posted
To elected officials. And to MoveOn, explaining why I could no longer in good faith remain a member.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm still part of the grassroots group that started way back last winter to support Obama, we're 180 people strong in our community and still highly active. Most of the members are fuming right now. We stayed together because of a direct request from Obama to maintain the group, continue to be active in our community and keep a two way communication going with the administration, and hold him accountable(his words). We're currently deciding the best way to voice our displeasure and we hope the two way part of this communication was truly meant.
I would be very interested in knowing what, if anything, your group decides to do. I don't know why this is a surprise. He voted for this legislation, why would he not use it for himself? I'm sure there is a very carefully worded statement being prepared just in case this is actually covered by the MSM.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Between this and the stupid populist pandering on the AIG bonus thing, I'd have to say I'm disappointed by the job that President Obama is doing. Right now, he's in the "Will not vote for again" column for me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The AIG bonus thing is just insane for Obama. According to Dodd the Obama Administration told him to put in the amendment to authorize the bonuses. Then Obama gets outraged about AIG getting bonuses?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Good points, Tom. He very well might have incompetents working for him or is being deliberately sabotaged, as you said. Someone apparently neglected to clue Michelle into the fact that under no circumstances is the Queen of England to be touched. Yet she threw her arms around the Queen and hugged her.
Then, as you alluded, there was that gift that Sec of State Clinton publically presented to the Russian leader, which had a Russian word on it that was supposed to mean "Reset," but actually meant "over-charge." Someone should have been fired over that!
There is a real mystery here about the lapses in protocol, what is going on?
But also considering how many of his cabinet appointees had to withdraw their names after being found out to have past problems with paying their taxes, you wonder if anybody is doing any vetting of proposed candidates.
If a president is this frequently ill-served, then he must be choosing the wrong servants, which means the responsibility comes back on him.
After all this, how can foreign government leaders not be looking upon any delegation from the American Administration as being "Amateur Hour"?
THE QUEEN WAS TOUCHED!? HOW DARE YOU DIRTY AMERICANS LAY HAND UPON THE SACRED! SACRED!!!! Body of the Queen! THIS MEANS WAR!
IP: Logged |
Well, I've been disgruntled with them for a while. They started (IMO) quite nobly, but they've been an increasingly shrill and partisan bunch of rabble-rousers over the last two to three years. Their latest communications are the last straw; they're sending out emails explaining how we should be writing in to encourage the Obama administration to step in and force the firing of the CEO of the Bank of America -- and not sending out even a single email noting that Obama has, so far, managed to completely sidestep his promises of real procedural change. I believe this is the wrong priority for the group; MoveOn, no matter how partisan it may now be, shouldn't be about focusing attacks on private corporations, but rather about building up citizen action in response to federal missteps.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:During World War I, Americans were exhorted to buy Liberty Bonds to help their soldiers on the front.
Now, it seems, they will be asked to come to the aid of their banks — with the added inducement of possibly making some money for themselves.
As part of its sweeping plan to purge banks of troublesome assets, the Obama administration is encouraging several large investment companies to create the financial-crisis equivalent of war bonds: bailout funds.
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Here's the thing Raymond, there are perfectly legitimate reasons for doing wiretaps WITH warrants, but these are warrantless wiretaps we're talking about.
I agree, he might very well have gotten in and become privy to information that made him think these things should continue. I understand that. But fine, sell the idea to the American public. Convince us it's in our best interest to get behind you on this. Don't rally against it, campaign against it, and then slip this in without informing your supporters of why you're doing it.
Yup.
