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

[Statorama]

ATF rewards supervisors of 'Fast and Furious' debacle with lucrative promotions

Their reward for keeping silent.

All three have been heavily criticized for pushing the program forward even as it became apparent that it was out of control. At least 2,000 guns were lost and many turned up at crime scenes in Mexico and two at the killing of a U.S. Border Patrol agent in Arizona.

The three supervisors have been given new management positions at the agency’s headquarters in Washington. They are William G. McMahon, who was the ATF’s deputy director of operations in the West, where the illegal trafficking program was focused, and William D. Newell and David Voth, both field supervisors who oversaw the program out of the agency’s Phoenix office.

McMahon and Newell have acknowledged making serious mistakes in the program, which was dubbed Operation Fast and Furious.

“I share responsibility for mistakes that were made,” McMahon testified to a House committee three weeks ago. “The advantage of hindsight, the benefit of a thorough review of the case, clearly points me to things that I would have done differently.”

 

[Statorama]

Prosecutors lay the ground work for an immunity deal with Border Patrolman killer by denying "victim" status to the Patrolman's family

Wow. This is the guy you elected folks. This is your hope and change guy.

In a surprise move in a controversial case, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Arizona is opposing a routine motion by the family of murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry to qualify as crime victims in the eyes of the court.

The family asked to intervene as victims in the case against Jamie Avila, the 23-year-old Phoenix man who purchased the guns allegedly used to kill Terry. Such motions are routinely approved by prosecutors, but may be opposed by defense attorneys.

However in this case, U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke argues because the family was not "directly or proximately harmed" by the illegal purchase of the murder weapon, it does not meet the definition of "crime victim" in the Avila case. Burke claims the victim of the Avila's gun purchases, "is not any particular person, but society in general."

Prominent litigator and the former U.S. Attorney in Florida, Kendall Coffey disagrees.

"The government apparently is saying they're not victims, even though it was a federal crime that put the murder weapon in the hands of the killer of Brian Terry," says Coffey. "They are simply rights of respect, rights of communication and the right to be heard."

Coffey and others wonder if Burke has a conflict. It was his office that led Operation Fast and Furious. The operation, while executed by agents for the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, was managed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Emory Hurley. Hurley drafted the response to the family's motion. It was signed by Burke.

Congressional investigators are expected to subpoena both to appear before the House Government and Oversight Committee next month to answer questions about the flawed operation that put some 2,000 weapons in the hands of the Sinaloa cartel.

"The government leaders responsible for the tragic mistakes of Operation Fast and Furious have a lot of explaining to do before Congress. But at the same time, they still have a duty under federal law to give answers, to consult and extend respect to the family," said Coffey.

Under the federal Crime Victims Rights Act, the Terry family would have the right to confer with prosecutors and speak at Avila's sentencing. Some speculate that the U.S. Attorney's Office may cut a deal with Avila in exchange for information to be used against his associates. That deal could mean little or no jail time, and a controversial sentencing day in the courtroom. Having the Terry family fight that deal, could further embarrass and complicate Burke's case.

Burke may also be trying to protect the federal government. The family may pursue a wrongful death claim against federal agents, including Burke himself.

"If the evidence shows Brian's death was proximately caused by the negligence of government, there may be a cause of action," said Paul Charlton, the family's attorney.

Coffey says that puts Burke in a tough spot.

"The government's already been put on notice that they might be facing a wrongful death action by the family. And you have to wonder if the government's efforts to deny the family the status of 'crime victims' is part of a strategy to avoid legal responsibility for some of the tragic mistakes of Operation Fast and Furious," he said.

Burke refused comment when asked why he opposed the family’s motion and his possible conflict of interest.

 

[Statorama]

Obama ally The New York Times publishes article filled with lies about the top investigator of 'Fast and Furious' crimes

Attempt to kill the messenger. Did the NYT ever have some kind of journalistic integrity?

A lengthy article in today’s New York Times about Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) contains at least five major factual errors, including one that the undermines the central premise of the story, the congressman’s office asserted in a high-profile showdown with the Grey Lady.

The newspaper already admitted to one mistake in the 2,700-word story, but reporter Eric Lichtblau said he would not correct other factual errors pointed out by Issa’s staff. Now, the central assertion of Lichtblau’s story — that Issa directed federal funds to increase the value of property he owns — appears to be crumbling as well.

Lichtblau’s story is the latest critique of the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Issa is growing accustomed to the attention given his role on Capitol Hill. He’s become one of the left’s top targets and even the subject of a nonprofit organization run by liberal political activists out to tarnish his reputation.

Issa’s office quickly dismissed today’s story as “riddled with factual errors and careless assertions that has resulted in a story predicated on innuendo and not fact.”

The story’s headline, “A Businessman in Congress Helps His District and Himself,” suggests that Issa benefited personally from steering federal funds to a road project near a medical complex he owns. Lichtblau reported the value of Issa’s property increased 60 percent after he bought it. But the reporter’s information is inaccurate, Issa’s office said. According to the settlement statement posted on the committee’s webstite, Issa paid $16.6 million — a figure that’s nearly identical to its current San Diego County property assessment.

In addition to this questionable assertion, Issa’s office earlier in the day requested the Times correct three other factual errors in Lichtblau’s story. Issa’s release stated:

- The story states, “Here on the third floor of a gleaming office building overlooking a golf course in the rugged foothills north of San Diego, Darrell Issa, the entrepreneur, oversees the hub of a growing financial empire worth hundreds of millions of dollars.” This is factually incorrect. The office building located at 1800 Thibodo Rd. in Vista does not overlook a golf course.

- The story states, “Mr. Issa has … spilt a holding company into separate multibillion-dollar businesses …” This is factually incorrect. Rep. Issa does not own a single “multibillion-dollar business.”

- The story states, “Mr. Issa brushed aside suggestions that his electronics company’s role as a major supplier of alarms to Toyota made him go easy on the automaker as he led an investigation into the recalls.” This is factually incorrect. Rep. Issa’s former company, Directed Electronics, is not a “major supplier” or even a supplier to Toyota.

