Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

How would you vote in the 2008 US Presidential Election?

  • Obama-Biden (Democrat)

    Votes: 67 59.3%
  • McCain-Palin (Republican)

    Votes: 18 15.9%
  • Barr-Root (Libertarian)

    Votes: 14 12.4%
  • Nader-Gonzales (Independent-Ecology Party / Peace and Freedom Party)

    Votes: 5 4.4%
  • McKinney-Clemente (Green)

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Baldwin-Castle (Constitution)

    Votes: 7 6.2%
  • Gurney-? (Car & Driver)

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Other...

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    113
  • Poll closed .
As far as Mr DeSantis is concerned, it's hard to make any reasonable judgement without knowing the specifics of his circumstances & history with AIG: when were the agreements made, what were the details of the contracts, his prior remuneration etc. I would agree: there's no question that the politicians & the media have jumped on this in order to further their own agendas.

Over the last two or three decades with under-regulation & little oversight, the "financial services sector" has grown into a behemoth following only its own twisted sense of logic - pursuing short-term profits by promoting unrealistic investments & then derivatives based on those investments in what was essentially a Ponzi scheme. Throughout it all, those at the top of the pyramid reaped huge personal rewards. I would question how much of their earnings was based on hard work & business smarts, & how much was based simply on being in the right place & time to profit from an essentially corrupt system. There is a basic conflict of interest in the way these people were able to make huge commissions, bonuses & "profits" by recklessly risking other people's money.

AIG's actions smack of an attempt to continue with "business as usual", but this time directly using government (ie. taxpayers, or umm... future taxpayers) money to make these big payouts. It's possible that some of these payouts were more justifiable than what has gone on before, but under the circumstances it's not hard to see why the public just won't accept it any more...
 
Oooh, it seems kinda quiet. No one to defend The Messiah today?

Hmmm.





Hannitized... I mean Beckitizzzzed!
 
You think people are going to attempt to defend blatant government intervention in private business?

I would like to say that Rick Wagoner got what he deserved for thinking he should steal taxpayers money, but something tells me he didn't deserve a $20 million golden parachute.

GM and Chrysler have lost my business for life.

The next time I look at cars I will give Ford a courtesy visit, even though I am not a big fan of their designs. As the only American car company to act like an American car company I will at least give them the opportunity to win my business.

Oddly, as I am typing this I am taking a survey for Vehicle Voice on another tab regarding the bailouts.


Also, I see that finally some people are talking about Obama's gaffes.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/experts-say-obama-needs-to-watch-the-gaffes-2009-03-30.html
Experts: Obama needs to watch the gaffes
By Bridget Johnson
Posted: 03/30/09 07:40 AM [ET]
Instant Internet communication and an explosion in political commentary are magnifying President Obama's gaffes and administration missteps, and could erode his popularity faster than that of other presidents, say experts from both left and right.

Intense scrutiny and rookie mistakes by an understaffed administration combine to draw attention faster to Obama's stumbles.

Last week was notable for budget battles and a new Afghanistan strategy, rather than for headline-hogging gaffes, although the president didn't escape a few media jeers for his reliance on a giant TV screen in place of his trademark teleprompter to feed him his lines at Tuesday's primetime press conference.

His careful responses to reporters' questions, in an appearance that many commentators branded as boring, didn't wander into such hot-button territory as he found himself in the previous week when he told Jay Leno on "The Tonight Show" that his bowling skills were akin to those of the Special Olympics.

Obama swiftly apologized for the line, with many of those condemning the quip adding the caveat that they didn't think Obama spoke out of meanness toward the disabled.

But presidential experts from the right and left who spoke with The Hill said that if gaffes keep adding up, Obama may be damaged by incidents ranging from a foot in the mouth to a protocol faux pas.

"Gaffes do shape the public perception of the president because the mistakes that one makes reveal how you think and what you're doing," said Darrell M. West, vice president and director of Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution. "Ultimately, that can add up to an unfavorable public profile."

Lee Edwards of the Heritage Foundation, who has written biographies of President Reagan and Barry Goldwater, said Obama has the age of YouTube, Facebook and Twitter working against him even as the information-age media invaluably assisted his campaign.

"Because we're in the age of constant communication, the age of 24/7 news, gaffes, mistakes and missteps are seen, heard and repeated much more quickly," Edwards said.

