long. There is a lot of stress and anger in this country right now and the longer we stay in this mess the more that's going to turn from Bush to Obama.

 

[Statorama]

Did Obama really just end his speech with "I don't want big government"?

THEN STOP GROWING IT

 

[Gigantomachia]

Did Obama really just end his speech with "I don't want big government"?THEN STOP GROWING IT

 

[Gigantomachia]

Strongly disapprove.But then I'm sure nobody's surprised by that.

Funny. I strongly approve, which I am also sure surprises no one, and yet I agree with a lot of what you post.Weird. By the way, do you do much fishing in Minnesota??

 

[tommyboy]

whenever Obama says he "doesn't" something or "won't" something thats the tipoff that that's exactly what he's going to do next.

 

[Statorama]

Associated Press Fact Check: Obama disowning deficit he helped create

WASHINGTON (AP) - "That wasn't me," President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One.

It actually was him - and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years - who shaped a budget so out of balance.

And as a presidential candidate and president-elect, he backed the twilight Bush-era stimulus plan that made the deficit deeper, all before he took over and promoted spending plans that have made it much deeper still.

Obama met citizens at an Arnold, Mo., high school Wednesday in advance of his prime-time news conference. Both forums were a platform to review his progress at the 100-day mark and look ahead.

At various times, he brought an air of certainty to ambitions that are far from cast in stone.

His assertion that his proposed budget "will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term" is an eyeball-roller among many economists, given the uncharted terrain of trillion-dollar deficits and economic calamity that the government is negotiating.

He promised vast savings from increased spending on preventive health care in the face of doubts that such an effort, however laudable it might be for public welfare, can pay for itself, let alone yield huge savings.

A look at some of his claims Wednesday:

OBAMA: "Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.... That wasn't me. Number two, there is almost uniform consensus among economists that in the middle of the biggest crisis, financial crisis, since the Great Depression, we had to take extraordinary steps. So you've got a lot of Republican economists who agree that we had to do a stimulus package and we had to do something about the banks. Those are one-time charges, and they're big, and they'll make our deficits go up over the next two years." - in Missouri.

THE FACTS:

Congress controls the purse strings, not the president, and it was under Democratic control for Obama's last two years as Illinois senator. Obama supported the emergency bailout package in President George W. Bush's final months - a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger.

To be sure, Obama opposed the Iraq war, a drain on federal coffers for six years before he became president. But with one major exception, he voted in support of Iraq war spending.

The economy has worsened under Obama, though from forces surely in play before he became president, and he can credibly claim to have inherited a grim situation.

Still, his response to the crisis goes well beyond "one-time charges."

He's persuaded Congress to expand children's health insurance, education spending, health information technology and more. He's moving ahead on a variety of big-ticket items on health care, the environment, energy and transportation that, if achieved, will be more enduring than bank bailouts and aid for homeowners.

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated his policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years, even accounting for his spending reduction goals. Now, the deficit is nearly quadrupling to $1.75 trillion.

---

OBAMA: "I think one basic principle that we know is that the more we do on the (disease) prevention side, the more we can obtain serious savings down the road. ... If we're making those investments, we will save huge amounts of money in the long term." - in Missouri.

THE FACTS: It sounds believable that preventing illness should be cheaper than treating it, and indeed that's the case with steps like preventing smoking and improving diets and exercise. But during the 2008 campaign, when Obama and other presidential candidates were touting a focus on preventive care, the New England Journal of Medicine cautioned that "sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching." It said that "although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not."

And a study released in December by the Congressional Budget Office found that increasing preventive care "could improve people's health but would probably generate either modest reductions in the overall costs of health care or increases in such spending within a 10-year budgetary time frame."

---

OBAMA: "You could cut (Social Security) benefits. You could raise the tax on everybody so everybody's payroll tax goes up a little bit. Or you can do what I think is probably the best solution, which is you can raise the cap on the payroll tax." - in Missouri.

THE FACTS: Obama's proposal would reduce the Social Security trust fund's deficit by less than half, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

That means he would still have to cut benefits, raise the payroll tax rate, raise the retirement age or some combination to deal with the program's long-term imbalance.