As of now, the Times has only corrected the second error. When I asked Lichtblau if he planned to do anything about the other two, he responded, “No, because both points were correct.”

As for the first point, Issa’s office building is located about a half-mile from the Shadowridge Country Club, according to Google Maps. However, the office building is surrounded by three housing developments and a state highway. There’s no direct access from Issa’s building to the course and it would take approximately 20 minutes to walk there.

Issa’s office also maintains that Directed Electronics is not a supplier to Toyota, contrary to Lichtblau’s story. The reporter does not include a source for this information in the article and he did not respond to a follow-up email seeking clarification.

Those aren’t the only problems with the story. Lichtblau also makes a false claim about the Issa Family Foundation, according to Issa’s office, asserting that it “earned $357,000 on an initial investment of less that $19,000 — a return of nearly 1,900 percent in just seven months.” In fact, Issa’s office responded, the foundation took a loss of $125,000. The foundation’s initial investment was not $19,000 but $500,000. Lichtblau apparently relied on an incorrect form to get the information.

And if that wasn’t enough, there are also rumblings that Lichtblau didn’t properly attribute parts of his story. Lee Fang of the liberal Center for American Progress called him out on Twitter, noting “your NYT Issa piece looks awfully familiar.” Both the liberal Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and San Diego Beat also previously attacked Issa on some of the same points included in Lichtblau’s article.

 

[Statorama]

Obama explaining that the slow recovery isn't due to his policies, it's due to bad luck

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Is he really this clueless?

"We had reversed the recession, avoided a depression, gotten the economy moving again," Obama told a crowd in Decorah, Iowa. "But over the last six months we've had a run of bad luck." Obama listed three events overseas -- the Arab Spring uprisings, the tsunami in Japan, and the European debt crises -- which set the economy back.

 

[mr. furley]

Obama explaining that the slow recovery isn't due to his policies, it's due to bad luck

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Is he really this clueless?

"We had reversed the recession, avoided a depression, gotten the economy moving again," Obama told a crowd in Decorah, Iowa. "But over the last six months we've had a run of bad luck." Obama listed three events overseas -- the Arab Spring uprisings, the tsunami in Japan, and the European debt crises -- which set the economy back.

Bush had the economy humming along until 9/11

 

[Statorama]

Obama Administration taking credit for the jobs Rick Perry created down in Texas

You've got to be kidding me.

Wasserman Schultz went on to criticize Texas Gov. Rick Perry, R, for claiming credit for his own state's creation of half the jobs America has created since Obama became president:

"It’s extremely difficult for him to deserve credit for that job creation when you have rising gas prices that created oil jobs that he had nothing to do with; when you have military spending as a result of two wars that created military jobs that he had nothing to do with; when you have the Recovery Act championed by President Obama that created jobs in Texas that he had nothing to do with, so it is way overblown to suggest that job creation in Texas is squarely on the shoulders of his policies."

 

[TobiasFunke]

Obama Administration taking credit for the jobs Rick Perry created down in Texas

You've got to be kidding me.

Wasserman Schultz went on to criticize Texas Gov. Rick Perry, R, for claiming credit for his own state's creation of half the jobs America has created since Obama became president:

"It’s extremely difficult for him to deserve credit for that job creation when you have rising gas prices that created oil jobs that he had nothing to do with; when you have military spending as a result of two wars that created military jobs that he had nothing to do with; when you have the Recovery Act championed by President Obama that created jobs in Texas that he had nothing to do with, so it is way overblown to suggest that job creation in Texas is squarely on the shoulders of his policies."

I find it very confusing that you have such distaste for people saying things that are true. You might find the quotes in your last two posts funny for some reason that I don't understand, but facts are facts. There is not one word in either quote that is untrue. Go ahead, try to find something false in either of them. I'll wait.

 

[Statorama]

Yet another Obama 'Green Jobs' disaster

Last year, Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn announced the city had won a coveted $20 million federal grant to invest in weatherization. The unglamorous work of insulating crawl spaces and attics had emerged as a silver bullet in a bleak economy – able to create jobs and shrink carbon footprint – and the announcement came with great fanfare.

McGinn had joined Vice President Joe Biden in the White House to make it. It came on the eve of Earth Day. It had heady goals: creating 2,000 living-wage jobs in Seattle and retrofitting 2,000 homes in poorer neighborhoods.

But more than a year later, Seattle's numbers are lackluster. As of last week, only three homes had been retrofitted and just 14 new jobs have emerged from the program. Many of the jobs are administrative, and not the entry-level pathways once dreamed of for low-income workers. Some people wonder if the original goals are now achievable.

 

[Phil Elliott]

ATF rewards supervisors of 'Fast and Furious' debacle with lucrative promotions

Their reward for keeping silent.

All three have been heavily criticized for pushing the program forward even as it became apparent that it was out of control. At least 2,000 guns were lost and many turned up at crime scenes in Mexico and two at the killing of a U.S. Border Patrol agent in Arizona.

The three supervisors have been given new management positions at the agency's headquarters in Washington. They are William G. McMahon, who was the ATF's deputy director of operations in the West, where the illegal trafficking program was focused, and William D. Newell and David Voth, both field supervisors who oversaw the program out of the agency's Phoenix office.

McMahon and Newell have acknowledged making serious mistakes in the program, which was dubbed Operation Fast and Furious.

"I share responsibility for mistakes that were made," McMahon testified to a House committee three weeks ago. "The advantage of hindsight, the benefit of a thorough review of the case, clearly points me to things that I would have done differently."

Seems a program that involves going outside the US borders, would need approval rather high up, right?

 

[Statorama]

Obama's taxpayer funded bus trip on board 'Greyhound One' debuts in Iowa

Why is my tax money going to pay for his campaign tour?

The US leader swept onto the campaign trail Monday with a sleek and even sinister looking set of wheels with blacked out windows worth $1.1 million (£675,000).

The shiny, black armoured bus, bristling with secret communications technology, with flashing police-style red and blue lights on the front and the back, made its debut on Mr Obama's three-day tour of Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois.

