President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Behshad]

Not that they would have had any information on his whereabouts, or anything.

Clinton didn't kill him.

Bush Sr couldn't kill Saddam you're weak Alan. What happened ?!

Colin Powell begged him to stop after the "Highway of Death" out of Kuwait. We should have marched right on into Baghdad was MHO.

Wrong.
Bush Sr did the right thing. His mission was to get Saddam out of Iraq. Mission accomplished, end of war, get our troops back home.
Its easy for you to put the lives of our men and women on the line.

Saddam was pushed back to his own country and he was scared to make any other moves. Going back to Iraq and create this war was not neccessary. Saddam was no threat whatsoever , ever since he was put in his place by Bush Sr.

[lights1961]

OBAMA's NEW SLOGAN... DRILL BABY DRILL!!

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

OBAMA's NEW SLOGAN... DRILL BABY DRILL!!

LOL Health Care is gonna burden the economy so much that he needs to ensure gas prices are low to combat the effects.

[Ehwmatt]

OBAMA's NEW SLOGAN... DRILL BABY DRILL!!

LOL Health Care is gonna burden the economy so much that he needs to ensure gas prices are low to combat the effects.

I hope he gets cracking. We're gonna be up over $3/gal come summertime here in a just a couple of months.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

OBAMA's NEW SLOGAN... DRILL BABY DRILL!!

LOL Health Care is gonna burden the economy so much that he needs to ensure gas prices are low to combat the effects.

I hope he gets cracking. We're gonna be up over $3/gal come summertime here in a just a couple of months.

the bad news is that no one has built a refinery in over 20 years. You could dig up all of ANWR, the Gulf , at both us coasts and still be unable to refine it fast enough. 3 bucks a gallon may be here to stay.

[Monker]

OBAMA's NEW SLOGAN... DRILL BABY DRILL!!

LOL Health Care is gonna burden the economy so much that he needs to ensure gas prices are low to combat the effects.

Yeah, right. And, the oil in Iraq will pay for the war.

[7 Wishes]

Lie Finder, you're way off on this one.

These fucking loans already ARE controlled by the government! For God's sake! The banks were only an unnecessary middleman, and are simply being eliminated as their role in student loans was merely to make money. Come on...I don't agree with you on most issues, but I never had you pegged for a conspiracist.

[Monker]

Lie Finder, you're way off on this one.

These fucking loans already ARE controlled by the government! For God's sake! The banks were only an unnecessary middleman, and are simply being eliminated as their role in student loans was merely to make money. Come on...I don't agree with you on most issues, but I never had you pegged for a conspiracist.

I was going to post something like this too, but I wanted to know more about exactly what Sallie Mae's role in this actually is.

However, you would think conservatives would be in FAVOR of streamlining processes such as this to save taxpayer money, and make the process easier for students applying for the loan.

Conservatives critiquing this are VERY hypocritical.

[hoagiepete]

Lie Finder, you're way off on this one.

These fucking loans already ARE controlled by the government! For God's sake! The banks were only an unnecessary middleman, and are simply being eliminated as their role in student loans was merely to make money. Come on...I don't agree with you on most issues, but I never had you pegged for a conspiracist.

I was going to post something like this too, but I wanted to know more about exactly what Sallie Mae's role in this actually is.

However, you would think conservatives would be in FAVOR of streamlining processes such as this to save taxpayer money, and make the process easier for students applying for the loan.

Conservatives critiquing this are VERY hypocritical.

God forbid a for-profit business doing something to "make money"...in their line of work.

[Ehwmatt]

Lie Finder, you're way off on this one.

These fucking loans already ARE controlled by the government! For God's sake! The banks were only an unnecessary middleman, and are simply being eliminated as their role in student loans was merely to make money. Come on...I don't agree with you on most issues, but I never had you pegged for a conspiracist.

I was going to post something like this too, but I wanted to know more about exactly what Sallie Mae's role in this actually is.

However, you would think conservatives would be in FAVOR of streamlining processes such as this to save taxpayer money, and make the process easier for students applying for the loan.

Conservatives critiquing this are VERY hypocritical.

I don't know the particulars about the streamlining process other than the banks are being eliminated as middle men, but at least in broad principle, I like the idea. Student loans cripple far too many people in this country. Considering you can't even go to Ohio State for less than 20 grand IN STATE any more, that's just an example of how easy it is to get buried.