"Anything you say spreads instantly around the world," said West. "There's no information lag. Everybody has incredible access to information, so the news cycle is much faster — and it's less forgiving."

Obama began collecting unfavorable headlines and blogosphere chatter on the campaign trail as soon as he began his race for the White House, when in February 2007 he apologized for saying that the Iraq war had "seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted." Obama later said, "Even as I said it, I realized I had misspoken."

In April 2008 he said that small-town Pennsylvanians "get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." His challenger for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Rodham Clinton, seized on the ensuing outcry, saying, "Pennsylvanians don't need a president who looks down on them. They need a president who stands up for them, who fights for them."

Then, at a press availability a month later, Obama called a Detroit television reporter "sweetie," apologizing afterward and saying the terminology was a "bad habit" of his. He had earlier called an autograph-seeker "sweetie" on a campaign stop.

After winning the presidency, Obama, during his first news conference, said that he had spoken to all living presidents since his election, adding, "I didn't want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about, you know, doing any seances." Reagan, who had previously consulted an astrologer, received an apology call from Obama.

The presidential gaffes fall into two categories: personal and protocol. The personal include the Special Olympics remark, saying that bailed-out businesses shouldn't be going to Las Vegas (which prompted a downturn in convention bookings and an angry Vegas mayor) and laughing and smiling while talking about serious subjects in a manner that prompted "60 Minutes" host Steve Kroft to ask recently if Obama was "punch-drunk."

Protocol gaffes would include the lack of a flag-adorned press conference for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown — and his gift of a DVD set that wasn't even programmed to play in the U.K. — which drew heaps of criticism in the British press, and bumping Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's visit to the previous weekend so Obama could fete St. Patrick's Day with the Irish prime minister, making Latin America look second-fiddle.

Other headlining protocol incidents have included Obama recently receiving his Newsmaker of the Year award from the National Newspaper Publishers Association in a White House ceremony that was closed to the media, and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R) not being invited to the presidential town-hall meeting earlier this month in his own Costa Mesa, Calif., district.

The presidential experts don't believe that Obama has been more gaffe-prone than his predecessors. "Most presidents make rookie mistakes because everything they say is going to be newsworthy, and even prominent individuals get surprised by that," West said.

"Every president coming in flubs stuff ... but they're not so widely discussed as they are today," said Edwards.

"We've always had a honeymoon in this country and a new president is supposed to be given six months, maybe even a little bit longer, where he got acclimated," he added. "But again, because we're in a 24/7 news cycle and we've got a crisis, the honeymoon has shrunk."

West said that crisis makes or breaks Obama's honeymoon period. "I think the length of the honeymoon is going to depend entirely on the economy," he said. "Voters are bottom-line-oriented and they will judge the president based on performance."

Edwards said Obama is being subjected to a level of scrutiny at the two-month point that previous presidents have received several months into their terms.

But Edwards said the information age highlights the lack of executive experience that Obama brought into office.

Citing presidents who came into office with experience running a war, like President Eisenhower, or a state, like President Reagan, Edwards said the inexperience of the administration as a whole shows. "His staff should have protected the president better [against gaffes] than they have," he said, "but they also, like the president himself, don't have that much experience in running [a government at the executive level].

"I think his staff is completely overworked," West said. "They've had problems filling all of the open positions, they're facing enormous policy challenges, so the stakes are much higher."

Some of the vacancies have been higher-profile than others, with the slim Treasury staffing especially glaring in light of the economic crisis.

Ironically, a tool that Obama keeps at the ready to avoid verbal missteps — the teleprompter — has quickly become a running gag, with a popular blog launched pretending to be the voice of Obama's omnipresent teleprompter. This might not play against a politician, except for the fact that Obama was praised as a great orator on the campaign trail by right and left.

Reliance on the teleprompter, said West, goes against perceptions that Obama's speeches come naturally. "That could be damaging to him, because being a great speaker is central to his political persona," he said. "People don't like to look behind the veil and see what's actually there."

Noting Reagan's reliance on note cards, Edwards said the teleprompter was a new factor in presidential assessment. "It's just strange," he said. "We haven't been able to figure out why he's so dependent on it, because he's a really intelligent guy.

"If you start linking this with everything else then you begin to wonder: Is he really up to the job? Does he have the necessary experience?" Edwards added. "It could begin to raise serious questions. It hasn't yet."

