# Obama style : Gov 2.0



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> THE U.S. PRESIDENCY: INVESTMENTS IN INFRASTRUCTURE
> 
> *Obama takes charge with economic plan, ushering in era of President 2.0*
> 
> ...


globeandmail.com: Obama takes charge with economic plan, ushering in era of President 2.0

:clap: 

Would be Canadian leaders take note.....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Will wonders never cease???! Here come the '90s!!


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Looks like providing funds so that doctors can convert their paper files into some proprietary electronic formats is "important infrastructure" worthy of dipping into the Treasury for. I guess doctor's don't make enough money to buy their own filing systems.

Sure looks like Obama is going for the big projects comparable to the TVA - with the conversion of doctors files to some kind of bogus electronic formats that are all proprietary, non standard, and that will not interoperate. They will be talking about that project in seventy years - NOT.

And this President 2.0 - probably some kind of beta test garbage that won't work until President 4.7 Service Pack 4 is released...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You can leave your comments ont he web site--that way no paper is wasted when the messages are trashed.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Will wonders never cease???! Here come the '90s!!" If only the US could get back to the prosperity of the Clinton years in the 90s, that would be great.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Sadly despite the promises of change, Obama's appointments scream "Same Old, Same Old"

Will have to wait a bit longer to see if my worst fears will come to pass. I really do want to be wrong on this one but not willing to bet cold hard cash on it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I was actually watching witha bit of interest, but after Obama had the chance to vote agains the Telecom pardon, I realized he was just another pol. These appointments are extremely dispiritng.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I see markets jumped already with Obama's influence.

Wall St rallies on infrastructure plan; FedEx falls - Reuters - National Business News - Portfolio.com




> *Energy efficiency high on Obama stimulus plan
> *
> 
> Posted by Martin LaMonica
> ...


Energy efficiency high on Obama stimulus plan | Green Tech - CNET News

These "fireside chats" straight out of FDRs playbook are brilliant.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Thanks for the read MacDoc.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Speaking of Obama Nation…

"Prop 8 - The Musical" starring Jack Black, John C. Reilly, and many more... from FOD Team, Jack Black, Craig Robinson, John C Reilly, and Rashida Jones


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The market always reacts positively to large influxes of cash, MacDoc. This is no surprise.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Some people will criticise anything.

The guy is obviously trying to calm the jitters and show that he is ready to get to work and eager for the challenge. He has not yet -- because he cannot -- done ANYTHING, and every idea he's floated so far has met with universal praise from both the public at large and the business community (to say nothing of the international praise he has garnered).

How about some of the trolls give the guy a CHANCE, eh? You have an opportunity to complain about his record in four years. So give it a rest until there are some actual RESULTS to judge why don't ya?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

There ARE results
Bloomberg.com: U.S.

and when Republicans like Bill Gross call for spending stimulus on a massive scale then it's a far better approach than slash and burn Flaherty.

The trick will be knowing when to cut it off and also to massively reduce US government spending on military and other entitlement programs.
Some serious reality checks needed.

Right now infrastructure programs and bridge loans rule.

Even with China's growth and reserves the command structure is considering stimulus.



> *US nears car rescue; China, Europe mull stimulus*
> 
> Updated: 2008-12-09 07:09
> 
> ...


Trolls really should get out more....dank and musty and out of touch in barrows.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

I want to make it clear that I am not using the word "trolls" interchangeably with the words "Conservatives (US version of the term)" or "Republicans." The latter two groups are people with ideas (some good, some not-so-good). Trolls just tear things (and people) down for no purpose, have no ideas of their own, and certainly couldn't govern.

The kind of damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't cynacism that worthless people like trolls heap on Obama before he has even had a chance to prove or disprove anything AT ALL is *exactly* the reason why good quality politicians are hard to find. Who in their right mind would willingly subject themselves to such scorn and bile regardless of what actions they take?

Next time Canada wants to ask itself why THEY don't have an Obama (or Lincoln, JFK, Ghandi, MLK, etc ... whoever you think was a great world leader ...), they should look in the mirror. Cynicism about government and about civil servants is what's killing off any chance of us getting some good ones.

Whether you agree with Obama philosophically or not, he's obviously a) smart, b) engaged, c) willing to listen to diverse views, d) optimistic and e) a nice person. Up until the time he _actually_ goes and does something horribly wrong, what exactly is the f'ing problem with having someone like that in charge??


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

So far, I can only base my opinions of Obama on his promise for CHANGE. So far, he has delivered none. He is receiving universal praise form the likes of chas, but U.S. news outlets are already filled with disappointment over his cabinet choices.

Canada doesn't have an Obama? Neither does the U.S. Obama is a media creation who doesn't exist. There's a skinny..uh..inexperienced...uh... junior senator..uh... from Chicago..uh..moving into the White House in his place and it is going to be a painful day of reckoning for his acolytes.

But, chas, I can hardly accept counsel from you on giving people a chance--two days ago you were already calling Bobby Jindal a lying presidential candidate THREE YEARS before the Iowa primaries. Talk about a sad case of partisanship.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
Not much anyone can do when someone that spews rhetoric like a soda fountain can't see the truth of the situation. I suppose it is better to wait, and then see the disappointment in two years when the Obama Express has run off the rails, with flames of scandal and malfeasance all over the place.

Of course, Obama's selections are all based on "experience", despite the fact that if Obama was really looking for experience, he'd have Condoleeza Rice in the State Department - because no one else has that amount of experience.  So it all just looks like CHANGE is nothing more than getting Obama in the White House and getting on with the business as usual Washington Insider policies drummed up by lobbyists and influence peddlers. But sycophants can not see those self evident truths, and I am sure than in two years, when the Administration is in flames and their policies entirely run off the tracks, that there will be ample opportunity for spin-doctoring and a dose of James Carville...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I do want to make it clear that the arrest of the Governor of Illinois regarding irregularities in replacing Obama in the senate has nothing to do with Obama himself.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

In politics as in sports, negative predictions are little more than a parlour trick.

Why? Most positive outcomes are statistically unlikely. Anyone can make a "bold" prediction that any given team *won't* win the Stanley Cup this season: even the odds-on favourite has about a 75% chance of *not* winning. Predicting winners is much, much harder.