 

[Zeff]

I know you're just trolling, since you've admitted as much. But it's kind of a pathetic waste of a life to be so dedicated to the cause, no?

 

[Statorama]

I know you're just trolling, since you've admitted as much. But it's kind of a pathetic waste of a life to be so dedicated to the cause, no?

Isn't it more of a pathetic waste to spend your time complaining about the guy you think is wasting his life?

 

[Statorama]

ANYWAY...back to the show

How many miles to the gallon does "Greyhound One" get, Barry? You being so environmentally friendly and all, I figured you'd know.

 

[Statorama]

British press has labled Obama's Death Star bus as "The battle bus from Mordor"

 

[Road Warriors]

Obama Administration taking credit for the jobs Rick Perry created down in Texas

You've got to be kidding me.

Wasserman Schultz went on to criticize Texas Gov. Rick Perry, R, for claiming credit for his own state's creation of half the jobs America has created since Obama became president:

"It’s extremely difficult for him to deserve credit for that job creation when you have rising gas prices that created oil jobs that he had nothing to do with; when you have military spending as a result of two wars that created military jobs that he had nothing to do with; when you have the Recovery Act championed by President Obama that created jobs in Texas that he had nothing to do with, so it is way overblown to suggest that job creation in Texas is squarely on the shoulders of his policies."

I find it very confusing that you have such distaste for people saying things that are true. You might find the quotes in your last two posts funny for some reason that I don't understand, but facts are facts. There is not one word in either quote that is untrue. Go ahead, try to find something false in either of them. I'll wait.

I might question if rising gas prices drives oil jobs. I'm fairly sure the oil demand, regardless of gas prices, is high, and those jobs are related to overall oil demand, not rising gas prices.I might question the number of net new military jobs included in the total jobs created in Texas, and how many of those were driven by the wars.

I might question the data around the job creation from the Recovery Act. While I can't argue the truthfulness that President Obama championed that legislation, the link from that act and job creation has been somewhat lacking in detail.

But, the rest of the statement I'd rate as solidly true.

 

[Statorama]

Dang, I was hoping Tobias was commenting on that big hearse that Obama's riding into town on. Had a good "Sarah Palin Envy" zinger I wanted to throw out.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Obama Administration taking credit for the jobs Rick Perry created down in Texas

You've got to be kidding me.

Wasserman Schultz went on to criticize Texas Gov. Rick Perry, R, for claiming credit for his own state's creation of half the jobs America has created since Obama became president:

"It’s extremely difficult for him to deserve credit for that job creation when you have rising gas prices that created oil jobs that he had nothing to do with; when you have military spending as a result of two wars that created military jobs that he had nothing to do with; when you have the Recovery Act championed by President Obama that created jobs in Texas that he had nothing to do with, so it is way overblown to suggest that job creation in Texas is squarely on the shoulders of his policies."

I find it very confusing that you have such distaste for people saying things that are true. You might find the quotes in your last two posts funny for some reason that I don't understand, but facts are facts. There is not one word in either quote that is untrue. Go ahead, try to find something false in either of them. I'll wait.

I might question if rising gas prices drives oil jobs. I'm fairly sure the oil demand, regardless of gas prices, is high, and those jobs are related to overall oil demand, not rising gas prices.I might question the number of net new military jobs included in the total jobs created in Texas, and how many of those were driven by the wars.

I might question the data around the job creation from the Recovery Act. While I can't argue the truthfulness that President Obama championed that legislation, the link from that act and job creation has been somewhat lacking in detail.

But, the rest of the statement I'd rate as solidly true.

Regarding your first "question"- you would be wrong to question it. Oil demand is high, but there are always prospects whose commercial viability is marginal. A more expensive operation that may previously not have been developed suddenly makes sense. Thus, more jobs in an oil-rich location like Texas. Seems like commons sense to me.Regarding your second "question"- I don't know why you'd question that. It's really pretty easy to look up. We've added 300,000 in military personnel nationally in the last decade, it's a fair bet that many of those jobs are in Texas.

Regarding your third "question"- if even you can't argue the truthfulness, what exactly makes that aspect of the statement funny or outlandish?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Dang, I was hoping Tobias was commenting on that big hearse that Obama's riding into town on. Had a good "Sarah Palin Envy" zinger I wanted to throw out.

Sorry, Stat. Some of your fishing trips are too silly for a response. I prefer the juicier bait. But feel free to use the zinger anyway- no need to let it go to waste.

 

[Statorama]

Did Obama just say....no.....no way he just said that

 

[Funkley]

I dont get the strongly approve votes. At this point thats just blind faith and party voting. There's nothing in the last decade to strongly approve of let alone, overall.

 

[urbanhack]

I dont get the strongly approve votes. At this point thats just blind faith and party voting. There's nothing in the last decade to strongly approve of let alone, overall.

I doubt many people have voted in this poll since the middle to late part of 2009. (and since Stat has overrun it with his blind, obsessive hatred of Obama.)

 

[Funkley]

I dont get the strongly approve votes. At this point thats just blind faith and party voting. There's nothing in the last decade to strongly approve of let alone, overall.

I doubt many people have voted in this poll since the middle to late part of 2009. (and since Stat has overrun it with his blind, obsessive hatred of Obama.)

Good point, poor reading on my part.

 

[Jewell]

Talk about buyer's remorse...

BUFFALO NEWS EDITORIAL ENDORSEMENT - OCTOBER 2008

Our preference for Obama is not based only on matters of character, intelligence and calm. It also flows from his superior positions on such basic issues as war and peace, energy and environment, the economy and taxation, health care and justice.

Fundamentally, Obama does not want us to fear the future, the ever smaller, ever more complicated world, the problems we face and the choices we must make. He most certainly does not want us to be afraid of one another. And Obama does not even want us to be afraid of his rival candidate.

There was a time when it was reasonable to hope that the same would be true of the Republican candidate, John McCain.

The senator from Arizona has a long history of public service, most notably five years of imprisonment and torture in Vietnam, that also has included conspicuous examples of political courage. He has, at various times in the past, stood for sensible and compassionate immigration reform and against the darker aspects of the Bush administration’s anti-terror tactics. He has done so even when substantial numbers of the American people and the leadership of his own party were against him.