When the gaffes come together, the early days of Obama's term reveal a new, harsh spotlight being shone on the Oval Office, where every misstep spreads across the Web within seconds and is relentlessly dissected on blogs and news sites.

"If you look at public opinion polls, he's still doing well," West said. "He has to avoid making mistakes — otherwise that number's going to come down.

"With a gaffe it always depends on how seriously people take it," West added. "But if you keep making gaffes, eventually it adds up."

Still, no one mentions that he thinks the US invented the automobile.
 
mussolinisemiprofile.jpg


Il Duce does not approve.
 
Hardly a criticism you can level exclusively at Obama....
You will note I had similar complaints about the Bush Administration in October. You can also note that for these very reasons my vote in the above poll is not in either the Republican or Democrat column, er row.

Frankly, the American system has a way of privately dealing with private companies struggling financially and allowing them to restructure and renegotiate all contracts. We call it bankruptcy. But we can't allow bankruptcy to happen because it would compromise the union contracts. :rolleyes:
 
Il Duce does not approve.

What exactly is that supposed to mean?

FoolKiller
You will note I had similar complaints about the Bush Administration in October. You can also note that for these very reasons my vote in the above poll is not in either the Republican or Democrat column, er row.

Frankly, the American system has a way of privately dealing with private companies struggling financially and allowing them to restructure and renegotiate all contracts. We call it bankruptcy. But we can't allow bankruptcy to happen because it would compromise the union contracts. :rolleyes:
Atleast it looks like Obama is drawing the line now and suggesting that bankruptcy is the way to go for GM and Chrysler (perhaps this is better in YSSMAN's thread, though)...
 
Last edited:
Oh Lord, I just ran across this article. And I thought Bush was giving too much power to the Treasury.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...-Big-Government-Set-Your-Salary-42158597.html

Beyond AIG: A bill to let Big Government set your salary
By Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent 3/31/09

It was nearly two weeks ago that the House of Representatives, acting in a near-frenzy after the disclosure of bonuses paid to executives of AIG, passed a bill that would impose a 90 percent retroactive tax on those bonuses. Despite the overwhelming 328-93 vote, support for the measure began to collapse almost immediately. Within days, the Obama White House backed away from it, as did the Senate Democratic leadership. The bill stalled, and the populist storm that spawned it seemed to pass.

But now, in a little-noticed move, the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, has approved a measure that would, in some key ways, go beyond the most draconian features of the original AIG bill. The new legislation, the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees -- not just top executives -- of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies.

The purpose of the legislation is to "prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards," according to the bill's language. That includes regular pay, bonuses -- everything -- paid to employees of companies in whom the government has a capital stake, including those that have received funds through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The measure is not limited just to those firms that received the largest sums of money, or just to the top 25 or 50 executives of those companies. It applies to all employees of all companies involved, for as long as the government is invested. And it would not only apply going forward, but also retroactively to existing contracts and pay arrangements of institutions that have already received funds.

In addition, the bill gives Geithner the authority to decide what pay is "unreasonable" or "excessive." And it directs the Treasury Department to come up with a method to evaluate "the performance of the individual executive or employee to whom the payment relates."

The bill passed the Financial Services Committee last week, 38 to 22, on a nearly party-line vote. (All Democrats voted for it, and all Republicans, with the exception of Reps. Ed Royce of California and Walter Jones of North Carolina, voted against it.)

The legislation is expected to come before the full House for a vote this week, and, just like the AIG bill, its scope and retroactivity trouble a number of Republicans. "It's just a bad reaction to what has been going on with AIG," Rep. Scott Garrett of New Jersey, a committee member, told me. Garrett is particularly concerned with the new powers that would be given to the Treasury Secretary, who just last week proposed giving the government extensive new regulatory authority. "This is a growing concern, that the powers of the Treasury in this area, along with what Geithner was looking for last week, are mind boggling," Garrett said.

Rep. Alan Grayson, the Florida Democrat who wrote the bill, told me its basic message is "you should not get rich off public money, and you should not get rich off of abject failure." Grayson expects the bill to pass the House, and as we talked, he framed the issue in a way to suggest that virtuous lawmakers will vote for it, while corrupt lawmakers will vote against it.