Workers currently pay 6.2 percent and their employers pay an equal rate - for a total of 12.4 percent - on annual wages of up to $106,800, after which no more payroll tax is collected.

Obama wants workers making more than $250,000 to pay payroll tax on their income over that amount. That would still protect workers making under $250,000 from an additional burden. But it would raise much less money than removing the cap completely.

 

[DrJ]

"That wasn't me," President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office

He also said that on the 99th day, the 98th day, the 97th day...

 

[DrJ]

Congress controls the purse strings, not the president, and it was under Democratic control for Obama's last two years as Illinois senator. Obama supported the emergency bailout package in President George W. Bush's final months - a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger.

"Entirely irrelevant. It's the guy that was in the oval office that deserves all of the blame for bills passed under his watch. Oh wait, were we talking about the bailout package or the bloated omnibus bill that I fought for in congress, signed as President, and blamed on Bush too? Want to make sure I keep my stories straight here"

 

[P Boy]

Avg of the polls = 63% approve 32% disapprove (+31)Pretty strong numbers given the economic crisis.

Pretty strong proof that PT Barnum knew exctly what he was talking about...

 

[Hoart Petterson]

I feel sorry for you guys.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Avg of the polls = 63% approve 32% disapprove (+31)Pretty strong numbers given the economic crisis.

Pretty strong proof that PT Barnum knew exctly what he was talking about...

Just keep spinning it.

 

[Statorama]

NY Times finally admits we might have a debt problem (welcome to the party)

May 4, 2009

Worries Rise on the Size of U.S. Debt

By GRAHAM BOWLEY and JACK HEALY

The nation’s debt clock is ticking faster than ever — and Wall Street is getting worried.

As the Obama administration racks up an unprecedented spending bill for bank bailouts, Detroit rescues, health care overhauls and stimulus plans, the bond market is starting to push up the cost of trillions of dollars in borrowing for the government.

Last week, the yield on 10-year Treasury notes rose to its highest level since November, briefly touching 3.17 percent, a sign that investors are demanding larger returns on the masses of United States debt being issued to finance an economic recovery.

While that is still low by historical standards — it averaged about 5.7 percent in the late 1990s, as deficits turned to surpluses under President Bill Clinton — investors are starting to wonder whether the United States is headed for a new era of rising market interest rates as the government borrows, borrows and borrows some more.

Already, in the first six months of this fiscal year, the federal deficit is running at $956.8 billion, or nearly one seventh of gross domestic product — levels not seen since World War II, according to Wrightson ICAP, a research firm.

Debt held by the public is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to rise from 41 percent of gross domestic product in 2008 to 51 percent in 2009 and to a peak of around 54 percent in 2011 before declining again in the following years. For all of 2009, the administration probably needs to borrow about $2 trillion.

The rising tab has prompted warnings from the Treasury that the Congressionally mandated debt ceiling of $12.1 trillion will most likely be breached in the second half of this year.

Last week, the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee, a group of industry officials that advises the Treasury on its financing needs, warned about the consequences of higher deficits at a time when tax revenues were “collapsing” by 14 percent in the first half of the fiscal year.

“Given the outlook for the economy, the cost of restoring a smoothly functioning financial system and the pending entitlement obligations to retiring baby boomers,” a report from the committee said, “the fiscal outlook is one of rapidly increasing debt in the years ahead.”

While the real long-term interest rate will not rise immediately, the committee concluded, “such a fiscal path could force real rates notably higher at some point in the future.”

In some ways, ballooning deficits should not matter. Deficits are a useful way for governments to use public spending to stimulate the economy when private demand is weak. This works as long as a country closes its deficit and pays back its borrowings after its economy starts to recover.

The trouble is that government borrowing risks crowding out private investment, driving up interest rates and potentially slowing a recovery still trying to take hold. That is why the Federal Reserve announced an extraordinary policy this year to buy back existing long-term debt — $300 billion over six months — to drive down yields. The strategy worked for a while, but now the impact of that decision appears to be wearing off as long-term interest rates tick up again.