A contest between John McCain, that John McCain, and Barack Obama could have presented the American voter with an embarrassment of riches: two serious, principled, devoted candidates for president, at a time when the world desperately needs those characteristics, promoting differing but reasonable visions of policy and personality.

But in recent weeks, as the polls have shown McCain’s long dream of becoming president slipping away, he has fully and stunningly embraced the politics of fear. He, personally and through running mate Sarah Palin, has launched a smear campaign against Obama that smacks of racism and includes distortions and red herrings. We once considered McCain, when he was an independent thinker focused on issues, as a very serious contender for American leadership; his selection of the unqualified Palin for a post a heartbeat away from the presidency rules that out.

Obama, on the other hand, decided to remain true to himself and the persona and policies that got him this far. While adversaries see the senator from Illinois as aloof, and even some friends fear that he is maddeningly passive, the crucible of the interminable campaign has shown Obama to posses the intelligence, judgment and temperament that clearly make him the better choice this year.

http://wnymedia.net/buffalopundit/2008/10/buffalo-news-endorses-barack-obama/

BUFFALO NEWS EDITORIAL SECTION - AUGUST 16, 2011

The inability of President Obama to run this country has reached new levels of concern, including within the Democratic Party itself. The idea of challenging a sitting president for the presidential nomination is practically unheard of, but then we are not talking about normal times, nor an acceptable performance. (The only incumbent Democratic president to lose a second term was Jimmy Carter, who was unseated by Ronald Reagan.)

Obama's lack of effective leadership is no longer a neutral factor; it's a loss. Many believe the country will not recover with him at the helm. A Washington Post poll said only 25 percent of respondents have faith the government can solve its economic problems, and 71 percent said the Standard & Poor's downgrade of the nation's credit was called for. Meanwhile, Gallup reported Obama's approval rating dropped below 40 percent for the first time.

It's impossible to understand why the president has done nothing given the condition of the country and people's declining faith in him. You don't have to look far to see how other foreign heads are acting. Just last week, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France left his vacation to return to Paris to meet with his cabinet. Among the issues they discussed was a balanced budget amendment. Prime Minister David Cameron, faced with riots in England, dropped his vacation, returned home and convened Parliament.

Our president will go to Martha's Vineyard on vacation this week. Reporters asked him if he was still going to go, considering the desperate shape the country was in, with millions out of work and others losing their retirement savings. As if in a state of oblivion, he said yes.

In a perverse way, perhaps there's no difference between Obama doing nothing in Washington and doing nothing for the country while on vacation.

It is disheartening.

It's hard to understand how his advisers, who are aware of the growing negative sentiment about the president, haven't positioned him to be a man of action who shows he not only understands the problems, but cares and states clearly that, as president of the United States, it falls to him to address them.

We have very serious problems, but the first is a crisis in confidence in our leaders -- and Obama is No. 1. President Harry Truman said, "The buck stops here."

Without confidence in Washington, businesses are not going to invest, spend money or hire. They can't look to Harry Reid or John Boehner to save the day. It's the president's job. Where is Franklin Roosevelt? Where is Ronald Reagan?

Obama is a great speaker, but his rhetorical skills seem limited to the enthusiasm he has for spending money on entitlement programs. He is unable to ratchet up his content and the delivery to the level necessary to inspire confidence. Meanwhile, Americans are giving him a vote of no confidence. In the English parliamentary system, that means the prime minister steps down.

Obama has to have a sound legislative agenda and a strategy to secure its passage. He has no legislative agenda and he has no strategy. He waits for others to put forth their ideas, and then is not very responsive.

The president of the United States not only must have the character to inspire confidence, he also must have the forcefulness to persuade people as well as the temperament to withstand personal criticism in battle.

Obama has none of these. He seems paralyzed, unable to act. The American people and the world are waiting for him to lead the country. They will follow a president who is credible, decisive and a strong leader. You can't find that in this president.

He could announce that he will have an entirely new plan next week instead of going on vacation. He could announce that he is meeting with congressional leadership to address the crisis. He could call the Congress back in session. He is doing none of these.

In the face of Obama's ineptitude, people are stepping back and asking how we got here. They suddenly realize that he has no experience running a large institution. While a U.S. senator, he introduced no significant legislation. His expertise is in creating entitlement programs with no understanding or interest in the economics that make them possible.

In 2008, he told the Iowa caucuses, which he won, that "we are choosing hope over fear." He has not been able to deliver on that hope, and the fall has been that much more dramatic.

He campaigned on how he would change Washington. It's changed, but for the worse.

Remember when Gen. Colin Powell turned his back on the Clintons and endorsed Obama? Powell said Obama could be a "transformational" president. Powell missed the mark badly.

Remember when Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize? Some protested that he hadn't done anything to deserve it. It was true; but the aura around him was built on hope, not true leadership and accomplishment. He hasn't said anything concrete in the past two weeks that would give the nation any hope.

He doesn't seem to realize this is his job. A lot of people want to be president; they just don't know how to do president.

Obama might have been a good president in a different era -- if we had no debt problems, the economy was growing and unemployment was manageable. But the situation is far different and far more desperate.

This country needs a leader now who can turn the economy around, and it's become clear that Obama has no idea how to do it.

A big reason for Washington's failure is that politicians don't have the same belief system in how government should function as we do. Our priority is sound governance with decisions based on what is best for the people.

Their priority is staying in office with all the perks, power, patronage and spending that identifies their lives.

The president and other politicians need to step back from their re-election campaigns and concern themselves with options that can lead us out of this mess -- a mess they had a big hand in creating.

It may be dawning on the Democrats that, with Obama floundering, they may not be as secure in office as they thought they were. That may jar them into considering options normally unthinkable.

A year and a half ago, Obama told ABC's Diane Sawyer he'd rather be a good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president. He hasn't even managed mediocre.

As people give up hope that Obama will become something he's not -- that simply isn't in him -- they will have to seriously contemplate change.

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial-page/buffalo-news-editorials/article523618.ece

 

[Road Warriors]

Obama Administration taking credit for the jobs Rick Perry created down in Texas

You've got to be kidding me.