Similarly, it's easy to sit at home and grouse that "Obama will fail!" He's entering office with the deck stacked against him, so the odds are pretty good that he'll struggle mightily and leave office after one term, humbled and tarnished. Predicting that is nothing more than playing the likely (read "easy") side of the odds.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I will not predict his failure. I will only note the failures as they occur.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> Looks like providing funds so that doctors can convert their paper files into some proprietary electronic formats is "important infrastructure" worthy of dipping into the Treasury for. I guess doctor's don't make enough money to buy their own filing systems.


The point of which is to have a system of cross-referencing to avoid medical errors and not kill people.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

MissGulch said:


> The point of which is to have a system of cross-referencing to avoid medical errors and not kill people.


Perhaps they should fundamentally ameliorate the entire conception of the US medical system. Complete disaster, unless you are rich of course. I am sure more people die of medical insurance not wanting to pay for 'experimental treatments' like kidney transplants than from 'cross referencing' errors.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> Perhaps they should fundamentally ameliorate the entire conception of the US medical system. Complete disaster, unless you are rich of course. I am sure more people die of medical insurance not wanting to pay for 'experimental treatments' like kidney transplants than from 'cross referencing' errors.


The new system will be designed to catch people who have failed to pay their bills and are trying to seek treatment under assumed names.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

It's pretty hard to dispute that Obama so far, is having a very positive influence in the USA.

Even if all he accomplishes is lifting people's spirits, that must be a good thing when compared to the depression of the Dubya years.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: I have no doubt he is lifting people's spirits in the US, but you could do that by performing a little dance at this point.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> It's pretty hard to dispute that Obama so far, is having a very positive influence in the USA.
> 
> Even if all he accomplishes is lifting people's spirits, that must be a good thing when compared to the depression of the Dubya years.


You know SINC, we disagree a lot, and I expect that we'd probably have a lot to argue about WRT Obama, but you've really nailed it here: Presidents aren't about policy, they're about morale and Obama's doing about as well as can be HOPEed (sorry) for on this front.

Personally, I "HOPE" circumstances permit me to buy you a beer someday.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Why do you think presidents aren't about policy, bryanc? In my experience, some are and some aren't.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Why do you think presidents aren't about policy, bryanc? In my experience, some are and some aren't.


In general, policy is decided by the congress. But unlike Canada, in America, the President has an enormous, almost supernatural, influence over the political narrative, and a the right person can have a hugely beneficial effect (or, as we've seen over the past 8 years, a hugely deleterious effect).

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Surely, Bush's deleterious effect was the result of setting policy.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> You know SINC, we disagree a lot, and I expect that we'd probably have a lot to argue about WRT Obama, but you've really nailed it here: Presidents aren't about policy, they're about morale and Obama's doing about as well as can be HOPEed (sorry) for on this front.
> 
> Personally, I "HOPE" circumstances permit me to buy you a beer someday.
> 
> Cheers


Bryanc, a beer with you would be an honour. I suspect we both might come away surprised by the experience.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> updated 11:46 a.m. EST, Tue December 9, 2008
> 
> *Poll: 79% approve of way Obama is handling transition*
> 
> ...


Poll: 79% approve of way Obama is handling transition - CNN.com


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

An approval rating on how he is handing the transition? I can't even remember someone tracking that before...

It's fun watching people falling over themselves to love this guy. I heard some media swells demanding they change the constitution so that the new president could take office on December 1st. They really have it bad for Obama.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MissGulch said:


> The point of which is to have a system of cross-referencing to avoid medical errors and not kill people.


However, I don't see how the Government needs to make an investment in this venture. It's not like Doctors are the lowest paid people in the universe - let the doctors pay for it.

As for "medical errors" - no electronic data system can save anyone from these acts of malfeasance because as we all know, computers are perfect and no one has ever got some crazy phone bill/bank account fiasco...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

The "good feelings" are disappearing - and even Leno has taken to poking fun at the lack of actual CHANGE in his monologue the other night. I bet Letterman will have a Top 10 list in the next day or so. By the time the guy is actually certified by Congress as the winner of the Election, people will start hating him.

Too bad - because the public hatred would be better directed at scum like Pelosi, who uses her powers to impede Congress at every turn and at every vote.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

*Obama style*

Obama "style" as interpreted in Spain!








The video in Spanish
The maker


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Personally, I "HOPE" circumstances permit me to buy you a beer someday.


I'd echo this entire post, but if SINC's driving the last thing we want is an RV on the road that wouldn't pass a blood test. But a virtual second beer from me as well.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

bryanc said:


> In general, policy is decided by the congress.


And written by lobbyists. BA DOOM POW! Thanks, I'll be here all week!

But bryanc is right: the President can *propose* legislation (and often does), and wields a "bully pulpit" to try and rally public support so he often gets more or less what he wants, but he only "crafts" domestic policy in really a very "big picture" way. Congress has to modify, approve and then spend the money.

This is why presidents love foreign policy so much: they get a lot less "interference" from Congress.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

rgray said:


> Obama "style" as interpreted in Spain!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If they would modify that base to be George Bush's face, everyone I know would get one of those for xmas.

Seriously.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

chas_m said:


> If they would modify that base to be George Bush's face, everyone I know would get one of those for xmas.
> 
> Seriously.


Check the catalog. There is a GW - and a lot of other world figures, sants, etc.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I now understand what Government *2.0* is about. 

Obama plans to run *twice* the deficit that George Bush created.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Obama plans to run twice the deficit that George Bush created." Most of this deficit was spent by Bush, a Republican. So much for the fiscal conservatives in his party.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> "Obama plans to run twice the deficit that George Bush created." Most of this deficit was spent by Bush, a Republican. So much for the fiscal conservatives in his party.


Historically, fiscal conservatives have always outspent lefties. Mulroney, here in Canada, while decrying the Liberal spending of Trudeau, literally DOUBLED the national debt while in office. Harper happily blew the surplus created by the Libs while screaming all the time about saving money, trimming government, yadda, yadda...

fiscal conservative = hypocrite​


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> "Obama plans to run twice the deficit that George Bush created." Most of this deficit was spent by Bush, a Republican. So much for the fiscal conservatives in his party.


Bush gutted support for his party through deficit spending. The Democrats were all over Bush for out-of-control spending. Obama supporters were all over Bush for his spending habits.