"This bill will show which Republicans are so much on the take from the financial services industry that they're willing to actually bless compensation that has no bearing on performance and is excessive and unreasonable," Grayson said. "We'll find out who are the people who understand that the public's money needs to be protected, and who are the people who simply want to suck up to their patrons on Wall Street."

After the AIG bonus tax bill was passed, some members of the House privately expressed regret for having supported it and were quietly relieved when the White House and Senate leadership sent it to an unceremonious death. But populist rage did not die with it, and now the House is preparing to do it all again.

Is it just me or is this picture
barney-frank-tim-geithner-ben-bernake.jpg


Beginning to look like this picture?
970690.jpg



I know this is a Barney Frank and Timothy Geithner thing, but as Geithner answers to the president I cannot believe that President Obama has nothing to do with this. If this passes these institutions will lose good employees and will go under, no matter what government throws at it. Then the taxpayers will not only be paying for these bailouts, but never having any hope of seeing this money again.

All I can say is that I am extremely happy my company is not anywhere near this.

I do find it ironic that career politicians, who vote for their own pay raises, think they should be the authority to determine what kind of pay people should be getting.

I have a proposed bill for Congressman Frank: Congress cannot vote on a Congressional or Presidential pay increase nor negotiate new benefits until the national deficit is completely eliminated.

Who wants to see how fast they cut costs then?
 
Is it just me or is this picture
barney-frank-tim-geithner-ben-bernake.jpg


Beginning to look like this picture?
970690.jpg

Only it's missing Obama and Dodd.

That's actually a really good idea for that bill you have there.

What exactly is that supposed to mean?


Atleast it looks like Obama is drawing the line now and suggesting that bankruptcy is the way to go for GM and Chrysler (perhaps this is better in YSSMAN's thread, though)...

It means Mr. Fascist was called out. That's what you meant, right? That's what this whole Obama/GM thing is, anyway.
 
Oooh, it seems kinda quiet. No one to defend The Messiah today?

Hannitized... I mean Beckitizzzzed!

I think its mainly because most of us realize how much of an idiot Beck is, much less, whatever we want to call Hannity these days.

From the wonderful piece in the New York Times:

NYT
At the same time, though, he says he is an entertainer. “I’m a rodeo clown,” he said in an interview, adding with a coy smile, “It takes great skill.”

NYT
The conservative writer David Frum said Mr. Beck’s success “is a product of the collapse of conservatism as an organized political force, and the rise of conservatism as an alienated cultural sensibility.”

“It’s a show for people who feel they belong to an embattled minority that is disenfranchised and cut off,” he said.

Is it just me, or is David Frum seemingly the only sane person left in the GOP, much less, the Conservative movement?

Oh, the best line from it!

He added later: “I say on the air all time, ‘if you take what I say as gospel, you’re an idiot.’ ”

Hmmm.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Nevertheless, I'm watching the Detroit dealings closely. What it comes down to, as I pointed out in the Carpocalypse thread is that Wagoner should have been kicked out earlier, and its rather sad that it took a suggestion by the White House for it to happen - not something done by the board, the shareholders, etc. Wagner has never exactly fit the need for what was going on, and with the new direction needed in the company, most-certainly there was a need to get him out of there.

Touring Mars is right though: The White House is drawing a line in the sand instead of hanging out cash, a strong move on their behalf. Frankly, I wish they (including the previous Administration) would have done it a little sooner with the banks as well.
 
Is it just me, or is David Frum seemingly the only sane person left in the GOP, much less, the Conservative movement?

Touring Mars is right though: The White House is drawing a line in the sand instead of hanging out cash, a strong move on their behalf. Frankly, I wish they (including the previous Administration) would have done it a little sooner with the banks as well.

Beck was dumb about certain things. He changed a lot since having Ron Paul and third party candidates on his show. David Frum is a neo-con. Total idiot, that guy.

You are missing the point if you think Obama "firing" CEOs is the line in the sand. That's actually stepping over yet another previously established line. The line in the sand was taking our money and giving it to failing companies. Coincidentally, that line was also the edge of the cliff.
 
I think its mainly because most of us realize how much of an idiot Beck is, much less, whatever we want to call Hannity these days.

Beck is the best host on TV right now. (Maybe that's why Fox News is #1) Do I take him as gospel like some kind of television evangelist? Hell no. I make up my own damn mind. I 4x fast forward when he has Ron Paul on as a guest.

