Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

[orimarc]

Simple: Smarter kids = future smarter adults = they may discover the Gov isn't doing the things it says is doingd = less voting = possible anarchy (now that would be awesome).

 

[FoolKiller]

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-v...efficient-government-on-outdated-technologies

White House budget director blames old computers for ineffective government
By Ian Swanson - 01/14/10 02:56 PM ET

A big reason why the government is inefficient and ineffective is because Washington has outdated technology, with federal workers having better computers at home than in the office.

This startling admission came Thursday from Peter Orszag, who manages the federal bureaucracy for President Barack Obama.

The public is getting a bad return on its tax dollars because government workers are operating with outdated technologies, Orszag said in a statement that kicked off a summit between Obama and dozens of corporate CEOs.

“Twenty years ago, people who came to work in the federal government had better technology at work than at home,” said Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget. “Now that’s no longer the case.

“The American people deserve better service from their government, and better return for their tax dollars.”

A few points:

1) Your home PC is better than your work PC? Join the club, buddy. We are now employing children of the technology age, not people that grew up listening to Little Orphan Annie on the radio.

2) They are admitting that government sucks. Make a note. They admitted it.

3) I thought our government was inefficient because lame ideas like this one are considered good economic policy (we call that segue kids):

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/14/obama-propose-fees-high-flying-banks/

Obama to Bankers: 'We Want Our Money Back'

President Obama, striking an emphatic and populist tone, said Thursday that he is determined to recoup every dollar spent from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program to rescue Wall Street firms with a new tax on the largest banks.

"We want our money and we're going to get it back," he said.

Obama described bank bonuses as "obscene" and said the new tax would cover a projected $117 billion shortfall in the government's financial crisis bailout fund.

"My determination to achieve this goal is only heightened when I see reports of massive profits and obscene bonuses at the very firms who owe their continued existence to the American people who have not been made whole, and who continue to face real hardship in this recession," Obama said.

In proposing the tax, Obama and his advisers are capitalizing on public antipathy toward banks blamed for causing the crisis, while at the same time addressing a desire to show progress toward reducing record federal deficits.

The president is proposing a levy of 15 basis points, or 15 percent, on the liabilities of large financial institutions. The tax, which officials are calling a "financial crisis responsibility fee," would apply only to financial companies with assets of more than $50 billion. Those firms -- estimated to amount to about 50 institutions -- would have to pay the fee even though many did not accept any taxpayer assistance and most others already paid back the government lent to them.

The administration expects that 60 percent of the revenue would come from the 10 largest firms. As proposed, the fee would go into effect June 30, 2010, and last at least 10 years.

Obama advisers believe the administration can make an argument that banks should tap their generous executive bonus pools for the fee instead of passing the cost on to consumers.

At issue is the net cost of TARP, the fund initiated by the Bush administration to help financial institutions get rid of toxic assets. The fund has since evolved, helping not only the banking sector, but also autos and homeowners.

Insurance conglomerate American International Group, the largest beneficiary with nearly $70 billion in bailouts, would have to pay the tax. But General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group LLC, whose $66 billion in government loans are not expected to be fully repaid, would not be subject to a tax.

Bankers did not hide their objections.

"Politics have overtaken the economics," said Scott Talbott, the chief lobbyist for the Financial Services Roundtable, a group representing large Wall Street institutions. "This is a punitive tax on companies that repaid TARP in full or never took TARP."

Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase & Co., speaking to reporters Wednesday before details of the tax were known, said: "Using tax policy to punish people is a bad idea."

"It would be very hard for the industry to pay for the auto companies," Dimon added. "I mean, at one point you have to be a little fair."

The administration official said Obama wanted to accelerate a requirement in the existing TARP law that requires the president to seek a way to recoup unrecovered money in 2013, five years after the law was enacted.

The administration is also rejecting Dimon's argument that banks should not pay for shortfalls from the auto industry. The official said the thinking is that major financial institutions were both a significant cause of the crisis and major beneficiaries of the government's rescue efforts and should thus bear the brunt of the cost.