Then there is the concern that the interest the government must pay on its debt obligations may become unsustainable or weigh on future generations. The Congressional Budget Office expects interest payments to more than quadruple in the next decade as Washington borrows and spends, to $806 billion by 2019 from $172 billion next year.

“You’re just paying more and more interest and having to borrow more and more money to pay the interest,” said Charles S. Konigsberg, chief budget counsel for the Concord Coalition, which advocates lower deficits. “It diverts a tremendous amount of resources, of taxpayer dollars.”

Of course, no one is suggesting the United States will have problems paying the interest on its debt. On Wednesday, even as it announced its huge financing needs for the latest quarter, the Treasury said financial markets could accommodate the flood of new bonds. “We feel confident that we can address these large borrowing needs,” said Karthik Ramanathan, the Treasury’s acting assistant secretary for financial markets.

One worry, however, is that there are fewer eager lenders to buy all that American debt. Most of the world is in recession, and other nations have rising borrowing needs as well. As other nations’ surpluses turn to deficits, America will face competition in global financial markets for its borrowing needs. For the moment, the United States is actually benefiting from a flight to quality into Treasuries brought on by the global financial crisis, which helped reduce rates to record lows this winter. But the influx will not continue forever.

China has lent immense sums to the United States — about two-thirds of its central bank’s $1.95 trillion in foreign reserves is believed to be in United States securities — but it has begun to voice concerns about America’s financial health.

To calm nerves and fill the deficit hole, the government is getting creative. The Treasury is ramping up its auction calendar, holding more frequent sales of government debt and selling the debt in expanded amounts. It is now holding sales of its 30-year bond each month, up from four times annually.

It is also resuscitating previously discontinued bonds, such as the seven-year note and the three-year note, to try to mop up any available money all along the yield curve. There is even talk of issuing billions of dollars of a new 50-year bond, though the idea has not won official approval.

On a second front, the Treasury and the Federal Reserve are trying to bolster the mechanics of the market — to make sure every auction goes smoothly. With such enormous sums involved, every extra basis point on the interest rate the government pays could mean extra billions of dollars for the taxpayer. Earlier this year, when demand was hesitant at a Treasury auction and when a British bond auction went poorly, investors grew nervous that the government might struggle to sell its mountain of debt.

To avoid such an outcome and to keep borrowing costs low, the government is trying to expand the group of firms that bid at Treasury auctions. After the demise of such names as Lehman Brothers, the number of these firms, called primary dealers, has shrunk to 16, the smallest since this elite club was formed decades ago. Now the government is in discussions with smaller firms like Nomura and MF Global to persuade them to join.

 

[Statorama]

White House threatens to "destroy" those who oppose the Chrysler bankruptcy plan

A leading bankruptcy attorney representing hedge funds and money managers told ABC News Saturday that Steve Rattner, the leader of the Obama administration's Auto Industry Task Force, threatened one of the firms, an investment bank, that if it continued to oppose the administration's Chrysler bankruptcy plan, the White House would use the White House press corps to destroy its reputation.

The White House and a spokesperson for the investment bank in question challenged the accuracy of the story.

"The charge is completely untrue," said White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton, "and there's obviously no evidence to suggest that this happened in any way."

Thomas Lauria, Global Practice Head of the Financial Restructuring and Insolvency Group at White & Case, told ABC News that Rattner suggested to an official of the boutique investment bank Perella Weinberg Partners that officials of the Obama White House would embarrass the firm for opposing the Obama administration plan, which President Obama announced Thursday, and which requires creditors to accept roughly 29 cents on the dollar for an estimated $6.8 billion owed by Chrysler.

Lauria first told the story, without naming Rattner, to Frank Beckmann on Detroit's WJR-AM radio.

Perella Weinberg Partners, Lauria said, "was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That’s how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence."

 

[P Boy]

Avg of the polls = 63% approve 32% disapprove (+31)Pretty strong numbers given the economic crisis.

Pretty strong proof that PT Barnum knew exctly what he was talking about...

Just keep spinning it.