Here's some more Beck, cause you know... he's crazy and a ****ing "idiot":



Thanks. :)
 
Anyone taking Glenn Beck too seriously needs to realize that he focuses on entertainment as much, if not more than, his politics.

This is the guy who started Evilconservatives.com with gems like these:
evil-con-logo.gif


userposter6.jpg
user-poster-1.jpg


Or sells these holiday cards on his personal Web site:
christmascard-big-2.jpg


Glenn Beck may make sense a lot of the time, but never doubt for an instance that entertainment and ratings is his first priority. I knew who he was long before he had a TV show and his opinions have changed slightly over the years. He used to sound like Limbaugh or Hannity, only managing to throw nearly all political correctness out the window, almost Ann Coulter-like, just less hateful and more funny.
 
Last edited:
I find it rather amusing and somewhat bemusing that, as President Obama makes his first international visit on official business, and has his first major test on the world stage, all we get in this thread is more rubbish from Fox News :rolleyes: No mention of the somewhat astonishing fact that Obama had direct talks with the Russian President this morning on nuclear disarmament? No mention of Obama and Brown's joint statement on the global financial crisis urging less protectionism while the French and German leaders are threatening to pull out of the G20 meeting if they don't get their way on increasing regulation? No mention of Obama's efforts to engage Iran, and Iran's response yesterday that it is willing to cooperate to a certain extent in Afghanistan?? Really, is Glenn Beck and his phony tears really that important?
 
Now that we've got the breaking news from England out of the way...

At the moment I don't give a damn about nuclear weapons or Iran or German and French socialists--what I care about is my government doing things it is not allowed, breaking the rules, making new ones to cover their tracks, and infringing on my rights as an American citizen. Everything that comes through the television on any channel may be garbage, and Glen Beck may have said all that just to make a buck, but obviously you missed the important part, which is American ideals and principles. All of which have been trampled upon by the government and forgotten by many of my countrymen, and probably still not understood fully by nearly all, including myself. Glen Beck isn't important, no, but learning about my country's history and principles and acting upon them is.
 
So he comes baring a gift. Now where's the Jelly beans when you need them?
 
Here's some more Beck, cause you know... he's crazy and a ****ing "idiot":



Thanks. :)


Forward to 1:40...



Or, I'll quote it:

Glenn Beck Program
You know it took me about a year to start hating the 9/11 vitims' families? Took me about a year... And when I see a 9/11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh shut up!' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining. And we did our best for them.

Hmm. Hypocrisy at its finest. I'm sure he means well, but the execution is poor. Flag waving doesn't work for everyone, but when you're a populist talking head on a conservative network, I'm sure it works just fine for his viewers. And certainly, Olbermann is no different with the rather smug, Liberal views either.

Hooray for debating the "news!"

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

RE: Obama in London

Touring Mars
No mention of the somewhat astonishing fact that Obama had direct talks with the Russian President this morning on nuclear disarmament? No mention of Obama and Brown's joint statement on the global financial crisis urging less protectionism while the French and German leaders are threatening to pull out of the G20 meeting if they don't get their way on increasing regulation? No mention of Obama's efforts to engage Iran, and Iran's response yesterday that it is willing to cooperate to a certain extent in Afghanistan??

I've been out most of the day today, so unfortunately I've missed most of the good news. It sounds like the G20 has been a busier affair than it was played off as this morning, so thats good to hear. The big thing I'm watching right now, besides the G20 deal, is the situation in North Korea. Not only are we walking a thin line with the captured American journalists, but also that fancy missile launch deal. If Japan or Korea pull the trigger to shoot it down, things could get very interesting very quickly. Certainly, it would be a major test for the State Department and the Joint Chiefs as well.

In Other News: Romney Wants to be President

The Hill.com
After offering a few choice words for Obama’s early conduct in office, Romney suggested it’s OK to hope things go well under the new president.

“I also think its important for us to nod to the president when he’s right,” Romney said. “He will not always be wrong.”

Romney praised Obama for not pulling troops from Iraq haphazardly and for going after terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He also said Obama has been good at talking tough to the struggling auto industry.

Romney then offered some backhanded encouragement for Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, upon whom some Republicans have called to resign.

“He’s exhausted alternatives, and I think he’s finally getting close to the right answer,” Romney said.

Full Article Here

Hmmm, as much as I don't like the guy, it sounds good to hear that. Although, it could be a trap.
 