For banks, the tax would not affect their biggest liability -- insured deposits, which already are assessed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

The bank levy would generate an estimated $90 billion over 10 years. It could remain in place longer, however, if needed to eliminate the shortfall. The official said that if the shortfall was eliminated within a decade, the tax would still remain in place for the full 10-year minimum.

Banks have been paying back their infusions. Any shortfall would probably come from money used to prop up AIG, to support GM and Chrysler through bankruptcy protection and to assist homeowners with their mortgages.

So far, the Treasury has given $247 billion to more than 700 banks. Of that, $162 billion has been repaid and banks have paid an additional $11 billion in interest and dividends.

In Congress, the idea was receiving a predictable partisan reaction, with Democrats embracing it and Republicans rejecting it.

"Look, the financial institutions collectively, particularly the larger ones, caused problems by their errors -- their errors of judgment, their irresponsibility, in some cases their skating around dishonesty," said House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass.

"I think it is entirely reasonable to say that the industry that, A, caused these problems more than any other and, B, benefited from the activity, should be contributing," he said.

Republican Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, a member of Frank's committee, ridiculed the idea. "To think that banks will loan more money if you tax them is beyond economic ignorance," he said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Yes, we want our money back...from the people that took it. The majority of that shortfall is coming from AIG, GM, and Chrysler. Take it from them. You already altered the deal, Darth Vader style, when you started dictating their pay, and now that many of them got out from under your thumb as quick as possible when they realized you had Chavez style plans for them you realized that the interest payments you thought would cover any losses aren;t going to be enough. So, now you go in front of the American people and act like you have no clue what repayment means and vilify them. The irony is that if the banks acted this way towards people that took loans from them you would crucify them.

What is funny is that you acted like all of this bull would actually fix the problem. You ignored many prominent economists, both as a Senator and now as President, because they were not the Keynesians that support ideas that constantly give you more power. Well, as you stand here whining like a spoiled child about how the evil bankers haven't changed you equally act as stubborn and refuse to accept that you were wrong then and you are wrong now. When the ideas provided by your economic advisers fail you don't keep going forward with bullheaded stupidity because you refuse to admit that no matter how eloquently you talk, in economics you are an intellectual equal, at best, to George W. Bush parodies.

With the salary controls you had an arguable, although extremely crooked and unethical, reasoning to back you up. Here your only excuse is that you want to hide your mistakes and are willing to do it with tactics that are legally questionable, and outright wrong.

My bank cannot take more money from me after I pay off my loan completely, as per our agreement. You cannot take more money from the banks after they pay off their loan completely, as per your agreement.

You screwed up as a Senator, and you are keeping with a perfect score of failure as president. Congratulations. At least you are consistent.

 

[Keef]

Did you send that to him in a letter? You should. To his home address, too.

Do it.

 

[Duke]

Un-FREAKING-believable.

Except it's not. This presidency is turning out even worse than I imagined, and that's saying something. Too bad that for most people, Bush was physically incapable of doing anything right, and those same people think Obama is physically incapable of doing wrong.

 

[Dotini]

My bank cannot take more money from me after I pay off my loan completely, as per our agreement. You cannot take more money from the banks after they pay off their loan completely, as per your agreement.

Actually the government can and will go after those banks with any combination of increased taxes, punitive fines, levies, fees, penalties, reserve requirements and other orders, rules and regulations. This is for the proximate reason that those banks caused the crisis in the first place through excessively risky business models and practices. They are holding the money while we are clutching a little wet paper bag with the bottom fallen out.

In a more just world, the flacks in the financial media as well as the deans and professors of elite business schools who gave the false imprimatur of legitimacy to those models and practices would also suffer greatly. In China they might be shot. In our own Puritan days they would serve time in the public stocks and be rained on with rotten fruit and well-deserved ridicule for the suffering they caused and perpetuated.

In no way are we out of this nightmare of economic and financial collapse. Tectonic plates are shifting beneath shattered foundation stones, with consequences yet unrealized.