Now that Obama is inheriting an accumulated $1.2 trillion dollar deficit, he wants to solve matters by increasing it to 2 trillion inside of one year--not including the original bank and auto bail-outs he supported. 

Simply, as King of Deficit Spending, Obama wins!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury, the difference is that Obama wants to spend it on infrastructure and social programs, things that actually help the average American. Bush spent his money on Iraq and Wall Street/Bank bailouts.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Obama is only perceived as a Messiah, and I continue to caution he is only a man. His spending policies may or may not have the desired result.

No one should be defending nor applauding his efforts until they are proven.

Too much is at stake and mark my words, or if you prefer, "trust me on this" as an old friend used to say, there are going to be a lot of disappointed people either way.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Obama is toning down the expectations, especially in his economic address today. He takes on a shattered economy, which is not going to be easy to correct. His popularity has already dipped 5% from 70% to 65% as people realize that he is not going to merely be able to fix everything at once. I hope he gets the full 8 years of two terms to implement some of the promises he made during the campaign. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

So it's all right to create massive deficits, as long as they are the right deficits? Seems to me that even spending money on Iraq was feeding industries at home--construction, military hardware, human, resources supplies. Bush spent more on education than any president in history. Bush spent more on health care than any president in history.

So now the economy will be rescued by outspending him? Why didn't it work for Bush? 

Assuming the recession is cyclical (which I believe it is) it should take about two years tops to get out of it. Can the country get out of it with the 3 trillion dollar deficit planned by Obama for 2010-11? 

If he goes on like that, I pray it's only four years, not eight.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

While there is plenty of room for quibbling on how the money is spent, what should be priorities, etc. ... it boggles my mind that there is ANYONE left, even Republicans, who don't appreciate that Obama is at least TRYING to tackle America's *real* problems head-on.

It really makes you despair that the stupid people will eventually take over, and all will be lost.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

All is already lost. I don't think running two trillion dollars in additional deficits over two years could be considered "trying." If he's lucky it won't delay the cyclical recovery from recession for too many years. It demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the workings of the economy. 

Obama's stump speeches on the economy over the past week or so show a frightening naivete. 

How long did it take for the Dow to regain its 1929 peak after the disastrous government policies of FDR? It took 25 years, even with the recovery brought on by World War II. 

When did America's biggest industrial collapse occur? Not 1929, but 1937 under FDR.

Obama seems hell bent on taking the country down this same disastrous path as the New Deal.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"So now the economy will be rescued by outspending him? Why didn't it work for Bush?" Bush spent this on the war in Iraq mainly, and many companies did profit greatly. Obama is spending money more on people and infrastructure, much like FDR.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> Bush spent this on the war in Iraq mainly, and many companies did profit greatly.


U.S. construction companies have been going full tilt for the past 4 or 5 years. The costs in that market were already heavily distorted by the construction bubble created by the likes of government arms like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Massive spending on infrastructure now is not a magic bullet, and will only create another distorted construction market of scarce labour and resources. The point is that the money spent on Iraq enriches the U.S. economy, just as much as it does spending money on large corporations who dominate infrastructure construction firms.


> Obama is spending money more on people and infrastructure, much like FDR.


Under FDR's plan, unemployment remained steady at roughly 17% until foreign governments began buying military hardware and supplies from the U.S. in 1939.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

I just hope there will be some money in the budget somewhere for airfare to the Hague for the previous administration. They can fly Con Air.

Heck, I'd pay for it myself!!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Money left over in the budget? There won't be money left over until the year 2300 at this rate of spending.

Unfortunately, The Hague doesn't usually try heads of state for incompetence.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^And how could they charge Bush with incompetence without charging his predecessor with gross incompetence and bad taste?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Exactly, Mr. Pitts--and why was Jimmy Carter never indicted on incompetence charges?


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

President Obama comes a'callin'. I expect he'll be received like the Beatles redux after the 8 years we just had.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

The Obama family will be coming here to St.John's first to pick up their doxie puppy. Might also be a good time to get PM Harper and NL Premier Williams meeting and talking once again? We shall see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MissGulch said:


> President Obama comes a'callin'. I expect he'll be received like the Beatles redux after the 8 years we just had.


Yes, he'll be received as a media sensation. look at the way the masses lined up to kiss Bill Clinton's pinkie ring at book signings. 

Almost as many as Gordon Ramsay.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Exactly, Mr. Pitts--and why was Jimmy Carter never indicted on incompetence charges?


Maybe because the means test is at the level of Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon - Carter was miles above those dudes. Plus, Carter never started phony wars, and kept his pants on in the Oval Office - which puts him above yet another eschelon of former Presidents...


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Seriously, how could Obama resist that puppy, Dr. G? 

Sadly, I fear you will have to ship the dog to Ottawa if you want Obama to see it. The weather out your way is abominable of late.

That said, I am incredibly pleased that Obama is RESTORING the tradition Bush ignored, and making Canada his first out-of-country visit after taking office. It will be amusing to see the photo-ops of him with Harper, and then he'll have to come back up here a few weeks later to replace the photo with Ignatieff. Maybe we can get Obama to come out to BC and see the "best place on earth."

As for Harper, they'll probably just photoshop in Iggy when the time comes.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Another visit from Gordon Ramsay would be much cooler.


----------



## rodneyjb (Apr 9, 2006)

"Obama is only perceived as a Messiah, and I continue to caution he is only a man. His spending policies may or may not have the desired result.

No one should be defending nor applauding his efforts until they are proven.

Too much is at stake and mark my words, or if you prefer, "trust me on this" as an old friend used to say, there are going to be a lot of disappointed people either way."


Well said Sinc...I have been thinking along these lines recently. Let's let the man get in and actually do his job, and then judge him on what he actually does. I hope he does a good job, but he could totally suck and make a lot of things worse. We won't really know until this time next year how he is doing.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

We do know that his proposed plan of injecting wads more cash into the system is likely going to result in inflation. That isn't an abstract concept that needs to be tested.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> We do know that his proposed plan of injecting wads more cash into the system is likely going to result in inflation. That isn't an abstract concept that needs to be tested.


But it is good for corruption - and the Teamsters and the Longshoremen have been on hard times for a few years, you know, RICO Act and all. Good to see that Obama is going to bail out the Gambinos with some much needed cash...