That's one of the problems I always cite with health care that NOBODY ever brings up on either side and why doctors need to be compensated handsomely - the ridiculous cost of becoming a doctor leaves these guys in the hole for so long that even at six figures they aren't doing all that great if they're a general physician making modest $ by specialist's standards. Anyway, that's another issue for another day.

I'm very fortunate in that I was able to finance my own education through an athletic and academic scholarship, but I have plenty of friends who have serious debt issues. It's a real problem in a day and age where a college degree is just about required if you want to have any kind of professional career path.

[conversationpc]

Boeing, Honeywell to take health care charges

Other CEOs who have announced charges are called to Washington to explain.

Posted by Elizabeth Strott on Wednesday, March 31, 2010 8:40 AM

Boeing (BA) is the latest company to say it will take a hefty charge related to President Barack Obama's newly passed health care reform bill.


This morning, Boeing said it will take a charge of $150 million, or 20 cents per share, in the first quarter, which ends today. Boeing said the impact was not contemplated in the guidance it provided earlier this year. Shares of Boeing under pressure as a result, falling 81 cents, or 1.1%, to $72.72.


Analysts were looking for first-quarter earnings of 86 cents per share.

You gotta love how the Democrats are strong-arming and trying to intimidate these companies. They have the right to let employees know about their interpretation of the healthcare abomination and how they think it's going to effect them without having to worry about being dragged before some self-important legislator's committee.

[Ehwmatt]

You gotta love how the Democrats are strong-arming and trying to intimidate these companies. They have the right to let employees know about their interpretation of the healthcare abomination and how they think it's going to effect them without having to worry about being dragged before some self-important legislator's committee.

Like I said, they pulled this shit with my company too. Waxman's an asshole. Why should they have to "explain" anything to them? My company's not even a public company!

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Boeing, Honeywell to take health care charges

Other CEOs who have announced charges are called to Washington to explain.

Posted by Elizabeth Strott on Wednesday, March 31, 2010 8:40 AM

Boeing (BA) is the latest company to say it will take a hefty charge related to President Barack Obama's newly passed health care reform bill.


This morning, Boeing said it will take a charge of $150 million, or 20 cents per share, in the first quarter, which ends today. Boeing said the impact was not contemplated in the guidance it provided earlier this year. Shares of Boeing under pressure as a result, falling 81 cents, or 1.1%, to $72.72.


Analysts were looking for first-quarter earnings of 86 cents per share.

You gotta love how the Democrats are strong-arming and trying to intimidate these companies. They have the right to let employees know about their interpretation of the healthcare abomination and how they think it's going to effect them without having to worry about being dragged before some self-important legislator's committee.

the thing is these executives are required byacounting LAW (post Sarbanes Oxley) to account for the effect of expected impacts on their revenues - tax increases is one of them. They are just following the law by taking the charge in Q1

[Ehwmatt]

the thing is these executives are required byacounting LAW (post Sarbanes Oxley) to account for the effect of expected impacts on their revenues - tax increases is one of them. They are just following the law by taking the charge in Q1

The things they were trying to get us to disclose and strong-arm our CEO into showing up on Capitol Hill over were not within the scope of Sarbanes-Oxley. It was just plain bullying and draconian intimidation tactics.

[hoagiepete]

Just saw Pelosi just turned 70. Holy cow.

I think I just figured out California. Between being the mecca of plastic surgeons who can make you look decades younger than you are, being home to Hollywood, who are experts at making things seem real that actually are not (such as making sissy boy actors look like studly action heros), and having a government that thought they could pay for 1000s of social and entitlement programs and not go broke, I have a better understanding why they can't seem to understand, nor care. about real world consequences of their idealistic tendancies and decisions. They live in Disneyland! And unfortunately...now Pelosi is succeeding in making us all live in the same fantasyland as well, with its same outrageous price for admission, cost for food/beverage and expensive "cheap" trinkets. Reid and Las Vegas? Ditto.

AND for the record...I'm not saying the folks from Cali or LV are BAD people.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

the thing is these executives are required byacounting LAW (post Sarbanes Oxley) to account for the effect of expected impacts on their revenues - tax increases is one of them. They are just following the law by taking the charge in Q1

The things they were trying to get us to disclose and strong-arm our CEO into showing up on Capitol Hill over were not within the scope of Sarbanes-Oxley. It was just plain bullying and draconian intimidation tactics.

yeah I know, not refereing to the recent bullyboy- summons to capitol hill, but the the fact that the CEO's had to report the Q1 accounting charge in the first place.( the thing that got Stupidaks ass off in the first place) its a legal accounting requirement . The companies were doing nothing but their duty so they shouldnt be called to the hill to explain

[hoagiepete]

SOx...another great piece of evidence the government is clueless. Another well intentioned project that when applied to the "real world" makes no sense. Here's another...HIPAA. Oh Brother.