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[Duke]

Actually the government can and will go after those banks with any combination of increased taxes, punitive fines, levies, fees, penalties, reserve requirements and other orders, rules and regulations. This is for the proximate reason that those banks caused the crisis in the first place through excessively risky business models and practices.

And lets completely ignore the Fannie Mae/ Freddie Mac / prime rate insanity as a root cause, shall we? I don't think so.

Banks made mistakes, yes. But the scale of those mistakes was only encouraged (in fact, only possible) because of hideously bad fiscal policy on the part of the government.

In a more just world, the flacks in the financial media as well as the deans and professors of elite business schools who gave the false imprimatur of legitimacy to those models and practices would also suffer greatly.

How about the government flacks and leaders (elected and appointed) who created the artificial, unsustainable business environments in the first place?

 

[Dotini]

Completely agree on all counts, Duke. My fury with this situation is boundless.

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

 

[FoolKiller]

Actually the government can and will go after those banks with any combination of increased taxes, punitive fines, levies, fees, penalties, reserve requirements and other orders, rules and regulations.

They can only because they say they can, but I propose that as our president took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution that anything of this nature is in violation of that Constitution and that oath. At best it is immoral and unethical and at worst, and in my opinion, it is nothing short of criminal theft.

The president himself has no power to impose these things, and all taxes and levies must go through Congress after he proposes them. The problem is that the Constitution specifically explains reasons for taxes imposed by Congress, and nowhere is a punitive tax allowed. Not even the atrocity that is the 16th Amendment allows this, as it purely allows income tax. This is a tax on bank liabilities. He could find a way to do this where the legality comes down to a mere interpretation of the Constitution, leaving the banks unsure if a court challenge is worth the effort. Of course, that still leaves it as immoral and unethical. But instead he has gone after it while sounding like an angry brat blaming someone else for his own lack of fiscal responsibility.

This is for the proximate reason that those banks caused the crisis in the first place through excessively risky business models and practices. They are holding the money while we are clutching a little wet paper bag with the bottom fallen out.

If he were actually interested in who caused the problems and punishing those people he would support an audit of The Fed, and he would not have re-nominated Bernanke as head of The Fed. The truth is that he is just trying to cover his (and Bush's) own mistakes and justifying this action by pandering to his core voters. He realizes that the deficit will prevent him from re-election and so he is trying to fix that problem and blaming an easy media target.

The truth is that if he, or the government as a whole, wanted to punish the banks that they claim are 100% responsible they wouldn't have given them this money to begin with. Whining about the economy and greedy bankers is one thing, but attacking banks that paid their share of the bailout back, or didn't even receive any, for the shortfall of a failed government program is scapegoating. He saw a way to blame the "evil capitalism" and absolve himself of his personal mistakes in the public eye all at once and is jumping on it.

In no way are we out of this nightmare of economic and financial collapse.

And in no way is anything this administration has or is doing helped.

 

[Dotini]

Foolkiller, I agree on each and every one of your points.

- The Executive is acting unconstitutionally and could be checked by the Congress or Courts. Unfortunately, our Congress is too spinelessly deep into corruption and posturing to bother with its duties.
- There is a special level of Hell reserved for the Fed, its chairmen, and the regulators , corporate execs and elected politicians, who trample endlessly and incestuously through their revolving doors.
- The situation is grim and they are all shooting each other and trying, sickeningly and shamelessly, to save themselves. Only Ron Paul is speaking any sense.

The roots of this debacle are tangled and endless, and could be traced back many decades into the past.

 

[Tornado]

You know, nearly a full year into the Obama Presidency, I would like it if people were able to criticize the President without being called racist. One would think in the face of approval ratings in the 40s that this would go without saying, but nope.

 

[FoolKiller]

You know, nearly a full year into the Obama Presidency, I would like it if people were able to criticize the President without being called racist. One would think in the face of approval ratings in the 40s that this would go without saying, but nope.

It is an unfortunate reality that every group will have a fringe element that is made out as the face of the group by their opposition.