Spinning what?How many new jobs have been created? How has the stimulus money improved the proposed targets so far? Have the bailouts been successful in turning the targeted companies solvent again? How are home loan default rates and bankruptcy rates doing? How high is the deficit climbing so far and in future projections? How much more productive is the country right now? How much more money does the average person have in their pocket? Has or has not the Federal government gotten intricately involved in the private industry sector? Are Iran & North Korea still viable threats? Has the war in Afganistan changed appreciably? Have we secured our borders?Should I go on?

 

[Joe_Mama]

"So we are going to implement nationalized health care that has failed in the UK, France and Canada, to be paid for by an environmentally activist energy policy that has supposedly failed in Spain."

You've obviously just accepted what Hannity or O'Reilly said without looking into it. For one thing, none of those three systems have failed. For another, all three are different from the other. For another, France has the highest rated health care system in the world (WHO), and the other two are ranked higher than the U.S. system. None of them are perfect, they've all undergone tweaking over the years, but they show strengths that we can't possibly achieve without serious health care reform.

I think this thread is good for all the anti-Obamites. Let them all get it out. They need to vent. They need to think that Obama could/should fulfill all his promises within four months. Hell, Dubya hadn't even begun his conquest and occupation of Iraq in that short a time.

 

[Statorama]

Allegations of Obama White House thuggery corroborated

Creditors to Chrysler describe negotiations with the company and the Obama administration as "a farce," saying the administration was bent on forcing their hands using hardball tactics and threats.

Conversations with administration officials left them expecting that they would be politically targeted, two participants in the negotiations said.

Although the focus has so been on allegations that the White House threatened Perella Weinberg, sources familiar with the matter say that other firms felt they were threatened as well. None of the sources would agree to speak except on the condition of anonymity, citing fear of political repercussions.

The sources, who represent creditors to Chrysler, say they were taken aback by the hardball tactics that the Obama administration employed to cajole them into acquiescing to plans to restructure Chrysler. One person described the administration as the most shocking "end justifies the means" group they have ever encountered. Another characterized Obama was "the most dangerous smooth talker on the planet- and I knew Kissinger." Both were voters for Obama in the last election.

One participant in negotiations said that the administration's tactic was to present what one described as a "madman theory of the presidency" in which the President is someone to be feared because he was willing to do anything to get his way. The person said this threat was taken very seriously by his firm.

The White House has denied the allegation that it threatened Perella Weinberg.

Last week Obama singled out the firms that continue to oppose his plan for Chrysler, saying he would not stand with them. Perella Weinberg says it was convinced to support the plan by this stark drawing of a line between firms that have the president's backing and those that did not. They didn't want to be on the wrong side of Obama. Privately, administration officials have expressed confidence that other firms will switch sides for this reason.

These allegations add to the picture of an administration willing to use intimidation to win over support for its Chrysler plans--and then categorically deny it.

 

[AnonymousBob]

He's had some bumps but he's clearly showing the potential to be the one of, if not the, greatest Presidents we've ever had in modern times.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

"I do not agree with Obama on all points but he understands economic policy better than do most professional economists, whether Democrats, Republicans, etc." -- Tyler Cowan, libertarian-leaning professional economist, 4/29/09.

 

[Black Sunday]

There is something that pains me to see people "strongly disapproving" of Obama and yet somehow we voted Bush into office twice. In a lot of ways I guess it's to be expected given the monumental expectations for Obama, but when you look at the state of the things when he took over, I mean, come on. Did we really just expect that little from Bush?

I have friends here in NYC (many in the financial industry) 1) complaining about bailouts (many of which saved their jobs), 2) complaining about "all the new taxes", and 3) complaining about the state of the economy.

Just out of curiosity - for those of you who disapprove, what would you have had him do instead? And what about his administration so far is it that you disapprove of most?

(For the record, I voted mildly approve, as I think there are certain situations he could have handled better)

8 posts before we got the "How can you be against Obama if you liked Bush" defense. Well done.

Uh, no. 1) I'm not sure you got that right - I wouldn't expect many Bush supporters to be supporters of Obama, and vice versa.

2) I didn't "defend" Obama, and in fact I said I think there are situations he could have handled better. Political lines aside, there has been strong disapproval for Bush's administration, the point where he's been called the worst president ever. So, my point was about expectations - did we just expect more from Obama that we all strongly disapprove? Or are we just ignoring the circumstances that led us to our current predicament?