[Monker]

Lie Finder, you're way off on this one.

These fucking loans already ARE controlled by the government! For God's sake! The banks were only an unnecessary middleman, and are simply being eliminated as their role in student loans was merely to make money. Come on...I don't agree with you on most issues, but I never had you pegged for a conspiracist.

I was going to post something like this too, but I wanted to know more about exactly what Sallie Mae's role in this actually is.

However, you would think conservatives would be in FAVOR of streamlining processes such as this to save taxpayer money, and make the process easier for students applying for the loan.

Conservatives critiquing this are VERY hypocritical.

God forbid a for-profit business doing something to "make money"...in their line of work.

I didn't know that. Well, if God forbids it, then I guess the religious right of the Republican party shouldn't complain.

[Behshad]

Lie Finder, you're way off on this one.

These fucking loans already ARE controlled by the government! For God's sake! The banks were only an unnecessary middleman, and are simply being eliminated as their role in student loans was merely to make money. Come on...I don't agree with you on most issues, but I never had you pegged for a conspiracist.

I was going to post something like this too, but I wanted to know more about exactly what Sallie Mae's role in this actually is.

However, you would think conservatives would be in FAVOR of streamlining processes such as this to save taxpayer money, and make the process easier for students applying for the loan.

Conservatives critiquing this are VERY hypocritical.

God forbid a for-profit business doing something to "make money"...in their line of work.

Yeah, and I suppose the FedGov ain't gonna make a dime of interest off of these student loans either. God the libs are clueless. This is nothing but another money grab from private to public.

even if the banks were giving you the loans , they'd end up getting a bail out from the government. So what's the difference?!

[7 Wishes]

For fuck's sake, guys...banks were brought into the process during the Reagan Administration, and all it's served to do is force students to take out loans at unnecessarily higher rates than they did before the 80's rolled around. They should never have been involved in the first place. It's amazing you guys defend institutions like that when they're strictly profiteering - but, of course, that's what Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, Hume, Limbaugh, Coulter, and Katz tell you to think.

[Ehwmatt]

Who here knew that only 19% of college students actually pay their own way to school? I sure didn't. So we're subsidising 81% of our college enrollees now. Soon to be 100% I'd suspect.

It is categorically impossible to attend just about any college as a normal college-aged kid these days and "work your way" through school like you once could paying up front. Christ, you'll be lucky to be eating after you buy books for the semester even if you're working full-time while being a student. Outside of doing anything illegal, there is NO JOB that a degreeless 18-21 year old can do to make enough money to pay for even an average state institution these days.

[steveo777]

Government Welfare: Cell Phones for the Poor

The Heritage Foundation

Rachel Sheffield
March 31, 2010 4:41:10 PM

Government-sponsored text messaging? You got it.

Welfare recipients in approximately 20 states–with more to follow– are currently eligible to receive a free cell phone with a limited number of monthly minutes. All individuals that qualify for state or federal welfare–food stamps, Medicaid, etc.–and have an income at or below 135% of the poverty level, are eligible. According to a Fox News report, the cell phone service is currently the fastest growing welfare program in the country.

In 2008, the fund that foots the bill for this program contributed $819 million to subsidize low-income telephone services. The fund is projected to grow to over $1 billion this year. That’s $1 billion of over $800 billion the United States will spend on welfare in 2010.

This particular program is covered by the federal Universal Service Fund. At first it received its money by essentially taxing telephone companies that provided long-distance service, with the money then being used to provide affordable rates for those living in less densely populated areas where phone service was more costly. However, in 1996, Congress voted to extend the use of this fund to subsidize low-income households and subsequently expanded the list of those required to pay into the fund to include: local telephone companies, wireless companies, paging services, and payphone providers. (Naturally, the cost for this fund is passed to the customer.) In 2008, the Federal Communications Commission began subsidizing cell phones for low-income households.

Besides the $1 billion price tag, which is likely to increase as more states implement the service, not to mention the concern for growing entitlement created by this program, cell phone recipients are loosely monitored. According to Heritage welfare expert Robert Rector, this means that if an individual’s income increases to where he or she is no longer eligible for the service, there is no one to make sure he or she stops receiving it.