Have written to congress people.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The Olbermann segments, which are really worth watching, highlight the exact passages of the Obama DOJ's brief which I excerpted and posted on Monday, and underscore how intolerable the Obama administration's conduct in the area of transparency and civil liberties has increasingly become. Credit to Olbermann for highlighting this issue and commenting on it with such unrestrained candor. This should help galvanize greater action to make clear to the Obama administration that this conduct is completely unacceptable, and -- with Accountability Now, FDL and others -- I expect there to be some specific actions announced very shortly to begin pushing back, hard, against these serious transgressions
quote:The news media, either in the form of commentary or hard news, has a responsibility to remain within certain ethical boundaries, primarily because it operates in the context of the real world -- not to mention the prestige of being the only industry to be specifically listed in the Bill of Rights. Viewers, listeners and readers, for better or worse, take the news seriously because it's packaged and sold as an authoritative, credible and accurate delivery method for understanding and observing events both seen and unseen.
So it stands to reason that people might take Beck or Michele Bachmann seriously when they say, in the context of a news network and with convincing zeal, that President Obama is a Manchurian candidate and a Nazi who's shoving dissenters and children into concentration camps, and therefore we have an obligation to become "armed and dangerous" in order to save America.
At the same time, however, this form of commentary happens to be constitutionally protected speech and press. But even First Amendment absolutists will admit that freedom and responsibility aren't mutually exclusive. If you broadcast these sorts of outlandish ideas -- especially in a news forum -- you have a responsibility to own both the speech and its consequences. And if Beck chooses not to own what he says, he probably shouldn't be so outraged when people call him on his insanity or his lack of credibility or his unethical behavior.
On February 9th, 1950, speaking to a Republican women's group in Wheeling, West Virginia, Joseph McCarthy produced a piece of paper with a list of names of people who he believed to be Communists. He is quoted as saying: "I have here in my hand a list of 205, a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department." The reason I post this is because today I read this:
The anger and resent that grows in America today is the product of the multitude of problems the world faces today, and yet, the greatest problem we face may not be from Iran or from the economy, the greatest problem is in how that anger manifests. In the 50's we decided that the House Un-American Committee was the way to deal with the fear and anger than resounded across America and today some have decided that they will look to Glen Beck or Michelle Bachmann or Spencer Bachus to help them face that fear and anger. Fear and anger are powerful motivators but I hope that we as people can look to the past so that our future will be brighter.
quote:In the 50's we decided that the House Un-American Committee was the way to deal with the fear and anger than resounded across America and today some have decided that they will look to Glen Beck or Michelle Bachmann or Max Bachus to help them face that fear and anger.
I believe you mean Rep. Spencer Bachus. Max Baucus is a democratic senator from Montana. It's not fair to confuse him with this hate monger solely because their last names sound the same.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the 50's we decided that the House Un-American Committee was the way to deal with the fear and anger than resounded across America and today some have decided that they will look to Glen Beck or Michelle Bachmann or Max Bachus to help them face that fear and anger.
I believe you mean Rep. Spencer Bachus. Max Baucus is a democratic senator from Montana. It's not fair to confuse him with this hate monger solely because their last names sound the same.
Ah I certainly do Rabbit, thank you for the correction. It shall be noted.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the 50's we decided that the House Un-American Committee was the way to deal with the fear and anger than resounded across America and today some have decided that they will look to Glen Beck or Michelle Bachmann or Max Bachus to help them face that fear and anger.
I believe you mean Rep. Spencer Bachus. Max Baucus is a democratic senator from Montana. It's not fair to confuse him with this hate monger solely because their last names sound the same.
Do you know something I don't know? I can't find anything in Bachus' biography that would remotely indicate he's deserving of that sort of moniker. Are you reacting solely to his statement that there are members of the House that he considers socialists? Or is there more to it? The only remotely incendiary thing I found in my .2 seconds of web searching was calling Bill Maher's comments about the military "treasonous."