Wasserman Schultz went on to criticize Texas Gov. Rick Perry, R, for claiming credit for his own state's creation of half the jobs America has created since Obama became president:

"It’s extremely difficult for him to deserve credit for that job creation when you have rising gas prices that created oil jobs that he had nothing to do with; when you have military spending as a result of two wars that created military jobs that he had nothing to do with; when you have the Recovery Act championed by President Obama that created jobs in Texas that he had nothing to do with, so it is way overblown to suggest that job creation in Texas is squarely on the shoulders of his policies."

I find it very confusing that you have such distaste for people saying things that are true. You might find the quotes in your last two posts funny for some reason that I don't understand, but facts are facts. There is not one word in either quote that is untrue. Go ahead, try to find something false in either of them. I'll wait.

I might question if rising gas prices drives oil jobs. I'm fairly sure the oil demand, regardless of gas prices, is high, and those jobs are related to overall oil demand, not rising gas prices.I might question the number of net new military jobs included in the total jobs created in Texas, and how many of those were driven by the wars.

I might question the data around the job creation from the Recovery Act. While I can't argue the truthfulness that President Obama championed that legislation, the link from that act and job creation has been somewhat lacking in detail.

But, the rest of the statement I'd rate as solidly true.

Regarding your first "question"- you would be wrong to question it. Oil demand is high, but there are always prospects whose commercial viability is marginal. A more expensive operation that may previously not have been developed suddenly makes sense. Thus, more jobs in an oil-rich location like Texas. Seems like commons sense to me.

Doesn't seem like common sense to me. Gas prices are not a jobs driver. If you have a link that shows an increase in the price at the pump creates jobs, I'd be willing to reassess.

Regarding your second "question"- I don't know why you'd question that. It's really pretty easy to look up. We've added 300,000 in military personnel nationally in the last decade, it's a fair bet that many of those jobs are in Texas.

A better link, with different resultsFrom the same site, total uniformed Military from 2000 ( 1426 ) to 2008 ( 1450 ). There's been a recent run up, adding a total of 150k uniformed military in the past 2 years. The number of those based in Texas? Based on ratios, it looks like Texas houses just over 100000 active military personnel ( of the 1.6 million ), so I guess we could attribute 1/16th of the 150k additional active duty to Texas, a net of just under 10000 "net new" jobs, a fairly trivial number in the total Texas jobs growth.

Regarding your third "question"- if even you can't argue the truthfulness, what exactly makes that aspect of the statement funny or outlandish?

I can't argue that Obama pushed the bill. I can argue that the bill created jobs. Sustainable jobs. Do you have any data that backs up this claim of creating jobs in Texas specifically due to the recovery act?

 

[Statorama]

Obama's out of control, anti-business regulatory agencies are the key factor stunting economic growth in America

This doesn't even count the 4200 new regulations that are "in the pipeline". The Obama administration is in the regulatory-expansion business, and buddy, business is a-boomin’

If the federal government’s regulatory operation were a business, it would be one of the 50 biggest in the country in terms of revenues, and the third largest in terms of employees, with more people working for it than McDonald’s, Ford, Disney and Boeing combined.

Under President Obama, while the economy is struggling to grow and create jobs, the federal regulatory business is booming.

Regulatory agencies have seen their combined budgets grow a healthy 16% since 2008, topping $54 billion, according to the annual “Regulator’s Budget,” compiled by George Washington University and Washington University in St. Louis.

That’s at a time when the overall economy grew a paltry 5%.

Meanwhile, employment at these agencies has climbed 13% since Obama took office to more than 281,000, while private-sector jobs shrank by 5.6%.

 

[jon_mx]

DOW is down over 500 points, Obama's approval rating on the economy is at 28%, and Obama is sitting on the beach drinking Mai Tai's. Great week.

 

[tommyboy]

face it, whatever hope and change you thought you were getting is gonzo. He's just not a good president.

 

[rolyaTy]

face it, whatever hope and change you thought you were getting is gonzo. He's just not a good president.

He's done a great job as president. It's the bozo before him, the bozo's in congress, and the rough economic situation that makes him not come across as one of the best ever.Had he been elected in 2000, the country right now would be in SUCH better shape than GWB left it. Dude is a great president...just got to put him behind an O-line that can protect him and give him some time to get his passes off.

 

[NJDawgPound]

face it, whatever hope and change you thought you were getting is gonzo. He's just not a good president.

He's done a great job as president. It's the bozo before him, the bozo's in congress, and the rough economic situation that makes him not come across as one of the best ever.Had he been elected in 2000, the country right now would be in SUCH better shape than GWB left it. Dude is a great president...just got to put him behind an O-line that can protect him and give him some time to get his passes off.

But now he's the David Carr of Presidents.

 

[rolyaTy]

face it, whatever hope and change you thought you were getting is gonzo. He's just not a good president.

He's done a great job as president. It's the bozo before him, the bozo's in congress, and the rough economic situation that makes him not come across as one of the best ever.Had he been elected in 2000, the country right now would be in SUCH better shape than GWB left it. Dude is a great president...just got to put him behind an O-line that can protect him and give him some time to get his passes off.

But now he's the David Carr of Presidents.

Nah, his O-line is getting overhauled here soon. He just has to make it past the next round of cuts, and the bozo's who brought in his latest teammates will do a better job picking people who can actually do what they're hired to do this time. Next season, he'll be back, Drew Brees style...marchin' to the Superbowl of American Presidency, terrorist fist-bumping his entire cabinet while doing the funky chicken dance.

 

[greenroom]

DOW is down over 500 points, Obama's approval rating on the economy is at 28%, and Obama is sitting on the beach drinking Mai Tai's. Great week.

So why dont you post when the Market is up over 400 points? Oh I know why.. because you only post negative things about the President. Good thing we live in a great country that you can do this and not worry about any repercussions.

 

[humpback]

face it, whatever hope and change you thought you were getting is gonzo. He's just not a good president.