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

In the words of Republican, that's REPUBLICAN conservative senator Orrin Hatch, on the subject of his endorsing Obama's AG pick:

“I start with the premise that [a new] president deserves the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think politics should be played with the attorney general ... I like Barack Obama and want to help him if I can.”

More class in a single sentence than Tweedledee and Tweedledum have in their entire bodies.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

An interesting comment from Orin Hatch, chas. I have heard some of the things he has said over the years. Still, I agree with this POV re Obama. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Seriously, who gives a crap what some pissant Republican beltway insider has to say about the matter?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Dear World:

We, the United States of America , your top quality supplier of the ideals of liberty and democracy, would like to apologize for our 2001-2008 interruption in service. The technical fault that led to this eight-year service outage has been located, and the software responsible was replaced November 4. Early tests of the newly installed program indicate that we are now operating correctly, and we expect it to be fully functional on January 20. We apologize for any inconvenience caused by the outage. We look forward to resuming full service and hope to improve in years to come. We thank you for your patience and understanding,


Sincerely,
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

One Eyed Parrot Dance Club

Who knew???


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

..bout right.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

_'bout right_ what? What on earth do Obama's so-called "winds of change" have to do with Canada? is U.S. debt about to swamp us?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> _'bout right_ what? What on earth do Obama's so-called "winds of change" have to do with Canada? is U.S. debt about to swamp us?


In my day on the rim we'da scrapped that cartoon. Woulda been in file 13 labelled irrelevant.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Just finished watching the two hour HBO special concert for Obama from Washington, DC. Quite the spectacle. Very uplifting.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
The Concert was much like what it must have been like for those who were being entertained by the dance band on the Titanic - it's all about "uplifting" people so that the looming disaster will look even more spectactular.

All I can hope for is that Obama is hard core when it comes to firing retards - because he has a whole list of Clinton era retards to fire after they are caught at their old games of looting, pandering, assassination schemes, lying, cheating, and in general, their adherence to the pants-off policies.

Obama's popularity is at 79% - the same territory inhabited by his predecessors, so the pool is really about how many weeks the Administration can exist before it attains single digit popularity. And I have been rather indecisive to whether or not Clinton herself will be the first out the door, or if one of the other scalawags will bring some kind of prefab scandal into Washington for the flamefest. Of course, the one I thought would be the first out never made it "in", facing all kinds of Federal charges - way to go New Mexico!

The White House is set to burn with scandal - tons of scandal, what, with poor Cabinet appointments, too many Clinton Era retards, and Joe Biden looting things and selling his influence wherever he can.

And there will be no bigger roadblock than that provided by the tag-team of Pelosi and Reid, who already oppose Obama and pledge to filibuster any measure that the White House promulgates, unless they are paid off in pork barrel terms. Obama will be utterly reliant on the Republicans in order to prop up the rump of the Democrats to get anything done.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Ha ha haaaaa!!!! I"m can't wait for someone to pick up on this in the right-wing press... Where's O'Reilly when you want to hear from him? Priceless!


> At the factory where Mr. Obama's tuxedo was made - Hart Schaffner _*Marx*_ in Des Plaines, Ill. - workers will be finishing their shifts on Tuesday evening and preparing for their own festivities at a union hall on Chicago's west side.


(Source: Globe & Mail)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Hell, Johnny West was made by Marx.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

You know what's funny?

This WOULD have made waves on Limbaugh -- Beck -- Hannity (the Axis of Idiocy) or Faux Noise during the election.

My guess is that it WILL show up on Malkin's site, or The Corner ...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Nice job on the new Welcome to the White House website!


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Seriously, that is a huge improvement in both style and technique.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

May the sun shine upon a better America tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow ......................... Paix, mes amis.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Caroline Kennedy, who was widely considered the front-runner to fill Hillary Clinton's U.S. Senate seat for New York, has removed herself from consideration for that post, according to three Democratic sources." CNN.com

This is a surprise to me.


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

Immediately following the ceremony Obama was ushered into a briefing room and told the actual truth about crashed space aliens, the grassy knoll, who actually planned the 9/11 attacks and planted all the explosives, and the ultimate secret to unlimited mileage that the oil companies are suppressing. As we all know, he will not be allowed to divulge any of these secrets because the CIA is already giving him mind altering drugs. 

I'm serious! A friend of mine told me. No really.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I gotta think that most of the Presidents, post-Truman, wanted to ask questions about aliens first off.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

O's father was an alien.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

A funny article about the technological stone age of the Bush White House, as found by Obama's aides...

EDIT: Whoops! Already posted in the "Anything Mac" forum...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I gotta think that most of the Presidents, post-Truman, wanted to ask questions about aliens first off.


With the exception of Clinton, who didn't care about UFO's unless he and Hillary could loot them somehow. His first questions included: "How far away from the White House is the nearest McDonalds?"; "How long do I have to wait until I get fresh new interns?"; and "What's with these crummy cigars, where's the good Cuban stuff?"

His first act in office was to sit behind the big desk in the Oval Office and let a big nasty fart rip, which he bottled and had sent to John Major as a "gift of pure Arkansas air"...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Commentary: Sasha's smile could be a guide to our future - CNN.com

A fine article.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

_Obama breaks own rules about lobbyists in first day of administration:_



> Mr. Obama's nominee for deputy secretary of defense, William Lynn, has been a lobbyist for the defense contractor Raytheon, and his nominee for deputy secretary of health and human services, William V. Corr, lobbied for stricter tobacco regulations as an official with the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.


Robert Schlesinger:



> ...if you're going to campaign on sweeping condemnations about the evil of lobbyists and then, with great fanfare, ban them from your administration, you need to live by your own rules; or at least you shouldn't start making exceptions for them on Day 1.


No Lobbyist in the Obama Administration ... Except When There Is One - Robert Schlesinger (usnews.com)


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

Can you link me to your post about when Harper broke his election date law?


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

arminia said:


> Can you link me to your post about when Harper broke his election date law?


Ding ding ding! We have a winner!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Ding ding ding! We have a winner!" He wins .............. but the Canadian taxpayers lose $300 million.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

chas_m said:


> Ding ding ding! We have a winner!


Winner is the word!

Harper's election date "law" is utter garbage, just like Dolt McGuilty's "law". Unless a set Election Day and the required reforms are part and parcel of the Constitution, they are just worthless documents that promise us freedom from oppression at some set future date. And for a set Election Day to come to fruition, we would need systemic changes, such as the banning of "minority government", probably through the means of having run off Elections where each MP/MPP/MLA is elected with a clear majority of votes.