Dude, what are you even talking about?

edit: Oh, and Romney lost to a corpse.
 
Now that we've got the breaking news from England out of the way...

Oh, it's not over yet...

BREAKING: QUEEN'S IPOD ENGRAVED, PRE-LOADED WITH OBAMA SPEACHES, LAME MUSIC

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/what-does-one-g.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090401/ap_en_mu/eu_obama_queen_s_song_list



Seriously, is Obama's daughters picking out these gifts? What could be next... tickets to see Twilight?

Glen Beck isn't important, no, but learning about my country's history and principles and acting upon them is.
I agree. Beck routinely says on his show to believe in yourself and not just him as a talking head. To see Liberals and Faux-Conservatives seething at just the mention of Glenn Beck's popularity makes me confident that I am on the correct track. It's not The Right, it's not the pansies on The Left, but Americans... and I believe in America above anything else.
 
Nothing wrong with that, as politics generally get in the way of the "right thing" (however you wish to view it). However, I personally think that this is a good reason why people should learn more about the founding of our country, the people who did it, and form their own views from it.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

More from the G20 Today

Europe wants to Regulate Internationally, America Doesn't

NYT
On Wednesday, Mr. Obama acknowledged to the world leaders that regulatory failures in the United States had a role in the meltdown, but urged them to focus on solutions rather than on placing blame. He also cautioned that the United States was unlikely to return to its role as a “voracious consumer market,” and he urged other nations to do more to revive growth in their home markets.

While the United States was determined to resist European efforts to create regulatory authorities with crossborder authority, officials said the two sides were trying to hash out policies on transparency and early risk warnings for banks that would placate France and Germany.

The power games at the G20 has been far more interesting than I ever anticipated.
 
I find it rather amusing and somewhat bemusing that, as President Obama makes his first international visit on official business, and has his first major test on the world stage, all we get in this thread is more rubbish from Fox News :rolleyes:
Sorry, its hard to find real news in all the "What did Michelle wear to meet the queen?" news.

And when I did find it I got caught trying to figure out exactly what the protesters in London were on about. How bad is it in Europe when mobs are attacking banks, workers taking their bosses hostage, and former bank execs having their personal property attacked? And what do these people think they will accomplish? Instead of making an intelligent argument that more people can get behind they resort to mob tactics that can only make the more reasonable people in their cause want to separate themselves from them.

Maybe they wouldn't be so upset about their money situation if instead of camping in the streets and destroying property they got a shower and actually tried to act civilized. Maybe then they would find themselves able to get, and hold, one of the few jobs available, or possibly have an actual public discourse that these G20 leaders will listen to. So far all I see is an angry mob of "anarchists" that couldn't put an intelligent sentence together with illustrated step-by-step instructions.

No mention of the somewhat astonishing fact that Obama had direct talks with the Russian President this morning on nuclear disarmament? No mention of Obama and Brown's joint statement on the global financial crisis urging less protectionism while the French and German leaders are threatening to pull out of the G20 meeting if they don't get their way on increasing regulation?
I am trying to figure out what is astonishing about pre-scheduled meetings to discuss pre-scheduled topics. Although I guess discussing nuclear disarmament with a country that isn't threatening to use them on us is a tad odd.

What is astonishing is that France and Germany think that they have the end-all answer to the economy and are smug enough to threaten to walk out if everyone doesn't go their way. France is the country that nationalizes companies and has double digit unemployment rates in young adults during good economic times. What the heck do they think they can bring to the table? And just who do they think they are to 1) try telling everyone else how to run their economy and 2) think they are so important that their absence means jack squat? This isn't the UN Security Council where they have veto power. If they leave it just means that they failed at diplomacy by walking in with non-negotiable demands.


I also see where three states now, South Carolina, Louisiana, and Texas are refusing to accept federal stimulus money.


Oh, I see where Medvedev, despite agreeing to reset US relations, has thrown out the global currency reserve idea again.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/world/europe/03medvedev.html?ref=world

And it looks like they all agreed to waste another $1 trillion. Oh, and what is this I see? Regulating pay and bonuses?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7979483.stm

Bankers' pay and bonuses will be subject to stricter controls

See, here is my issue with G20, in general. Few of these countries have an economy that can match up to the scale of the US economy, and none of them (including the US) practice an economic policy that meshes with our Constitution. Now they are all agreeing to interfere with pay and bonuses of bankers?