At every protest I never fail to see sites throw up photos of racially charged signs up close, ignoring that from a wider angle you will see this small group with them while everyone else is addressing actual issues.

And so, anyone who complains is lumped in with them and you must be a racist then to complain. It is why anytime someone wishes to lump me in with that group I challenge them to present any evidence showing me being racist or shut up.

 

[Dotini]

It is an unfortunate reality that every group will have a fringe element that is made out as the face of the group by their opposition.

At every protest I never fail to see sites throw up photos of racially charged signs up close, ignoring that from a wider angle you will see this small group with them while everyone else is addressing actual issues.

This is all too true. Back in the '50's and '60's such "fringe elements" were sometimes inserted into protests or other unapproved social movements by government (agencies of various stripe).
Experto Crede,
Dotini

 

[allent2]

Un-FREAKING-believable.

Except it's not. This presidency is turning out even worse than I imagined, and that's saying something. Too bad that for most people, Bush was physically incapable of doing anything right, and those same people think Obama is physically incapable of doing wrong.

well said my friend!

 

[Dotini]

http://salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/15/sunstein/index.html

Meet Mr. Sunstein, Obama's Minister of Propaganda.

 

[Delirious]

So who you do think will win the late Ted Kennedy's seat this coming evening? What do you think could happen if Brown wins the seat making the senate 59-D; 41-R?

 

[Solid Lifters]

So who you do think will win the late Ted Kennedy's seat this coming evening? What do you think could happen if Brown wins the seat making the senate 59-D; 41-R?

I'd say, "There's your change, people!"


I love his TV ads, BTW.

[YOUTUBEHD]7nEoW-P81-0[/YOUTUBEHD]

 

[FoolKiller]

So who you do think will win the late Ted Kennedy's seat this coming evening? What do you think could happen if Brown wins the seat making the senate 59-D; 41-R?

Win or lose, the simple fact that Brown has put up such a good showing in Massachusetts, of all places, should be a sign to many Democrats that they may be sacrificing their jobs in the name of the Obama agenda.

Just think about it, these people continued to vote for Ted Kennedy even after what would have been a manslaughter charge today, at best a job ending scandal. The thing that primarily points to this in polling is health care. Other Obama agenda items are likely playing a part, but health care plan approval polling is very similar to the pre-election polling.

Democrats should keep in mind that many more seats are up this fall and if Massachusetts is seeing this kind of reaction what do they expect in states with closer elections?

 

[YSSMAN]

So who you do think will win the late Ted Kennedy's seat this coming evening? What do you think could happen if Brown wins the seat making the senate 59-D; 41-R?

The easy answer is that it will be close, but I can see it leaning in favor of Brown at this point. Between the poor condition of the Massachusetts economy and the sense of incumbency on Coakly's behalf (keep in mind the Democrats essentially run the State, almost all of the East Coast). If Brown wins, it will shake things up. But, this is still Massachusetts. This is still Ted Kennedy's seat. And even when there is a "Republican" running, he is likely a very different kind of candidate than what you would see in other parts of the country. Furthermore, when the seat would be up again, you can probably bank on it going back to the Democrats.


As for what happens in the Senate if Brown wins, not much. Healthcare will probably have to be dropped, dramatically reshaped, or be taken back into the Senate to be passed in pieces instead of all at once. With everything else, the Democrats still hold a pretty substantial majority and still have the ability to cross party lines with less-conservative Republican members of the Senate. This isn't the end of the world for the Democrats, but certainly a wake-up-call to have them look at their platform, and adjust accordingly. Democrats are expecting losses in 2010, really across the board (it always happens during a big party win in any cycle).

The thing is, I don't see this signalling that much of a problem on the national scale. While moderate Republicans, or legitimately (small 'c') conservative candidates hold a fairly significant threat toward Democrats on the national scale, much of the echo-chamber GOP efforts are likely doomed to fail. Of course, that doesn't stop Michael Steele and much of the rest of the Conservative dittoheads from thinking their views are holding sway with the majority of people across the country.