A recent poll in the US shows that most people think the "Obama honeymoon" will certainly last 1 to three months with no problems, but by the 6th month, a majority of those polled believe the Administration will be in flames. With the cookamungas Obama put into Cabinet, and the opposition that Pelosi and Reid are coordinating in Congress - it's going to be one crazy ride by next fall.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Exactly, EP--Harper, like Obama, bends his rules to suit himself. I think that breaking a major campaign promise on the first day in office is some sort of record --in particular for someone so fixated on "CHANGE."

I find it interesting that none of the prior three posts dealt with the substance of the issue, instead attempting to focus on the Canadian Conservative party. Is this a pattern we can expect for the rest of Obama's term in office?


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

I believe we were dealing with your hypocrisy. You jump on Obama but not Harper your buddy. If you can link that post I will apologize.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

arminia said:


> I believe we were dealing with your hypocrisy. You jump on Obama but not Harper your buddy. If you can link that post I will apologize.


Not true at all, if you check through my posts you'll see that I find Harper the best of a bad lot, and that any support I offer his policies is not of thr knee-jerk variety.

http://www.ehmac.ca/ehmac-ca-politics-sub-forum/69737-arts-culture-funding-3.html#post735195

http://www.ehmac.ca/ehmac-ca-politics-sub-forum/72174-how-west-lost-2.html#post765915


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

I see nothing in those posts where you jump on Harper for breaking his set election date law.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

arminia said:


> I see nothing in those posts where you jump on Harper for breaking his set election date law.


He's just doing his best to be an irritant, because he knows most people here favour Obama and dislike Harper. 

In other, _real _news, Obama has ended torture. 

Obama's Order Ends Bush-Era Interrogation Tactics | Newsweek Voices - Terror Watch | Newsweek.com

Thank god that's over. The policy truly shamed us all.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

arminia said:


> I see nothing in those posts where you jump on Harper for breaking his set election date law.


I agree he broke his promise on the election date. Just as Obama has broken his promise on lobbyists.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MissGulch said:


> In other, _real _news, Obama has ended torture.


Nothing so bold. He has put a temporary ban on certain interrogation techniques.

Obama overturns Bush tactics in war on terrorism - Los Angeles Times



> But on a day meant to demonstrate a clean break from the policies of his predecessor, Obama ...left room to revisit whether the CIA still should have permission to use coercive methods when questioning captives.
> 
> ....Obama appeared to leave an opening for the CIA to again have expanded authority. The order calls for the creation of a special task force, headed by the U.S. attorney general, to study whether the Army field manual is adequate and to recommend "additional or different guidance for other departments or agencies."
> 
> ...Retired Navy Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the president's nominee to serve as the next director of national intelligence, testified Thursday that the government would withhold specifics from any new interrogation document for fear that "we not turn our manual into a training manual for our adversaries."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

arminia said:


> I see nothing in those posts where you jump on Harper for breaking his set election date law.


Fortunately I always keep my feathers numbered for just such an emergency: In response to comments about whether Harper lied about a fixed election date:



> So this crowd's eyes have been opened to the fact that politicians twist their own words. Must have been a tough reckoning to have your youthful, innocent dreams dashed on the rocks of political reality.
> 
> News flash: They all lie. Some of them keep some of their promises


http://www.ehmac.ca/ehmac-ca-politi...-look-like-harper-majority-44.html#post730777


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

arminia said:


> I see nothing in those posts where you jump on Harper for breaking his set election date law.


Why would someone get "upset" by Harper flaunting a fake law? Election date "laws" are fake - unless they are part and parcel of the actual Constitutional Instrument along with the right of Impeachment for dereliction of duty on the part of public officials. It is nothing more than a fake pledge, with no attachment of penalty, made to assauge the feelings of the Electorate.

We'd be far better off if our Government stopped creating fake laws, like the fake law in Ontario where people can't smoke in cars that have children in them. As if that law will ever be enforced - they can't even enforce the current laws and regulations, let alone creating some huge body of additional legal codes that will be unenforced.

Herper is less guilty of not living up to his promises and pledges - only because of the trailblazers before him that turned promise-breaking into the main industry in Ottawa.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I would hope Obama backtracks on his protectionist plans for the U.S. economy:

AFP: 'Buy American' stimulus alarms US businesses, trade partners



> A "Buy American" drive in President Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan is sparking protests from businesses and trading partners, and drawing cheers from domestic manufacturers and unions.
> 
> Obama is pushing Congress for swift passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as vital to prevent the collapse of the fragile US economy amid the accelerating global financial crisis.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I would hope Obama backtracks on his protectionist plans for the U.S. economy:
> 
> AFP: 'Buy American' stimulus alarms US businesses, trade partners


 You have to love politics. He has to figure out how to balance constituent short term interests with longer term viable and effective policies for trade. 
Hopefully, history will provide tutelage.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

1. First of all, CONGRESS put that rule in, not Obama. Blame where blame belongs, the author of that passage was a member of the House of Representatives, but could have been a Republican OR Democrat, though my guess is it's the work of one of the "blue dog" (conservative) Dems.

2. Congress does this sort of thing all the time, that's why they have a conference committee, to check and see if the things half-dead Congressman X inserted into a given bill is legal/constitutional. They will notice that NAFTA and about four other treaties (along with history) dictate that they can't do that, and will soften the language to something less draconian. This sort of thing happens ALL THE TIME. It might even be sorted out before Obama gets up here.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas: You're correct. Obama has said nothing about slagging Canada. It only indicates that Obama hadn't fully read the plan he is flogging


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Not sure if Harper would want to be called a Republican, MacDoc. Of course, in the US, the Republican Party has strayed from its roots and values, just like the Conservatives. Interesting.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Not sure if Harper would want to be called a Republican, MacDoc. Of course, in the US, the Republican Party has strayed from its roots and values, just like the Conservatives. Interesting.