3) I posed a number of questions to engage in a dialogue on what you thought he could/should have done differently, which you chose not to answer.

Are those really the only two choices that you see are possible?

 

[SofaKings]

He's had some bumps but he's clearly showing the potential to be the one of, if not the, greatest Presidents we've ever had in modern times.

This is great shtick.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I asked when this thread started for a non-shtick list of stuff he's accomplished so far so I could grade him as honestly as possible. Still haven't gotten it.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I asked when this thread started for a non-shtick list of stuff he's accomplished so far so I could grade him as honestly as possible. Still haven't gotten it.

Non-shtick? Sorry...

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I asked when this thread started for a non-shtick list of stuff he's accomplished so far so I could grade him as honestly as possible. Still haven't gotten it.

Non-shtick? Sorry...

Fictitious Obama accomplishments in his first 100 days.

 

[HellToupee]

Not enough time to judge. I'm giving him 2 years

 

[MasterofOrion]

Not enough time to judge. I'm giving him 2 years

As much damage he has done in 100 days: Now multiply that by 7. Holy craps batman.

 

[Statorama]

Obama articles of the day:

Obama channels his inner Stalin

(centers on the forced nationalization of Chrysler and the benefits to his buddies in the union, excerpt below)

To hell with the Constitution, the rule of law, the integrity of contracts and any other written limitation on their power – they will do anything they can get away with. Which means that we are all at risk, and the only reason some of us haven't been targeted is that Obama simply hasn't turned his attention to that particular sector yet. But he will – it's only a matter of time.

Obama alienating the rich suckers that voted for him

Obama even pressed to limit the deductibility of charitable contributions and mortgage interest for the affluent — but was thwarted by a stunned Congress.

Obama administration officials asking Israel to relenquish it's nuclear arsenal

Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, speaking Tuesday at a U.N. meeting on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), said Israel should join the treaty, which would require Israel to declare and relinquish its nuclear arsenal.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'm channeling Statorama here, but this is an interesting article:

Hedge Fund Leader Blasts Obama for "Bullying" and "Abuse of Power"

Cliff Asness, whose firm manages some $20 billion of assets, has written an open letter blasting President Obama for his attack on the hedge fund industry in the wake of the Chrysler bankruptcy.

As you'll recall, hedge funds, which hold approximately $1 billion in Chrysler bonds, refused the government's offer to take approximately thirty cents on the dollar. Obama accused hedge funds of holding out "for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout."

These comments have enraged many in the industry but few have spoken out publicly. Asness, whose firm doesn't hold Chrysler bonds, says the industry is genuinely afraid in the face of Obama's power. Stating that he himself is "fearful writing this," Asness still pulls no punches:

"Let’s be clear, it is the job and obligation of all investment managers, including hedge fund managers, to get their clients the most return they can. They are allowed to be charitable with their own money, and many are spectacularly so, but if they give away their clients’ money to share in the “sacrifice”, they are stealing."

"The President screaming that the hedge funds are looking for an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout is the big lie writ large. Find me a hedge fund that has been bailed out. Find me a hedge fund, even a failed one, that has asked for one. In fact, it was only because hedge funds have not taken government funds that they could stand up to this bullying. The TARP recipients had no choice but to go along."

"The President's attempted diktat takes money from bondholders and gives it to a labor union that delivers money and votes for him. Why is he not calling on his party to "sacrifice" some campaign contributions, and votes, for the greater good? Shaking down lenders for the benefit of political donors is recycled corruption and abuse of power."

 

[TheAristocrat]

Hope. Change. Transparency? Sandwiches.

 

[Statorama]

Hope. Change. Transparency? Sandwiches.

Darn it, just came to post that.Guess I'll just post this article about Obama ignoring his campaign promise of transparency in the bills he signs

President Obama made some very firm commitments about transparency as a campaigner. Among other things, he promised to post bills online for five days before he signs them. This promise has been fulfilled just once - and in that case, only arguably.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I'm channeling Statorama here, but this is an interesting article:

Hedge Fund Leader Blasts Obama for "Bullying" and "Abuse of Power"

Cliff Asness, whose firm manages some $20 billion of assets, has written an open letter blasting President Obama for his attack on the hedge fund industry in the wake of the Chrysler bankruptcy.