 

[FoolKiller]

This is still Ted Kennedy's seat.

"With all due respect..."


And with that one statement I think the man took his first real step in having a very strong campaign.

Granted, Coakley has had plenty of her own missteps.

 

[YSSMAN]

The Democrats didn't campaign well at all, mostly because they just assumed it was safe. Granted, they would have had an uphill battle either way, but they could have kept a significant amount of distance between the two if they had planned properly to begin with. Assuming the Democrats lose this one, they've got an idea of what they have to work against across the country later in the year. So, in theory, its not a total loss. I guess.

 

[Danster]

Although I'm not American, I'm a fan of the Obama free healthcare thing.
In the UK, contrary to what has been reported on US TV, the NHS, on the whole, works well. It definetly has it's flaws, but it really has saved the lives (or at least prolonged them) of many not so fortunate people.
Most Americans seem to be saying that the US Healthcare Reform is "Communism". Well, come on guys, it's left wing let's say, but I wouldn't exactly call it communism (The disaster which is North Korea).
Sarah Palin, an absolute liar to me, says that Cuba and the UK have "Death Comittees". We Don't. Unless you are suffering from one of the worlds rarest illnesses, the health service will make sure you are ok.
Plus, surprise surprise, countries with a Nationalized Health Service TEND to have higher life expectancies.
So come on guys can any opposers of the healthcare reform give a proper reason why they oppose it and not "It's Unconstitutional" or "It's Communism/Socialism"

 

[Keef]

Although I'm not American, I'm a fan of the Obama free healthcare thing.

It's not free. It's payed for with taxes, even by people who won't use it. That's unfair. Nothing is free, everything gets paid for by somebody.

 

[Touring Mars]

Probably better in this thread, Danster: https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=122491, or this one: https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=23843

 

[FoolKiller]

Probably better in this thread, Danster: https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=122491, or this one: https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=23843

And I will give you (Danster) a full answer if you move it there. But I suggest you read up on what exactly the proposed healthcare plan is before you start. It would save me a lot of time correcting you.

 

[Vasco]

It's not free. It's payed for with taxes, even by people who won't use it. That's unfair. Nothing is free, everything gets paid for by somebody.

Yeah **** social equity, those born into the middle and upper class have earned their right to healthcare by being born into money!

 

[FoolKiller]

I have to give President Obama credit for this statement he made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos:

Well, here's , here's one thing I know and I just want to make sure that this is off the table. The Senate certainly shouldn't try to jam anything through until Scott Brown is seated. People in Massachusetts spoke. He's got to be part of that process.

Of course, it doesn't address the House's ability to just approve the Senate bill, effectively passing it, and then change it later via reconciliation. At that point it can't be stopped by anyone but the president and so something would go through, but no one would know what. But I give the president the benefit of the doubt that he won't approve of that tactic either.

Yeah **** social equity, those born into the middle and upper class have earned their right to healthcare by being born into money!

Don't be silly. We all know the poor have a right to the products of another man's labor just because they were born poor.

 

[Omnis]

Yeah, except it's ok for Obama to wait for him to be seated because he's a Romney clone who will bend for the bill.

 

[FoolKiller]

Yeah, except it's ok for Obama to wait for him to be seated because he's a Romney clone who will bend for the bill.

It has been my fear all along. Too bad Joe Kennedy was completely ignored.

 

[Danster]

Oh Yeah, I know it's not literally free, the NHS is also paid for by taxes, which is quite fair. What I mean is, there is no extra cost.

Yeah **** social equity, those born into the middle and upper class have earned their right to healthcare by being born into money!

Please THINK about what you are saying and don't be eliteist, You are basically saying that the poor should be made to suffer.

 

[FoolKiller]

Oh Yeah, I know it's not literally free, the NHS is also paid for by taxes, which is quite fair. What I mean is, there is no extra cost.

Go to the Democrats Health Care Bill Has Passed thread that TM linked you to. This discussion belongs there, and read through it, particularly the bits where I quote the proposals, and you will see what is being discussed in the US looks almost nothing like NHS.