He's done a great job as president. It's the bozo before him, the bozo's in congress, and the rough economic situation that makes him not come across as one of the best ever.Had he been elected in 2000, the country right now would be in SUCH better shape than GWB left it. Dude is a great president...just got to put him behind an O-line that can protect him and give him some time to get his passes off.

Be honest- did you keep a straight face when you typed this?

 

[timschochet]

face it, whatever hope and change you thought you were getting is gonzo. He's just not a good president.

He's done a great job as president. It's the bozo before him, the bozo's in congress, and the rough economic situation that makes him not come across as one of the best ever.Had he been elected in 2000, the country right now would be in SUCH better shape than GWB left it. Dude is a great president...just got to put him behind an O-line that can protect him and give him some time to get his passes off.

How about neither particularly good nor particularly awful? I think Obama is mediocre. He's been OK.

 

[Statorama]

Obama once again decides which laws to enforce and which to ignore

The Obama administration has specifically ordered the DHS to NOT enforce the laws of the land. Impeach this MF'er already.

WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) — The Obama administration said Thursday it will allow many illegal immigrants facing deportation the chance to stay in this country and apply for a work permit, while focusing on removing from the U.S. convicted criminals and those who might be a national security or public safety threat.

That will mean a case-by-case review of approximately 300,000 illegal immigrants facing possible deportation in federal immigration courts, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said in announcing the policy change.

Advocates for an immigration overhaul have said that the administration, by placing all illegal immigrants in the same category for deportation, has failed to live up to its promise to only deport the “worst of the worst,” as President Barack Obama has said.

“From a law enforcement and public safety perspective, DHS enforcement resources must continue to be focused on our highest priorities,” Napolitano wrote a group of senators supporting new immigration legislation. “Doing otherwise hinders our public safety mission – clogging immigration court dockets and diverting DHS enforcement resources away from the individuals who pose a threat to public safety.”

The Associated Press obtained a copy of the letter.

Sow what does this mean practically? The Washington Times tries to sort it out:

It was unclear how many people might be affected by the new rules, though in fiscal year 2010 the government deported nearly 200,000 illegal immigrants who it said did not have criminal records.

The Obama administration has argued for months that it did not have authority to grant blanket absolution, and Miss Napolitano stressed that these cases will be treated individually, though the new guidance applies across the board.

Some states are rebelling against another administration effort to control illegal immigration known as Secure Communities. The program requires that when state and local law enforcement send criminal suspects’ fingerprints to the FBI, the prints are run through an immigration database to determine the person’s immigration status. States have argued that the program puts them in the position of policing immigration, which they consider a federal responsibility. Immigrant advocacy groups have complained that people who had not yet been convicted of a crime were being caught up in the system.

In June, the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, John Morton, sent a memo to agents outlining when and how they could use discretion in immigration cases. That guidance also covered those potentially subject to a legislative proposal, known as the DREAM Act, intended to give young illegal immigrants who go to college or serve in the military a chance at legal status.

Morton also suggested that agents consider how long someone has been in the United States, whether that person’s spouse or children are U.S. citizens and whether that person has a criminal record.

A senior administration official said delaying deportation decisions in cases for some non-criminals would allow quicker deportation of serious criminals. The indefinite stay will not give illegal immigrants a path to legal permanent residency, but will let them apply for a work permit.

“As a matter of law, they are eligible for a work authorization card, basically a taxpayer ID card, but that decision is made separately and on a case-by-case basis,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discussed the change publicly.

The official said the change will give authorities the chance to keep some cases from even reaching the court system. The message to agents in the field, the official said, would be “you do not need to put everyone you come across in the system.”

If an immigrant whose case has been stayed commits a crime or other circumstances change, their case could be reopened.

Sen. **** Durbin, D-Ill., a longtime supporter of immigration overhaul and the DREAM Act, applauded the policy change.

“These students are the future doctors, lawyers, teachers and, maybe, senators, who will make America stronger,” Durbin said in an emailed statement. “We need to be doing all we can to keep these talented, dedicated, American students here, not wasting increasingly precious resources sending them away to countries they barely remember.”

“Today is a victory not just for immigrants but for the American people as a whole because it makes no sense to deport Dream Act students and others who can make great contributions to America and pose no threat,” said Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL). “It is not in our national interest to send away young people who were raised in the U.S. and have been educated here and want only to contribute to this country’s success.”

Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said the Obama administration was implementing reforms “against the will of Congress and the majority of American people we represent.”

“It is just the latest attempt by this president to bypass the intended legislative process when he does not get his way,” McCaul said in a statement. “The fact that we have a backlog and prioritize deportations is nothing new. This policy goes a step further granting illegal immigrants a fast-track to gaining a work permit where they will now unfairly compete with more than 9 percent of Americans who are still looking for jobs.”

Other Republicans have previously criticized the DREAM Act and other immigration legislation that would provide a path to legal status as amnesty. Following Morton’s June memo, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, introduced a bill to block the administration’s use of prosecutorial discretion and called the use of that discretion “backdoor amnesty.”

“Supporters of comprehensive and targeted amnesties for illegal aliens have consistently failed to win approval by Congress or gain support from the American public,” Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, told the Times. “Having failed in the legislative process, the Obama administration has simply decided to usurp Congress’s constitutional authority and implement an amnesty program for millions of illegal aliens.”

 

[Parrothead]

face it, whatever hope and change you thought you were getting is gonzo. He's just not a good president.

He's done a great job as president. It's the bozo before him, the bozo's in congress, and the rough economic situation that makes him not come across as one of the best ever.Had he been elected in 2000, the country right now would be in SUCH better shape than GWB left it. Dude is a great president...just got to put him behind an O-line that can protect him and give him some time to get his passes off.

I believe this schtick is taken

 

[BoneYardDog]

This should scare us: The future

Good job obama...

Keep raising the debt limit, it will not affect us...

 

[Statorama]

WSJ explains why Obama's payroll tax break won't help spur long term growth

They didn't work the last two times they were tried, but it makes for positive Obama headlines.