Jose A. Fuentes, director of Government Relations for TracFone–one of the providers of the free phone service–says that the phones are not meant “for heavy usage.” Instead, they are meant “for quick phone calls, as well as a way for people to reach you in case of…emergency or for calls from a potential employer,” not meant to replace a landline. This idea indicates that not only should government subsidize phone service, but that as SafeLink, one of the providers of the cell phones, states, “cell phone ownership is a right.”

This is just another example of the ever-expanding welfare state and the increasing entitlement mentality. At the very least, policymakers should require greater monitoring of the program to prevent misuse. Furthermore, if the purpose of the cell phones is truly to give lower-income people more access to potential employers, participants should be required to account for their job search activities. A welfare program that does not require personal responsibility will only encourage dependency and diminish human dignity.

You can't make this shit up.

Dude, you can't just continuously cut n paste other people's articles without posting a link back for credit. You might want to consider linking things, not only so you don't look like you are plagiarizing the works of others, but so we don't think you just make shit up and post it.

[7 Wishes]

The best article on the economics of Health Care I've seen yet. It's long so click the link if you're so inclined.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysi ... ?id=528998

Because, of course, unlike most, it most closely represents the way you feel, but not the way most economists or the entirety of the CBO feels. Again, like your anti-global warming rhetoric, it has little to back it up.

[hoagiepete]

Who here knew that only 19% of college students actually pay their own way to school? I sure didn't. So we're subsidising 81% of our college enrollees now. Soon to be 100% I'd suspect.

It is categorically impossible to attend just about any college as a normal college-aged kid these days and "work your way" through school like you once could paying up front. Christ, you'll be lucky to be eating after you buy books for the semester even if you're working full-time while being a student. Outside of doing anything illegal, there is NO JOB that a degreeless 18-21 year old can do to make enough money to pay for even an average state institution these days.

Sad thing is that even with these huge tuition increases, there are many colleges about to go belly-up, including the small school I graduated from.

Something even more criminal is there are millions of dollars out there for scholarships and many kids are too lazy to a) look for them and more importantly b) take the time to apply.

Another problem is there are many that aren't cut out for college but are pressured to go. Technical training and careers are being ignored, even though that is where most of the jobs will be.

Bottom line, no one person or group is to blame.

[hoagiepete]

For fuck's sake, guys...banks were brought into the process during the Reagan Administration, and all it's served to do is force students to take out loans at unnecessarily higher rates than they did before the 80's rolled around. They should never have been involved in the first place. It's amazing you guys defend institutions like that when they're strictly profiteering - but, of course, that's what Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, Hume, Limbaugh, Coulter, and Katz tell you to think.

Not sure to whom you are speaking, but I have not heard one word by the talking heads mentioning this subject. In fact I rarely watch or listen to any of them. I tire of the libs pulling out this line of rhetoric any time someone makes a point or gives an opinion. Do you honestly think a conservative is incapable of an original or personal thought?

[Ehwmatt]

Who here knew that only 19% of college students actually pay their own way to school? I sure didn't. So we're subsidising 81% of our college enrollees now. Soon to be 100% I'd suspect.

It is categorically impossible to attend just about any college as a normal college-aged kid these days and "work your way" through school like you once could paying up front. Christ, you'll be lucky to be eating after you buy books for the semester even if you're working full-time while being a student. Outside of doing anything illegal, there is NO JOB that a degreeless 18-21 year old can do to make enough money to pay for even an average state institution these days.

Sad thing is that even with these huge tuition increases, there are many colleges about to go belly-up, including the small school I graduated from.

Something even more criminal is there are millions of dollars out there for scholarships and many kids are too lazy to a) look for them and more importantly b) take the time to apply.

Another problem is there are many that aren't cut out for college but are pressured to go. Technical training and careers are being ignored, even though that is where most of the jobs will be.

Bottom line, no one person or group is to blame.

Great point about kids being too lazy to pursue additional scholarships. Often times, all it takes is a simple one-page essay to apply for a lot of those... or sometimes not even that! All it takes to find out about them is two quick clicks on the university's Web site.

The notion of "not being cut out for college" is a bunch of bull to me. That's just laziness. Any one who manages to finish high school can at least get through college. Maybe they can't major in Biology or be Pre-Med or Pre-Law, but any one can graduate with some kind of degree.