<edit>I see he's also been quite active in the anti-illegal immigration front (although honestly his rhetoric, if not his voting record, indicate a greater level of thoughtfulness than some of his House colleagues). Perhaps that's what you're reacting to?</edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I can tell, almost everyone in the House is a socialist. It's just a matter of degree.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Obama already will get his first appointment it looks like, and with an overwhelming Senate majority, it looks like he might just have his pick of the litter rather than having to settle for a moderate.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Surprising and unsurprising. I think Ginsberg and Stevens were waiting for a liberal president before they retired, which they have now, but I never thought Souter would be the first one out of the gate. I think before his first term is done he'll get to make three appointments, and if he's there for eight years, I could see a couple more people going too. This could be a big presidency for remaking the Court.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Actually, his "tax cuts for 95% of *working* Americans" was not exactly wrong, Fact Check just added some explanation that makes the number not seem quite as good as he was trying to make it sound. From the article you posted:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Obama said his stimulus program provides a tax cut for "95 percent of working households" and later said that a cut would go to 95 percent of "working families." That calls for some explanation. The key words are "working" and "cut."
He's referring to the "making work pay" refundable tax credit, which is only available to workers. As we pointed out previously on The FactCheck Wire, there would be no credit for retirees or those who are unemployed. A Tax Policy Center analysis found that a more modest 75.5 percent of all households would benefit, whether their members are working or not.
It is also questionable whether all of the tax refunds can properly be called "tax cuts." The credit is refundable and, therefore, is going to many who earn so little that they pay no federal income taxes in the first place. The White House calls them tax cuts, but the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office officially scores the bill’s refundable credits under "direct spending."
--A single worker with two jobs making $20,000 a year at each job will get a $400 boost in take-home pay at each of them, for a total of $800. That worker, however, is eligible for a maximum credit of $400, so the remaining $400 will have to be paid back at tax time -- either through a smaller refund or a payment to the IRS.
The IRS recognized there could be a similar problem for married couples if both spouses work, so it adjusted the withholding tables. The fix, however, was imperfect.
-- A married couple with a combined income of $50,000 is eligible for an $800 credit. However, if both spouses work and make more than $13,000, the new withholding tables give them each a $600 boost -- for a total of $1,200.
There were 33 million married couples in 2008 in which both spouses worked. That's 55 percent of all married couples, according to the Census Bureau.
-- A single college student with a part-time job making $10,000 would get a $400 boost in pay. However, if that student is claimed as a dependent on a parent's tax return, she doesn't qualify for the credit and would have to repay it when she files next year.
Some retirees face even bigger headaches.
The Social Security Administration is sending out $250 payments to more than 50 million retirees in May as part of the economic stimulus package. The payments will go to people who receive Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, railroad retirement benefits or veteran's disability benefits.
The payments are meant to provide a boost for people who don't qualify for the tax credit. However, they will go to retirees even if they have earned income and receive the credit. Those retirees will have the $250 payment deducted from their tax credit -- but not until they file their tax returns next year, long after the money may have been spent.
Retirees who have federal income taxes withheld from pension benefits also are getting an income boost as a result of the new withholding tables. However, pension benefits are not earned income, so they don't qualify for the tax credit. That money will have to paid back next year when tax returns are filed.
More than 20 million retirees and survivors receive payments from defined benefit pension plans, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute. However, it is unclear how many have federal taxes withheld from their payments.
Obama already will get his first appointment it looks like, and with an overwhelming Senate majority, it looks like he might just have his pick of the litter rather than having to settle for a moderate.
Which is unfortunate, I think our best justices (the honorable Justice Marshall excepting) have been the ones that were expected to lean one way and instead leaned the other.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Thats what Canada is for, our Supreme Justices are independent of whichever fall apart coalition of parties happens to be in power at the time.
IP: Logged |
posted
So, this is going to sound extremely sexist, but I would like to see him pick a woman. Even if Obama gets 3 picks and all three are women (assuming Ginsburg) leaves, that would only have 1/3 of the court as female. And I think that in many cases, gender does matter. For example, the recent strip search case- I think a woman is far more likely to understand the distress a 13 year old girl will feel being strip searched at school then a man will.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama's expected to appoint a woman, though I'm going to be disappointed if he does. Pick a GOOD justice, not a politically correct one.
Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are unfortunately going to be poisoning the SC for a very long time. Pick someone young, smart, and for god's sake competent.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think he should look for a half hispanic, half black, obese, transgendered female just to cover all the bases. It's obvious qualifications don't really matter anymore, otherwise Obama never would've been elected.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, the implication is that he might pick his justice by type, not quality. If he finds an excellent woman candidate, fantastic. Ginsberg's been awesome. But it's just stupid to say he should pick a woman over an outstanding male candidate. And by extension, it's stupid to say he should pick a woman. The only qualities we're really looking for are intelligence and competence. Cases in point, Clarence Thomas and Harriet Miers.
I'm not well-versed on the qualities of different federal judges, so I'll wait until I hear some proposals from various sources. If there's an incredible person in the lineup who's passed over for a black/female/Latin candidate, I'm going to be upset.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, it's worth pointing out that this is by far one of the most embarrassing Supreme Courts we've had in a while. Justices in the past century have been outstanding (even ones I seriously disagree with), but started dying out in the 1980's with Reagan appointments. I pray to god the Rehnquist court is finally ending.
Scalia's the most outstanding example of judicial incompetence, but the Court as a whole has nowhere near the quality of former Courts. I'd love to see Obama restore the prestige of the SC by appointing a Black or a Douglas. I'd kill to have another Warren court.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Women seem to be the grand majority of the short lists I've seen floating around. There's a lot of talk about it being a women, or a woman and a minority, or just a minority.
I think they need to find the absolute best judge they can find, and it happens to be a women, then excellent. If they find two or three that are tied, and one is a woman, then I have no problem with making that the tie breaker. I think having a diverse court can result in better decisions, but their qualifications will always be the most important thing.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yahoo has a story up about Obama looking to close tax loopholes for businesses. I don't know enough about any of that to really have an opinion, but I came to a dead stop when I read this.
quote: Obama also planned to ask Congress to crack down on tax havens and implement a major shift in the way courts view guilt. Under Obama's proposal, Americans would have to prove they were not breaking U.S. tax laws by sending money to banks that don't cooperate with tax officials. It essentially would reverse the long-held assumption of innocence in U.S. courts.
Surely the reporter got that bit wrong, right? Has anyone heard anything more official about what Obama's proposing?
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Surely the reporter got that bit wrong, right? Has anyone heard anything more official about what Obama's proposing?
Don't call us Shirley....I would not doubt the report got it right. He is proposing that overseas banks sign up with our IRS and if they don't we will assume that they are guilty and we will take action.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: ... Has anyone heard anything more official about what Obama's proposing?
I don't know about your domestic side but on the international side I think its just part of the implementation of a move by the United States and some other European countries, notably France, back during the G20 to track down missing tax revenue due to tax havens.
quote:The most dramatic crackdown on tax havens was unveiled by G20 leaders at their summit today, paving the way for the naming and shaming of countries that fail to comply with internationally agreed standards.
Gordon Brown hailed the agreement as he issued a blunt warning to individuals and corporations that invest in renegade tax havens that their money will be unsafe.
"People will increasingly see that it is unsafe to be in a country which still wants to declare itself as a tax haven," the prime minister said.
"There will be no guarantee about the safety of funds there. If tax information is exchanged on request, as these countries have agreed to, then the benefits from being in these countries will diminish every day."
Within hours of the agreement, which was only concluded in the final minutes of the summit after a row between France and China, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development was issueing a list of countries that are failing to comply with its guidelines. The OECD – dubbed the rich countries' club – placed countries in four categories based on the actions they have taken to comply with the "internationally agreed tax standard"
quote:Americans would have to prove they were not breaking U.S. tax laws by sending money to banks that don't cooperate with tax officials. It essentially would reverse the long-held assumption of innocence in U.S. courts.
I know nothing of the details of this proposal but it is worth noting that there are already a myriad of instances under current tax laws where people are required to provide proof that they are adhering to the law. This would hardly be a precedent setting change.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: ...it is worth noting that there are already a myriad of instances under current tax laws where people are required to provide proof that they are adhering to the law.