Just as Obama has strayed from ethics reform. Interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/us/politics/03lobby.html



> Every four or eight years a new president arrives in town, declares his determination to cleanse a dirty process and invariably winds up trying to reconcile the clear ideals of electioneering with the muddy business of governing. Mr. Obama on his first day in office imposed perhaps the toughest ethics rules of any president in modern times, and since then he and his advisers have been trying to explain why they do not cover this case or that case.
> 
> “This is a big problem for Obama, especially because it was such a major, major promise,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “He harped on it, time after time, and he created a sense of expectation around the country. This is exactly why people are skeptical of politicians, because change we can believe in is not the same thing as business as usual.”


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Even with as little regard as I have for Harper, I wouldn't quite go so far as to call him a Republican.

Republican _wanna-be_, perhaps ...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

chas_m said:


> Even with as little regard as I have for Harper, I wouldn't quite go so far as to call him a Republican.
> 
> Republican _wanna-be_, perhaps ...


Harper is so far to the Left that he'd have trouble finding many friends amongst the most radical Democrats south of the 49th. Canada has no Right, and every level of Government is fully committed to wasting every possible cent of taxpayers money on frivolity and degenerate acts of class warfare against the Citizens of this Nation - and Harper is just another Juggernaut of waste and sin.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap:


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Good one, MacDoc. Amazing that the Republicans are screaming about Obama's spending since he took office, when the $700 billion that the Bush administration gave to the banks and Wall Street has not really been accounted for other than what was paid out to various banks/firms.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

I don't think that anyone really begrudges spending to resolve this increasingly serious financial crisis and the recession that is spawning it. The problem is that no one seems to know what will fix it. All people agree on is the need to spend or to invest, or to 'grow' our way out of it....but opinions diverge after that.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

mc3251 said:


> I don't think that anyone really begrudges spending to resolve this increasingly serious financial crisis


You'd be wrong about that ...
The Washington Monthly

95% of House Republicans -- and 90% of Senate Republicans -- voted in favour of an all-tax-cut version of "stimulus" bill, despite clear empirical evidence that tax cuts are among the least stimulative things the government can do. Here's a graphic that helps explain this (admittedly complicated) subject, from Moody's Economic:










Note that, broadly speaking, tax cuts are actually very low or in many cases NEGATIVE stimulus (ie not generating at least as much economic activity as they cut, shown above by figures of less than 1.00). Most of the worst ones are the ones the Republicans favour year in and year out regardless of the economy: permanent tax cuts, accelerated depreciation, cut the corporate tax rate, and nonrefundable tax rebates. Their one and only good idea when it comes to the economy -- and it's one I support -- is payroll tax holidays.

Note, however, that the tax relief measures favoured by the Obama administration -- refundable tax rebates, extension of federal unemployment and poverty assistance, more money to states and infrastructure -- are _all_ very positive economic stimulus moves.



> The problem is that no one seems to know what will fix it.


It may seem that way, but that's not entirely true either. As the above chart shows, there are definitely measures which have proven historical success in stimulating the economy, though to be fair that is only one half of the overall problem (the monumental corruption and subsequent collapse of the US banking system is the other). The reason you have the media claiming that "nobody knows if this will work" is because there is a greek chorus of know-nothing loudmouths -- *the very same people who got us into this mess in the first place* -- claiming we'll sail off the edge of the earth unless we turn back now.

I'm not saying there aren't one or two Republicans out there with some sound ideas or proposals, but why anyone continues to give _any credibility whatsoever_ to people like Phil Gramm, John McCain and Newt Gingrich -- none of whom seem to know the first thing about economics, and all of whom have their names on disastrously bad economic policies -- is completely beyond me.

To put it another way -- the Obama administration's proposal is judged generally sound by all manner of economists, including a number of Nobel-prize-winning ones. If there's a single legitimate economist of any stature out there who's endorsed the Republicans' all-tax-cut-all-the-time idea, I've not seen them. They are conspicuous by their absence.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

chas_m said:


> Obama administration's proposal is judged generally sound by all manner of economists, including a number of Nobel-prize-winning ones. If there's a single legitimate economist of any stature out there who's endorsed the Republicans' all-tax-cut-all-the-time idea, I've not seen them. They are conspicuous by their absence.


That's because economics has a known left-wing bias 

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If the relationship between tax-cuts and/or spending increases and economic activity were clearly undertood, then there would never be a period where the economy didn't behave as commanded by whatever King Canute ran the Treasury and occupied the White House.

Neither does Moody's pithy little chart of "How the Economy Works" demonstrate any way of isolating government tax/spending policy from the realities of the market. It certainly fails to show us the longer-term debilitating effects of high spending as beautifully demonstrated by President Jimmy Carter, the inflation king of the the 1970s.

If obscene spending on the wrong things during the Bush administration didn't keep the economy roaring at full speed, then Obama's 800 billion dollar bill, featuring every piece of fatty succulent pork the Democrats have wanted over the last eight years is unlikely to do more. On the other hand, if Moody's little chart of "How the Economy Works" is correct, then most of this stimulating spending and its attendant benefits will occur in 2011 and 2012 when the money is to be released--and the economy will already have recovered, barring too much interference from the federal government.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> If the relationship between tax-cuts and/or spending increases and economic activity were clearly undertood, then there would never be a period where the economy didn't behave as commanded by whatever King Canute ran the Treasury and occupied the White House.
> 
> Neither does Moody's pithy little chart of "How the Economy Works" demonstrate any way of isolating government tax/spending policy from the realities of the market. It certainly fails to show us the longer-term debilitating effects of high spending as beautifully demonstrated by President Jimmy Carter, the inflation king of the the 1970s.
> 
> If obscene spending on the wrong things during the Bush administration didn't keep the economy roaring at full speed, then Obama's 800 billion dollar bill, featuring every piece of fatty succulent pork the Democrats have wanted over the last eight years is unlikely to do more. On the other hand, if Moody's little chart of "How the Economy Works" is correct, then most of this stimulating spending and its attendant benefits will occur in 2011 and 2012 when the money is to be released--and the economy will already have recovered, barring too much interference from the federal government.


That's a long post for you MF.

The "realities of The Market" are that unless it is operating under some intelligent regulation a small group of greedy and short-sighted, but wealthy and powerful players will destroy the commons, because the wisdom of the invisible hand is a fantasy.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sauce: what does my post have to do with invisible hands? I said that the results of government tax policy are not clearly understood and that it can't be boiled down to a simple table--especially considering that more powerful forces outside of government policy are often pushing the results.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

Chas: I appreciate your post and the perspective that you bring to it. I want to believe that Obama is right, and I do agree that the Repubs deserve little cred on this one. I still think that MF makes good points and that the Moody table is oversimplifying tax policy. What is happening isn't well understood, I stand by that.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The "stimmullus" also seems to be free of measurable goals. It began with a promise to create a certain number of jobs, but then devolved to "save or create" a number of jobs. How do you measure "saved jobs?"