As you'll recall, hedge funds, which hold approximately $1 billion in Chrysler bonds, refused the government's offer to take approximately thirty cents on the dollar. Obama accused hedge funds of holding out "for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout."

These comments have enraged many in the industry but few have spoken out publicly. Asness, whose firm doesn't hold Chrysler bonds, says the industry is genuinely afraid in the face of Obama's power. Stating that he himself is "fearful writing this," Asness still pulls no punches:

"Let’s be clear, it is the job and obligation of all investment managers, including hedge fund managers, to get their clients the most return they can. They are allowed to be charitable with their own money, and many are spectacularly so, but if they give away their clients’ money to share in the “sacrifice”, they are stealing."

"The President screaming that the hedge funds are looking for an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout is the big lie writ large. Find me a hedge fund that has been bailed out. Find me a hedge fund, even a failed one, that has asked for one. In fact, it was only because hedge funds have not taken government funds that they could stand up to this bullying. The TARP recipients had no choice but to go along."

"The President's attempted diktat takes money from bondholders and gives it to a labor union that delivers money and votes for him. Why is he not calling on his party to "sacrifice" some campaign contributions, and votes, for the greater good? Shaking down lenders for the benefit of political donors is recycled corruption and abuse of power."

Don't you think this guy is a little full of it? 1) The "bailout" that Obama is talking about is the bailout of Chrysler, not the hedge funds. If the government does nothing for Chrysler, the hedge funds probably end up with nothing from their investment in Chrysler. The hedge funds know that, but they think the government will blink. So they're playing a game of chicken with the government. That might be their fiduciary duty, but it has the possibility to blow up in their face.

2) Don't hedge funds typically have a financial stake in the success of their investments? This guy is acting like they're only looking out for the interests of their clients, when in fact they're self interested too. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but I do think the guy isn't really giving the complete picture.

 

[Statorama]

This site is full of awesome Expose Obama

 

[TheFanatic]

Avg of the polls = 63% approve 32% disapprove (+31)Pretty strong numbers given the economic crisis.

Pretty strong proof that PT Barnum knew exctly what he was talking about...

So the masses are just dead wrong right? I mean the approval ratings of Bush were extremely low, so the masses were fooled. And now the approval ratings are really high so the masses are wrong again. Interesting. One little problem for you and your party with this presumed high ground you are on. Those same masses that are so clearly wrong, in your opinion, are the ones that vote people into office. So I guess it's better to presume to be superior to the masses while on the outside looking in at the power brokers doing their thing...Not the best stance to take if you ever want to be back in power again. But good luck with that....

 

[TheFanatic]

Not enough time to judge. I'm giving him 2 years

As much damage he has done in 100 days: Now multiply that by 7. Holy craps batman.

Yeah, that damage is irreversible....wait, what damage is that again? I mean you gotta be impressed with this guy. He single handedly wrecked the country in just over 3 months. I mean how long did it take Republicans to stink things up? Oh, that's right, Frank and Dodd, members of the minority party did all the damage. But the real damage to this country started in late Jan. Or was it early Nov.?I don't know about everyone else but my portfolio is making a nice rebound, my company is showing profits again, companies are hiring in my field again. Yeah, life is hard....

 

[Statorama]

$3.4 trillion federal budget for the fiscal year beginning in October

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Just like clockwork.

 

[Statorama]

You know, anytime Obama would like to start getting to work and stop hitting the rubber chicken circuit with Wanda Sykes would be fine with me.

Anytime Obama has some proposal that the American people are vehemently against, Obama trots out the boogeyman Rush Limbaugh to deflect attention.

 

[Main Force Patrol]

Obama and his team have no chance to fix the economy broken by the Bush admin (and those who voted for him twice). The only way Obama can make his presidency anything other than a failure is if Bush, Cheney, etc. are brought to justice. It's the only way to recover the moral high ground.