The biggest problem with Mr. Obama's payroll tax cut is that it's temporary. Employers hire workers based on their business needs and the costs of each new employee. They aren't likely to add workers based on lower tax costs if they know those costs are going to rise in a year. That's especially true when employers also know that ObamaCare is going to raise their cost of hiring in 2013.

Mr. Obama's payroll break is also only an indirect hiring incentive because it goes to the worker, not the employer who does the hiring. The President's Keynesians see the tax cut mainly as one more stimulus to boost consumer spending, and thus economic demand. As the President recently explained, the idea is to "put $1,000 in the pockets of American workers."

In other words, the plan is supposed to operate like the one-time tax rebates that didn't work when President Bush signed them in 2001 and 2008. The rebate checks showed up as a temporary blip in consumer spending and GDP, but they did nothing to change incentives to work or invest and promote long-term growth.

 

[rolyaTy]

His new jobs plan is a great idea. Just what the country needs to get back on track.

 

[Statorama]

Obama chastises Congress for not passing free trade agreements when actually the administration just hasn't submitted them to Congress yet.

 

[Fensalk]

His new jobs plan is a great idea. Just what the country needs to get back on track.

The country is not interested in new ideas from this president. The voters in 2008 gave him the largest mandate any president has had since LBJ. He had 2 years to do whatever he wanted, which is more than almost any president gets, and removed the republicans from power completely. The public is interested in judging the results of his plans from 2009 and 2010. If they find the results lacking, they will remove him from office. But they stripped him of his power to pursue new plans in 2010, and aren't going to entertain new ideas from him at this time. If the economy turns around by election day, I believe they will re-elect him, which will give Obama a chance to enact new ideas. But not before.

 

[Statorama]

Economist on MSNBC: Obama never had a plan

Economist Jeffrey Sachs slammed President Obama on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Friday.

"We're almost three years into this administration, and there's never been a plan. And that's what everybody feels. And the president didn't lead. He waited. The quintessential image, sadly, of an administration that I supported and hoped for much better, is the president waiting by the phone to hear what Congress calls to tell him. It doesn't work in this country that way. It's not a matter that it's August. It's a matter that it's August 2011. So we've been drifting for a very long time. And we've been drifting down. And we had a short-term plan that failed. A short-term stimulus that was supposed to get the economy back on track, but it failed. And now we have nothing behind it. And we have no agreements, and we have no leadership. And, frankly, I do think it's pretty odd the president's on vacation right now. Normally I wouldn't care about such things, but the world markets are in deep crisis. It's no joke. This isn't just an up-and-down little blip. This is a very serious situation."

 

[rolyaTy]

His new jobs plan is a great idea. Just what the country needs to get back on track.

The country is not interested in new ideas from this president. The voters in 2008 gave him the largest mandate any president has had since LBJ. He had 2 years to do whatever he wanted, which is more than almost any president gets, and removed the republicans from power completely. The public is interested in judging the results of his plans from 2009 and 2010. If they find the results lacking, they will remove him from office. But they stripped him of his power to pursue new plans in 2010, and aren't going to entertain new ideas from him at this time. If the economy turns around by election day, I believe they will re-elect him, which will give Obama a chance to enact new ideas. But not before.

Republicans were voted back in with a mandate, and they squandered their opportunity to impact things for the best when they held out against all compromise on this debt plan. A huge compromise of a bill was offered by Obama, and the republicans lead by the tea party extremists turned their noses up at it, instead deciding to hold fast to arbitrarily set points of negotiation.Rather than govern effectively, the republicans have squandered a huge opportunity to right this ship. The ball is back in the democrats, and Obama's, court.

 

[Statorama]

A huge compromise of a bill was offered by Obama

This is incorrect. He never officially offered any plan. He was going to accept Boehners "Grand Bargain", but when he heard that the Gang of Six was offering a higher tax increase in their plan he ditched Boehners.

 

[jamny]

His new jobs plan is a great idea. Just what the country needs to get back on track.

 

[rolyaTy]

A huge compromise of a bill was offered by Obama

This is incorrect. He never officially offered any plan. He was going to accept Boehners "Grand Bargain", but when he heard that the Gang of Six was offering a higher tax increase in their plan he ditched Boehners.

They were officially working towards a compromise before Boehner walked out due to him not being able to compromise at all on any level of increased revenue. That single stance his party took prevented meaningful action from taking place on debt reform. The republicans screwed the pooch and overplayed their hand.

 

[Statorama]

Obama's "green jobs" disaster

Besides healing the planet and returning the rising seas to their natural beds, then-Senator Obama promised that his administration would create beautiful green jobs: well paid, stable, abundant jobs, unionized, with full benefits and making the earth healthier and the American people richer. As President, he stayed on message: even after the truther-enabling “green jobs czar” Van Jones left the administration, green jobs have been one of the President’s signature policies for putting the American people back to work.

Obama promised to create 5 million green jobs within ten years. Investors’ Business Daily has a list of that plan’s successes so far.

- On his recent jobs tour Obama stopped at a Johnson Controls plant in southern Michigan, which received $300 million in green grants and plans to create a whopping total of 150 jobs, at a cost of $2 million per position.

- Evergreen Solar Inc., which received unknown amounts of green stimulus funds on the hope that it would create “between 90 and 100 jobs” two years ago, filed for bankruptcy this week, $485.6 million in debt. Their Massachusetts plant once employed 800 people; in March it was replaced with a factory in Wuhan, China.

- Green Vehicles, an electric car “maker” in Salinas, California, took $500,000 from the city and almost $200,000 from the state but has failed to produce even one car.

- And as reported earlier on this site, Seattle was one of a handful of cities that received $20 million in federal grants as part of Retrofit Ramp-Up, a program designed to refit houses with more energy efficient materials. Unfortunately, as KOMO4 of Seattle reports, after more than a year “only three homes had been retrofitted and just 14 new jobs have emerged from the program.”

I’ve posted about this failing strategy before; it’s nice to see (h/t Instapundit) that the New York Times has also figured it out that the administration’s green jobs initiative is an embarrassing mess.