The best I can tell, it's supposed to "save" the economy, which appears to be tooling along reasonably well, despite all of the burdens placed on it by the federal and state governments. The worst problems were the result of the feds attempting to create a home ownership policy that fell flat on its ass.

Again, if the goal is to stimulate the economy NOW, then why is most of the spending earmarked for 2010, 2011 and 2012?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
It's just designed to "save" the pork barrel, and provide "salvation" for the Democrats in Congress in 2010...

If Obama was serious - he would take all of the hucksters and fraud artists that started this whole thing and have a mass public hanging for their crimes against humanity - and give the money that they absconded with and distribute that to the poor.

And to show how bad this deal is, how really rotten it is, to the core, they keep trying to "take" money that has been "given" to the financial institutions to bail out any number of white elephants - like all the money they put into GM so they can continue to make crudmobiles that clearly, no one wants.

If North America doesn't learn how to compete, and I mean, how to really compete - we simply deserve the fates...


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

I keep forgetting that it's all really hopeless, and there is really no point in trying to be constructive or positive.
Silly me


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Michael: The wholesale transfer of individual wealth to large corporations, government departments and lobbyists was unconscionable during the Bush Administration and roundly decried here and elsewhere. When a Democrat is bent on doing twice the damage, he doesn't get a free pass for doing the same thing. I see literally nothing positive in either President's swindle of the American public.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

Fair enough. There are many who share your view. I am still looking for the silver lining, but I really wonder whether the recession and recovery cycle will play out regardless of intervention or not. It's scary.

For the record, my comment was actually directed at EPs latest doomsday post.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think the intervention will slow down the recovery considerably as it did during FDR's long tenure.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

You shouldn't be so negative - we as a society just have to look towards those that can provide leadership and backbone, rather than just spouting tommy-rot. Our "leaders" have increasingly become effeminate, afraid to make the real decisions that count, and as such, allow their vices to overshadow their virtues. And when virtues disappear, leaders turn towards fast and easy giveaways, in order to win support and votes. Then they give up all pretence of making accomplishments, and decend to the nadir of the corruption and degradation they embrace, all at the full cost to the society of which they had vowed to protect and enhance.

We witness the degrading and degenerate behaviour on the go right now - where money that has been appropriated to prop up a financial system that is having a short term crisis is being bled away. It's all about these side projects, where the financial institutions are being robbed in order to buy some fast votes.

In the long term, it is a house of straw that will collapse - in two parts, as the financial institutions find no relief because Congress spend the wad on white elephants and pork barrel vote purchases; and that poorly run corporations like GM can continue to produce low quality gas guzzling crudmobiles made with obsolete tehnologies that no one wants.

So the initial impulse was honourable and virtuous - the outcome is entirely riven with vice and degeneration, and all because no real leaders have stepped forward to add the energy required to keep the system from becoming entirely entropic.

This is not a negative view, because the entire system can be entirely saved and advanced - it is just that we have a bunch of diaper wearing naysayers that are afraid to do the right thing, because it may cost them a point in the polls. We just need someone to step up and say "No", and to do that requires someone with a technocratic bent that can put North America back on the rails.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I think the intervention will slow down the recovery considerably as it did during FDR's long tenure.


How can one assess whether the recovery would have been faster or not without FDR's intervention? How can you measure the effects of something you didn't do?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mc3251 said:


> How can one assess whether the recovery would have been faster or not without FDR's intervention? How can you measure the effects of something you didn't do?


FDR's tenure showed that if you hire people for make-work jobs that you create make-work jobs--that only government jobs changed the overall unemployment figures during the decade following the Crash.

You can also look at FDR's Treasury Secretary, Henry Morganthau, who told Congressional Democrats in 1939: 



> "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot!"*


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
Henry Morgenthau was a nutcase who's "plan" for post war Europe was to turn Germany into a giant farm inhabited by serfs, thralls and peasants. Lucky his scheme was never really considered because turning Germany into a giant slave state was probably incompatible with the concepts of freedom and liberty that are purported to be American ideals.

The Great Depression was a combination of issues that happened concurrently - a stock market crash, a run on the banks, massive crop failures; and is different from our current situation, which is nothing more than the result of what happens when too many people create too many Ponsi schemes and that too many people have terrible income to debt ratios.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

^^^
Yup, and Roosevelt bought into it too. Oddly enough, the crazy plan got leaked and Josef Goebbels used it to rouse the last of the failing German war effort.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
And that was some crazy leak - but it was probably was leaked by someone that saw what the whole Morgenthau plot was, and was opposed to setting up giant plantations in Germany where the Germans would be whipped every morning, and be allowed to eat turnip and greasy sausages only - just like in Dixie.

It's pretty bad when Goebbels can call out the Americans when it comes to denying people freedom - something that every penny-ante dictator in the world can still do because of racial discrimination and Indian reservations that the Americans continue to promulgate.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> In the three months since the election, the broadest measure of the stock market's value, the Wilshire 5000 Index, has plunged more than 30%, slicing over $3 trillion from Americans' wealth. Investors have walked away from investing, while businesses shut down factories and offices and slash jobs.
> 
> This is both highly significant and dangerous. Capital, bluntly put, has gone on strike. Those who own wealth are pushing it to the sidelines, as a young and inexperienced president tries to jam through the most sweeping economic changes in over 70 years.
> 
> ...


Investor's Business Daily -- Capital On Strike


----------



## Mr Macintosh (Mar 3, 2009)

I'm really just very sick of his negativity I heard "Things are bad but there gonna get worse" I mean who says something like that, right now Americans NEED positive words of encouragement to bost their economy make them think things are going to be better, NOT WORSE! Geez


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I think Capital does need to go in strike - investors are frustrated at seeing their money siphoned out of their investors by a horde of corporate looters who return nothing of value. Witness the farce going on at Nortel, where the Executives are scoring huge bonuses while the company goes under. This is something that Obama can not do anything about, well, until Governments decide to remove their wet diapers and go hard core in dishing out some real punishments to the fraudsters that are selling out the world to the lowest bidder.