!!!
When did that get slipped past us? We should be ashamed of ourselves letting something like that go.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
The President takes a reaaaaaaally looong time ordering food.
And I think Fox News hit a new low saying Barack Obama is "enjoying a murdered cow for a pagan meal" as their headlines.
Joe Biden came to save the day showing how to properly order food.
IP: Logged |
quote:Daniel Effron and colleagues presented dozens of predominantly White undergrad students with one of two scenarios that would reveal their favouritism towards White people: one was a hiring decision, the other related to the allocation of funds to communities. Crucially, the students were asked to make their choices about the hiring or funding either before or after they had declared whether they planned to vote for Barack Obama, in what was then the upcoming Presidential election.
Students who declared their intention to vote for Obama before making the hiring/funding decisions subsequently showed more favouritism towards White people than did students who made their decisions first. A third study showed this effect was particularly apparent among more racially prejudiced students.
quote: We expected broken promises. But the gap between the soaring expectations that accompanied Barack Obama's inauguration and his wretched performance is the broadest such chasm in recent historical memory. This guy makes Bill Clinton look like a paragon of integrity and follow-through.
From healthcare to torture to the economy to war, Obama has reneged on pledges real and implied. So timid and so owned is he that he trembles in fear of offending, of all things, the government of Turkey. Obama has officially reneged on his campaign promise to acknowledge the Armenian genocide. When a president doesn't have the 'nads to annoy the Turks, why does he bother to show up for work in the morning?
Obama is useless. Worse than that, he's dangerous. Which is why, if he has any patriotism left after the thousands of meetings he has sat through with corporate contributors, blood-sucking lobbyists and corrupt politicians, he ought to step down now--before he drags us further into the abyss.
posted
So, to clarify, you would like to see Obama resign because he hasn't followed through with enough of his campaign promises, DK? I find that surprising.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it surprising that Ted Rall, not exactly a bastion of conservative ideals, has come out so strongly against Obama.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And do you agree with him? Would you like to see Obama condemning the Armenian genocide and ending our recent tradition of indefinitely holding and torturing random dudes accused of stuff? Because, heck, it's hardly surprising that non-conservatives are ideologically more consistent and willing to criticize their leadership; that's been the case for as long as I've been alive, at the very least. What is surprising to me is that conservatives are apparently agreeing with non-conservatives about what Obama should be doing.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm confused as to how somebody can be lambasted for not leading out while simultaneously being castigated for dragging us into an abyss.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No kidding. Contrary to the hysterics of the conservatives, President Obama is not all that liberal. Better by a long shot than what we have had, though.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since Ted Rall got mentioned in a Hatrack thread a few weeks ago, he's become my answer to anyone who claims that political hate-mongering is a peculiarly Republican trait.
Rather than a resignation, I'd appreciate some recognition that those campaign promises (and attacks on the opposition) were misguided. I thought Democrats were right when they castigated Bush for being unable to admit when he was wrong; I think the same is true in this case.
Also, here's a good article on the state-department diplomat who's trying to find homes for the Gitmo detainees. In the four and half months since Obama ordered GTMO closed, the US has successfully moved two detainees, one each to the UK and France. Besides the Uighars (who everyone wants released, just not in their back yard), there are about 30 other detainees who have been cleared for release, but cannot be sent home (because of danger of torture and death) and cannot be relocated to other countries, either. And that's not even considering the other 200-odd detainees who are deemed more likely to pose a threat to whatever country accepts them.
As the deadline approaches and options dwindle, I think there will be a moment of truth when Obama will have to decide whether to bring the rest of the detainees state-side (angering congressional Democrats, and probably causing some degree of public outcry), or send them to someplace like Bagram Air Force Base (where there's another, less politically radioactive, military detention facility). Or keep GTMO open and face the political firestorm.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