As the paper of record reports,

Federal and state efforts to stimulate creation of green jobs have largely failed, government records show. Two years after it was awarded $186 million in federal stimulus money to weatherize drafty homes, California has spent only a little over half that sum and has so far created the equivalent of just 538 full-time jobs in the last quarter…

The Economic Development Department in California reports that $59 million in state, federal and private money dedicated to green jobs training and apprenticeship has led to only 719 job placements — the equivalent of an $82,000 subsidy for each one.

The belief that green jobs would drive a new era of American prosperity was — like the large majority of green policy chat — intellectually incoherent. The goods that drive renewable energy industries, like so much else in this world, are far cheaper to construct in Asia. As the NYT piece describes, SolFocus, a widely-celebrated solar power company based, only has 90 employees at their San Jose headquarters. The solar panels are assembled in China. Whether a product is an ordinary t-shirt or an admirable piece of world saving green technology like a wind turbine has zilch, zero, nada influence on the mind of the manufacturer trying to decide where it should be made.

There are perhaps some green jobs that would be exceptions; we could eliminate all forms of welfare and food stamps and offer the unemployed minimum wage jobs pedaling stationary bicycles hooked up to electric generators, solving our budget, poverty, obesity and energy independence problems all at once — but these are not the jobs either the President or his supporters have in mind.

It’s understandable and even forgivable that a political candidate would talk about green jobs on the hustings, especially when the Democratic Party is divided between job hungry blue collar workers and fastidious greens who break out in hives in the presence of coal. What worries me isn’t that the President’s team advised him to make a few speeches on this subject; if a candidate can’t throw chum to the base now and then what’s the point of having elections? What worries me is that they didn’t understand that making something this bogus a central plank of his actual governing plan on an issue as vital as jobs would have serious costs down the road.

Many liberals want green jobs to exist so badly that they don’t fully grasp how otherworldly and ineffectual this advocacy makes the President look to unemployed meat packers and truck drivers.

Let me put it this way. A GOP candidate might feel a need to please creationist voters and say a few nice things about intelligent design. That is politics as usual; it gins up the base and drive the opposition insane with fury and rage. No harm, really, and no foul.

But if that same politician then proposed to base federal health policy on a hunt for the historical Garden of Eden so that we could replace Medicare by feeding old people on fruit from the Tree of Life, he would have gone from quackery-as-usual to raving incompetence. True, the Tree of Life approach polls well in GOP focus groups: no cuts to Medicare benefits, massive tax savings, no death panels, Biblical values on display. Its only flaw is that there won’t be any magic free fruit that lets us live forever, and sooner or later people will notice that and be unhappy.

Green jobs are the Democratic equivalent of Tree of Life Medicare; they scratch every itch of every important segment of the base and if they actually existed they would be an excellent policy choice. But since they are no more available to solve our jobs problem than the Tree of Life stands ready to make health care affordable, a green jobs policy boils down to a promise to feed the masses on tasty unicorn ribs from the Great Invisible Unicorn Herd that only the greens can see.

Here in particular Senator Obama as he then was would have benefited from a less gushing, more skeptical press. If his first couple of speeches on this topic had been met with the incredulous and even mocking response they deserved, he probably would not have married himself so publicly to so vain and so empty a cause.

The cost is not simply the stimulus funds wasted on “investments” that don’t produce any jobs. It’s not just the opportunity cost as more practical and reasonable job creation agendas were shoved aside to make room for the unicorn hunt. It’s the credibility cost. The President cannot successfully make the case for stimulus so many of his supporters would like him to make when the opposition can cite figures like $2 million a job, or point to jobs shipped overseas and companies shut down. Worse, the failed unicorn barbecue undermines the President’s ability to convince the American people that he knows how to create jobs. Thirty months of poor job numbers while the White House was off chasing unicorns and hyping green jobs as a national strategy means that the administration has forfeited public confidence on the jobs issue. That is no small handicap in times like the present.

The green jobs fiasco is not the only failure sapping the President’s credibility as an economic policy maker. The administration was clearly caught off guard by the weakness in the economy this year, and only belatedly discovered how poorly constructed its stimulus really was. Not even administration spokespersons attempt to defend its housing policy when it comes to topics like mortgage relief.

A quick return to economic growth would put all these concerns in the background, but on the more probable assumption that the economy will still be struggling well into if not all the way through 2012, the White House needs to figure out how to change course — and how to communicate that change of course to a country that has come dangerously close to tuning out the President when he talks about jobs.

 

[Statorama]

A huge compromise of a bill was offered by Obama

This is incorrect. He never officially offered any plan. He was going to accept Boehners "Grand Bargain", but when he heard that the Gang of Six was offering a higher tax increase in their plan he ditched Boehners.

They were officially working towards a compromise before Boehner walked out due to him not being able to compromise at all on any level of increased revenue. That single stance his party took prevented meaningful action from taking place on debt reform. The republicans screwed the pooch and overplayed their hand.

Taxes weren't raised. Big win for fiscal conservatives.

 

[rolyaTy]

A huge compromise of a bill was offered by Obama

This is incorrect. He never officially offered any plan. He was going to accept Boehners "Grand Bargain", but when he heard that the Gang of Six was offering a higher tax increase in their plan he ditched Boehners.

They were officially working towards a compromise before Boehner walked out due to him not being able to compromise at all on any level of increased revenue. That single stance his party took prevented meaningful action from taking place on debt reform. The republicans screwed the pooch and overplayed their hand.

Taxes weren't raised. Big win for fiscal conservatives.

Big win for tea partiers, big loss for the rest of the country. The opportunity and the political will was there, but for poor reasons, they decided to derail negotiations, take their ball, and go home.Now it's Obama and the democrats turn to show these tea party guys how governance should be done, since the tea partiers have shown themselves as being incapable of making decisions in the best interest of the country.

 

[Statorama]

Now it's Obama and the democrats turn to show these tea party guys how governance should be done

We've been waiting for a while now. Since he was elected, in fact.

 

[rolyaTy]

Now it's Obama and the democrats turn to show these tea party guys how governance should be done

We've been waiting for a while now. Since he was elected, in fact.

If conservatives are pleased with the way the tea party has governed here lately, I think we can dismiss their opinions on good governance and just move on.