I don't think we have "reached bottom" either, as the markets continue to wallow in the daily bloodbath. It is bad, and we do not have the leadership that will be needed to extract us from this mess. And it all comes back to the coupling of decline and ruin with excess luxury and liberality...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

To my special friend Gordon, 25 DVDs: Obama gives Brown a set of classic movies. Let's hope he likes the Wizard of Oz | Mail Online



> *To my special friend Gordon, 25 DVDs: Obama gives Brown a set of classic movies. Let's hope he likes the Wizard of Oz
> *
> By Ian Drury
> Last updated at 8:17 AM on 06th March 2009
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Bloomberg.com: News



> *‘Obama Bear Market’ Punishes Investors as Dow Slumps (Update2)
> *
> By Eric Martin
> 
> ...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
Everyone that has money is loafing around until things bottom out - and since there are a small handful of places left that are still in business - things will continue to bottom out. It's all about fear, and Obama is trying to fight fear with "hope", as in, "I hope that my Cabinet doesn't get engulfed in scandal".

Now that he sent Hillary to the Middle East, I expect that things will quiet down over there - because it just isn't worth doing something that would bring her back. Not that there is much in Gaza City for her to steal, but maybe bringing back a goat or two will keep Slick Willie busy for a while.

The Obamanians are waiting for him to perform The Miracle...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> *Understaffed Geithner can't keep up, critics say*
> 3/4/2009, 8:40 p.m. EST
> By DANIEL WAGNER
> The Associated Press
> ...


Understaffed Geithner can't keep up, critics say - NewsFlash - mlive.com


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Understaffed Geithner can't keep up, critics say - NewsFlash - mlive.com


Sounds like a job for the Special Olympics, they might be able to help him with his bowling score too.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Looks like Obama hasn't been doing that bad - in the two months since his inauguration, he has accomplished zilch, which is equal to the record that took Herr Bush eight years to accomplish...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I was going to mention Obama's many speech flubs, but they're piling up too fast. If this were George Bush, they'd be all over the newspapers.

Here's a blog wrtitten by Obama's teleprompter that's pretty funny: "Barack Obama's Teleprompter's Blog--Reflections from the hard drive of the machine that enables the voice of the Leader of the Free World."

Barack Obama's Teleprompter's Blog


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I think the White House just has too much free time and too much hi-tech, though Blogging is now pretty old school. Maybe Obama should be text messaging instead of speeching?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Search the terms "Obama" and "Teleprompter" on YouTube and you'll see all sorts of hilarious video of him bumbling and stumbling, then suddenly gleaming like a crack addict when he locates the screen again.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Yeah, the Second Lincoln indeed, well, except that Obama doesn't wrestle...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The Europeans are now lecturing the U.S. on capitalism:



> *EU Presidency: Obama Plans 'a Way to Hell'*
> 
> Wednesday, March 25, 2009Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek addresses the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
> 
> ...


FOXNews.com - EU Presidency: Obama Plans 'a Way to Hell' - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
I don't know if the Czech PM is a good source of such opinions - wasn't he recently defenestrated????


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vote of non-confidence.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Vote of non-confidence.


In Prague, it's all about being tossed out the window...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Obama Style : Gov 0.2


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Just got an email from Joe Biden urging me to send money to some Democratic candidate.

Replied that until the Democrats started representing Americans rather than Banksters, Israelis, Monsanto and the MIC, he could not expect Americans to support the party.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*EDIT: Damn ancient thread revivals! *



EvanPitts said:


> Our "leaders" have increasingly become _effeminate_, afraid to make the real decisions that count


Feeling a tad mysoginist today, are we Evan?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> *EDIT: Damn ancient thread revivals! *
> 
> 
> 
> Feeling a tad mysoginist today, are we Evan?


uuummm CM Evan has been MIA for quite sometime now, err I don't want to point out the fact that you've been out of the country and all err aaaa but the post date is still there.

Also I'm not sure what the cartoon was about as it did not display correctly for me in Safari 5.0.2 but I'm willing to bet it's a knee slapper.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> *Feeling a tad mysoginist today, are we Evan? *


*

Applying the term effeminate to a man is certainly not misogynist. Femininity is rarely an asset in a male.*


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Also I'm not sure what the cartoon was about as it did not display correctly for me in Safari 5.0.2 but I'm willing to bet it's a knee slapper.


It displays just fine in Safari 5.0.2 for me, but a simple control click on the image, and then select "open in a new window", gets you this:

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/for/lowres/forn458l.jpg


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Thanks Sinc it finally worked by not clicking on the? in a square. When I clicked elsewhere in the cartoon area I can now see the cartoon. 

Originally I had clicked the ? in the square on your link as well it did not show properly. However since clicking your cartoon elsewhere every link shows correctly now. Thank-you again.

(ED note at personal risk of incurring the wrath of groovetube) I can see Steven P. Jobs point about flash.

(ED note ever notice NY Times seems to be the only news organisation to use Steven P. Jobs)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I revived this thread because I like the title. Obama is now Bush 2.0! America to remain in Afghanistan, military trials to resume for Guantanamo detainees, Gitmo to remain open, retention of government spy powers. Impressive!


Review & Outlook: Obama Ratifies Bush - WSJ.com


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Yeah, cause it's just as easy to withdraw from Afghanistan as it is not to go in the first place.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

hayesk said:


> Yeah, cause it's just as easy to withdraw from Afghanistan as it is not to go in the first place.


Wasn't me who suggested it would be easy enough to withdraw from Afghanistan during the 2010 campaign.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Normally it would be fairly easily to withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq. However The Military and its suppliers are pretty much the only part of the economy that have not shut down completely. Shut them down and a bleak economy gets even bleaker.


----------



## rodneyjb (Apr 9, 2006)

Change and hope really meant four more years of the same...just spoken a bit more eloquently.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

rodneyjb said:


> Change and hope really meant four more years of the same...just spoken a bit more eloquently.


Well at least we can agree that it's an improvement.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Well at least we can agree that it's an improvement.


On the eloquence of speech? Certainly. On the substance of governance... not at all. Obama will be the "progressives'" worst nightmare, delivering the government back into the hands of the Republicans in a major pendulum shift.


----------