This needs more details. Do they mean they will do it to everyone, or just the ones accepting government money? If Obama agreed to control any banker's pay and bonuses in the US then I am calling for his impeachment right now.

Of course, the most depressing thing about this is that President Obama did give France and Germany what they wanted, and more. I would like to see a president attend one of these summits with a copy of the US Constitution and say, "Sorry I a cannot violate this."

I'll be watching to see just what this agreement specifically means for the US, other than spending more money that we don't have.
 
Demotivation18.jpg


And I think this will become a big favorite amoungst some of you:

Barack-Obama-Demotivational-Poster--37492.jpg
 
Last edited:
FoolKiller
I would like to see a president attend one of these summits with a copy of the US Constitution and say, "Sorry I a cannot violate this."

And if the reply is, "OK, we understand that. Bye then...", then what happens? I don't think any country, perhaps least of all the US who have championed the concept of a global free market economy from the word go, can afford to do this - in principle, nothing is stopping the US from picking up their toys and leaving the party, but in practice, it would be disasterous. My point is, although Americans want to see their President act American and abide by the Constitution every step of the way, the interests of the country in general are not best served by such an uncompromising approach...

I would argue that the US have managed to manoeuvre themselves into an economic position that is already "compromised" in many regards - massive debts owed to China, dependence on oil from the Middle East, weakening support for the US dollar as the basis of the global economy etc. - all which leave the US in a position where dogmatism and an uncompromising attitude to global affairs are simply not going to cut it, and only a more co-operative stance is likely to help.

Obama is not responsible for getting America into any of these problems, but he is charged with dealing with them. As such, I would argue that however much Obama should stick to the US Constitution in domestic affairs, there will always be (and increasingly so) circumstances where he will have to act in the nation's interests whether or not it jars with what some people consider "American ideals and principles".

FK
none of them (including the US) practice an economic policy that meshes with our Constitution
And if America don't, then how on Earth can anybody else be expected to? This sounds very like a case of "Do as we say, not as we do"... The problem I have with advocating the idea of a nation sticking rigidly to it's own Constitution in a global context is similar to the problem I have with those thugs who smashed up banks in central London last week... nobody seems to want to admit that they are as much a part of the problem as anyone else. Unilateralism and an inherent distrust/disregard for international institutions is as much to blame for America's problems as any deviation from the Constitution is likely to be.
 
Last edited:
And if the reply is, "OK, we understand that. Bye then...", then what happens? I don't think any country, perhaps least of all the US who have championed the concept of a global free market economy from the word go, can afford to do this - in principle, nothing is stopping the US from picking up their toys and leaving the party, but in practice, it would be disasterous. My point is, although Americans want to see their President act American and abide by the Constitution every step of the way, the interests of the country in general are not best served by such an uncompromising approach...
"Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon"

To compromise on personal principles is to sell your soul. When you compromise on the values inherent in the US Constitution you have to throw someone under a bus, which President Obama has already begun to do when he began creating ever larger discrepancies in the tax rates, only fueling the class warfare, which he used to ride into office. Now he joins up with 19 other leaders who thrive on class warfare and they just continue to make it worse. The more they make it seem OK to single out upper class individuals the more the protesters and vandals on the streets will think they are doing nothing wrong.

I would argue that the US have managed to manoeuvre themselves into an economic position that is already "compromised" in many regards - massive debts owed to China, dependence on oil from the Middle East, weakening support for the US dollar as the basis of the global economy etc. - all which leave the US in a position where dogmatism and an uncompromising attitude to global affairs are simply not going to cut it, and only a more co-operative stance is likely to help.

Obama is not responsible for getting America into any of these problems, but he is charged with dealing with them. As such, I would argue that however much Obama should stick to the US Constitution in domestic affairs, there will always be (and increasingly so) circumstances where he will have to act in the nation's interests whether or not it jars with what some people consider "American ideals and principles".