 

[Statorama]

Obama and his team have no chance to fix the economy broken by the Bush admin (and those who voted for him twice). The only way Obama can make his presidency anything other than a failure is if Bush, Cheney, etc. are brought to justice. It's the only way to recover the moral high ground.

I'd be all for this if Obama was willing to face the same scrutiny after his presidency. IMPO, him revealing our interrigation techniques to our enemies at a time of war constitutes treason.

 

[Phurfur]

Obama and his team have no chance to fix the economy broken by the Bush admin (and those who voted for him twice). The only way Obama can make his presidency anything other than a failure is if Bush, Cheney, etc. are brought to justice. It's the only way to recover the moral high ground.

Wake up, this all started in the early 1990's and every administration since then share the blame. That means Bush - Clinton - Bushand now Oboma, but it is the congress that has really got us in this mess and they are doing the same thing today. Do you really think Bush caused a world wide resession by himself. Like I said wake up this one falls squarely on the Congess going back to the early 90s.

 

[Statorama]

Obama and his team have no chance to fix the economy broken by the Bush admin (and those who voted for him twice). The only way Obama can make his presidency anything other than a failure is if Bush, Cheney, etc. are brought to justice. It's the only way to recover the moral high ground.

Wake up, this all started in the early 1990's and every administration since then share the blame. That means Bush - Clinton - Bushand now Oboma, but it is the congress that has really got us in this mess and they are doing the same thing today. Do you really think Bush caused a world wide resession by himself. Like I said wake up this one falls squarely on the Congess going back to the early 90s.

(all schtick aside, this is a great answer. Clinton, Bush, Obama...what's the one constant? Senators and Congressmen who have unconquerable power bases and gigantic egos who are willing to forge their own agendas ahead of what's the right thing to do. That goes for the John McCains as well as the Barney Franks).

 

[the moops]

him revealing our interrigation techniques to our enemies at a time of war constitutes treason.

Treason.

 

[TheFanatic]

Obama and his team have no chance to fix the economy broken by the Bush admin (and those who voted for him twice). The only way Obama can make his presidency anything other than a failure is if Bush, Cheney, etc. are brought to justice. It's the only way to recover the moral high ground.

Wake up, this all started in the early 1990's and every administration since then share the blame. That means Bush - Clinton - Bushand now Oboma, but it is the congress that has really got us in this mess and they are doing the same thing today. Do you really think Bush caused a world wide resession by himself. Like I said wake up this one falls squarely on the Congess going back to the early 90s.

(all schtick aside, this is a great answer. Clinton, Bush, Obama...what's the one constant? Senators and Congressmen who have unconquerable power bases and gigantic egos who are willing to forge their own agendas ahead of what's the right thing to do. That goes for the John McCains as well as the Barney Franks).

Excellent response. Really. Members of Congress spend to get re-elected which is what they want more than actually properly representing their constituents. What districts spend the most every year regardless of party affiliation? The districts represented by the Speaker of the House and the Ranking member of the Senate. Doesn't matter if Dem or Repub. They gonna spend. And to the victors go the spoils. Both parties are corrupt in this fashion. Either party claiming a moral high ground over the other in this matter is hypocrisy at its finest...

 

[Phurfur]

Obama and his team have no chance to fix the economy broken by the Bush admin (and those who voted for him twice). The only way Obama can make his presidency anything other than a failure is if Bush, Cheney, etc. are brought to justice. It's the only way to recover the moral high ground.

Wake up, this all started in the early 1990's and every administration since then share the blame. That means Bush - Clinton - Bushand now Oboma, but it is the congress that has really got us in this mess and they are doing the same thing today. Do you really think Bush caused a world wide resession by himself. Like I said wake up this one falls squarely on the Congess going back to the early 90s.

(all schtick aside, this is a great answer. Clinton, Bush, Obama...what's the one constant? Senators and Congressmen who have unconquerable power bases and gigantic egos who are willing to forge their own agendas ahead of what's the right thing to do. That goes for the John McCains as well as the Barney Franks).

I believe the only way to fix this is to have term limits on the House and Senate but this will never happen.