Just like everything else, the colleges are broken. One huge culprit is professor tenure... that shit needs to stop or be severely reduced. There are so many problems with the way they conduct higher education it's not even funny. God only knows how many dollars are wasted on worthless things there...

I mean really, if we're getting to the point where it's $20K to go to your public state university (eg Ohio State), maybe it's time we stop expecting colleges to double as country clubs for the students and to make it about education again. Ugh, who knows.

[Ehwmatt]

For fuck's sake, guys...banks were brought into the process during the Reagan Administration, and all it's served to do is force students to take out loans at unnecessarily higher rates than they did before the 80's rolled around. They should never have been involved in the first place. It's amazing you guys defend institutions like that when they're strictly profiteering - but, of course, that's what Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, Hume, Limbaugh, Coulter, and Katz tell you to think.

Not sure to whom you are speaking, but I have not heard one word by the talking heads mentioning this subject. In fact I rarely watch or listen to any of them. I tire of the libs pulling out this line of rhetoric any time someone makes a point or gives an opinion. Do you honestly think a conservative is incapable of an original or personal thought?

Yeah, that's what they like to do. Here I've been agreeing with them for a page on a pretty important issue and there's been nary a response discussing my ideas. It's easier for them to paint with the broad Beck/Limbaugh brush.

[hoagiepete]

I agree most can get through college...I was referring to 4 year colleges. Question, is the degree right for them? Will it give them opportunities that are comparable to the debt amassed? There are many good career opps from 2 year schools as well. Additionally, it is a well known fact that most jobs are going to be technically related in the upcoming decade.

Many would be better off getting a one year certificate or 2 year degree, for a fraction of the cost and enter the job market earlier, with much less debt. Plus, many with technical degrees can make much more than many earning 4 year degrees, depending on the major of course.

[Ehwmatt]

I agree most can get through college...I was referring to 4 year colleges. Question, is the degree right for them? Will it give them opportunities that are comparable to the debt amassed? There are many good career opps from 2 year schools as well. Additionally, it is a well known fact that most jobs are going to be technically related in the upcoming decade.

Many would be better off getting a one year certificate or 2 year degree, for a fraction of the cost and enter the job market earlier, with much less debt. Plus, many with technical degrees can make much more than many earning 4 year degrees, depending on the major of course.

Spot on - I'm glad you clarified. I can't tell you the amount of friends I have who stupidly went to an expensive liberal arts school with no plan whatsoever and ended up getting a totally useless degree and are now jobless and in massive debt. They would have been much better served going to a school more in their budget or even as you suggest a technical 2-year school.

I used to get so mad at my ex-gf, who I was very serious with at one point (and thus concerned about possible future finances), because entering college she turned down a guaranteed scholarship and admittance at a small private 4-year BSN program nursing school in Cleveland that would have made the school relatively affordable for her. Instead, she went to Ohio State to try to make it into their nursing program based on freshman grades. She ended up not doing that great at Ohio State, missing the nursing program by a country mile, and transferring to said private school after wasting a year at Ohio State. She then started paying FULL price - we're talking an extra $12 grand a year because she couldn't get the scholarship back... and what's more... she had to redo the core courses because they were different, adding a FULL year on to her college tenure! She's never going to pay her debt down... the bitch

It was one thing to try and go to Ohio State, because this other school wasn't fun at all, but after that failed she could have gone to either of our community colleges, which have excellent RN programs, for basically nothing, and gone and gotten her BSN in 2 years after that... probably while the hospital she ended up working for paid at least part of the way.

School is still too expensive, but indeed, people make poor planning and decisions to go along with it.

[Lula]

Who here knew that only 19% of college students actually pay their own way to school? I sure didn't. So we're subsidising 81% of our college enrollees now. Soon to be 100% I'd suspect.

It is categorically impossible to attend just about any college as a normal college-aged kid these days and "work your way" through school like you once could paying up front. Christ, you'll be lucky to be eating after you buy books for the semester even if you're working full-time while being a student. Outside of doing anything illegal, there is NO JOB that a degreeless 18-21 year old can do to make enough money to pay for even an average state institution these days.

i was on scholarships, grants and loans for my undergrad as well as my graduate degree. i pay my loans every month and am so glad obama has instituted the income based repayment as my loan payments will drop a few hundred bucks a month. also the loan forgiveness after 120 payments (on time, not in default, etc) for service type careers is a blessing.

ultimately the feds own student loans. if you go into default the feds pick it up and find you. good thing to cut out the middle man.