And if America don't, then how on Earth can anybody else be expected to? This sounds very like a case of "Do as we say, not as we do"... The problem I have with advocating the idea of a nation sticking rigidly to it's own Constitution in a global context is similar to the problem I have with those thugs who smashed up banks in central London last week... nobody seems to want to admit that they are as much a part of the problem as anyone else. Unilateralism and an inherent distrust/disregard for international institutions is as much to blame for America's problems as any deviation from the Constitution is likely to be.
Have you been paying attention to what any of us third-party guys have been saying? We keep saying that America should, and then show these others how Capitalism is actually supposed to work. There is a reason why we didn't vote for one of the two parties that have been trampling on the Constitution for over 100 years. There is a reason why we blame the state of things today on those first steps used to redefine what our founding fathers intended.

No Obama didn't cause the problems today, but he has so far done nothing to help them. Sure he thinks he has, but if we go by history it is easy to see that he may very well be making it worse. He is all about good intentions, but the road to ruin, blah blah blah.

If he wanted to create hope, if he wanted to bring in some harmony and help to settle out this market he would not be finding a scapegoat to blame for this situation, the way he has been doing with AIG and GM. Now he stands there agreeing with other leaders who are pointing fingers in even louder voices. I can think of a few other leaders in the past that gained power in economic recessions by blaming specific groups of people. Granted, these guys aren't going to start putting CEOs in gas chambers, but they are vilifying them and giving justification to the anger of people who have lost their homes and/or jobs.

The funny thing about France and Germany is that they demand England and the US lead the way in fixing this, and demand even more from the US, as their situation is the fault of the US. But it has to be asked: If their economies are so tied to America's that America's financial state drags them along for the ride, what does it say about their economies in general? Why are they so tied to the housing market in the US?

It sounds to me like they made the exact same bad decisions people in the US did. No one made them get so invested in a housing market that has been expected to burst for ten years now.

Obama shouldn't be standing there saying, "Yes, this started on Wall Street and we had a large role," or whatever his quote was. He should be looking at them and telling them to fix their own gorram economies, because France and Germany are not the responsibility of the United States.

That said, I can see how Asian countries have become tied in. They thrive on producing consumer products and the US has become a very consumer driven economy. But if you struggle because you had a lot in our houses and banks, including your own government controlled, or partially controlled, banks then it isn't our fault and fixing your status isn't our job.

If England is struggling due to the US banking and housing crisis then maybe the Royal Bank of Scotland should pull Citizen's out of the US. In fact, I wish they would. They suck anyway. And if France is struggling perhaps BNP Paribas should quit buying up small, struggling American banks.

In short: I do not like that Obama smiled, nodded, and shook hands while European leaders blamed the US after they tied their economies into US interests that have long been predicted to crumble. It is our own fault that the US economy is suffering, but France and Germany can only blame France and Germany. My president failed to represent my best interests.
 
"Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon"

...

My president failed to represent my best interests.
Agreed. He failed.

Also, I do not like these nations from around the world all agreeing to do the same thing and work together and all this crap. All these groups, like the UN and G20 and whatnot ruin my country's sovereignty. This is not a world order, this is the United States of America. We should not have to do what other countries want us to do.
 
No Obama didn't cause the problems today, but he has so far done nothing to help them. Sure he thinks he has, but if we go by history it is easy to see that he may very well be making it worse. He is all about good intentions, but the road to ruin, blah blah blah.

The funny thing about France and Germany is that they demand England and the US lead the way in fixing this, and demand even more from the US, as their situation is the fault of the US. But it has to be asked: If their economies are so tied to America's that America's financial state drags them along for the ride, what does it say about their economies in general? Why are they so tied to the housing market in the US?

It sounds to me like they made the exact same bad decisions people in the US did. No one made them get so invested in a housing market that has been expected to burst for ten years now.

That's true (no one forced them to invest in MBSs) but when the bonds back by sub-prime mortgages are rated AAA - effectively risk free, there's a pretty big incentive right there to invest in them. Also because the economy is so globally connected these days, the dry up in the MBS market in the US (and commerical bond market through extremely high spreads) has spread into other markets regardless of how connected they are to the US. For example the Australian MBS market is fairly quiet now - despite the fact that we didn't excessively lend to sub-prime and it was quite healthy at the time.

No one is asking America to fix their problems (despite it being the root of this problem), but as a group they are trying to come to some sort of collective solution or plan for action which can help to stimulate these markets and their economies.
 
I think the current problem on our hands is specifically the fact that this group of leaders is trying to come up with...anything at all. This video illustrates why.

 
This is not a world order, this is the United States of America. We should not have to do what other countries want us to do.

Question:

Why do we get to tell them what to do then?
 
Back