President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[conversationpc]

I am FAR from a fence straddler. I call things as I see them, based on many things, but definately not on some party identity. Go back and look at the epic confrontations TNC, Deano 7Wishes and I had over the years.

Yeah, there have been some good ones.

AIG giving out $165 million to executives when they came begging to the feds because they lost so much money is criminal. It is also fiscally irresponsible for the government to just let it go. Obama did the right thing in this case.

If it was part of their contract, there may not be anything they can do about it. However, these execs should've ponied up and VOLUNTARILY refused the bonuses since they knew they were getting paid out of government bailout money and that their inept leadership was the reason the company was going down the tubes anyway.

Right is right, and wrong is wrong, it doesn't matter what political persuasion you are.

Yes, something the Hannity's of the world haven't learned thus far.

So far Obama has done more right than wrong

I don't necessarily agree with that but it is at least an arguable point.

[Behshad]

I was really impressed today when he said he was going to force AIG (which has taken $173 BILLION in bailout money!!!!) to get the executive bonuses back.

He tanked the market with that response...what it is with you fence straddlers? Contracts mean nothing now? Words are no good?

Gonna get a splinter in your balls on the fence.

Pick a side. The grass in your mirror may be greener than it appears.

Whats wrong with him supporting his president, based on the actions taken, rather than what party the president it from.
Let me make this clear that I am not taking any sides as far as what party and what represantative is good of bad for this country. I also think that most of you agree that we have had great and louzy presidents from both sides.

I used to get involved in these political debates long time ago, specially against Stu, but I stopped simply cause I realised no one wants to really listen to eachother, but just try to push their opinions on the other side, which you know it wont happen. Most of you think that its a huge crime to "switch sides" , which leads to crappy comments like you did above.
You STICK to your ideas and beliefs EVEN if they may be wrong. How is that a good thing?

Stu is the ONLY one here that makes sense, simply cause he doesnt let himself get blinded by just a PARTY he roots for, but by rather facing the reality and having an optimistic and positive outlook on things, no matter how bad our current situation is. He is being open and ready to see where this country is going next , rather than dwelling on the past and pointing fingers and blaming those who dont matter no more,,,

Once and for all try to put the meaningless "party-bashing" crap behind and get with it. After all, NONE of what you say here will truly affect this coutry's economy and future, no matter how much hatred or love you show Obama, Limbaugh, Moore,, or even any fellow members here.


Stu, My respect for you grows as I get to know you here and also during our conversations in person. I am honored to have you as a friend, cause YOU have truly shown me (and hopefully others), that there is more than one way to look at things,, There is a HUGE difference in someone being "OPEN-MINDED & REALISTIC" than a "FENCE SADDLER".



Carry on.

[conversationpc]

Stu is the ONLY one here that makes sense, simply cause he doesnt let himself get blinded by just a PARTY he roots for, but by rather facing the reality and having an optimistic and positive outlook on things, no matter how bad our current situation is. He is being open and ready to see where this country is going next , rather than dwelling on the past and pointing fingers and blaming those who dont matter no more,,,

Behshad, with all due respect, Stu is not the ONLY one here who doesn't root for a particular party. I have an optimistic outlook also, but I will criticize Obama when I feel he deserves it and praise him when I think he has done something right.

[Behshad]

Stu is the ONLY one here that makes sense, simply cause he doesnt let himself get blinded by just a PARTY he roots for, but by rather facing the reality and having an optimistic and positive outlook on things, no matter how bad our current situation is. He is being open and ready to see where this country is going next , rather than dwelling on the past and pointing fingers and blaming those who dont matter no more,,,

Behshad, with all due respect, Stu is not the ONLY one here who doesn't root for a particular party. I have an optimistic outlook also, but I will criticize Obama when I feel he deserves it and praise him when I think he has done something right.

Well my mistake then, Dave
I guess I must have missed it when you praised him, same as I must have forgotten when you criticized Bush.

Also, I didnt say Stu doesnt root for a party, I said he doesnt let the party he roots for , blind him and his judgement.

[conversationpc]

Well my mistake then, Dave
I guess I must have missed it when you praised him, same as I must have forgotten when you criticized Bush.

I praised Obama when he was elected and congratulated him on becoming the first black President. I also agreed with Stu's praising of the President on these ridiculous AiG bonuses. Other than that, though, I haven't seen much since then to praise but I'll do so when I see it (unlike the BDS sufferers).

As far as Bush criticisms, where have you been, dude? Immigration, over-spending, conduct of the war, lack of veto usage, the Compean/Ramos case, the first bailout bill, etc., etc. I've voiced my opinions on ALL those issues and probably more on this forum.

Also, I didnt say Stu doesnt root for a party, I said he doesnt let the party he roots for , blind him and his judgement.

I'm pretty sure Stu doesn't root for a party and neither have I in a few years now. True, there is one party I agree with more often but I truly don't trust Republicans any more than I do Democrats. Both parties are corrupt, in my opinion, and I'd much rather see a strong 3rd party movement in this country.

[Behshad]

People keep talking about being blinded by Party. I'm not blinded by party, I'd like to think I'm grounded in reality. I try to give realistic answers about things I believe in, not what some talking head tells me to believe.

The Dems faking outrage over the AIG thing is classic class warfare, and I see a lot of people falling for it without realizing what they are seeing. I hope you all realize that if this Bonus money is taken back, breaking a contract that these execs had signed onto before this bailout shit started, then realize that anything goes. That contract you signed on your house, not worth squat. Nothing is safe anymore. A retroactive law, and anyone can be screwed out of anything, including that semi-nice 401-k you might have left.

Are you calling me People ?!

[The_Noble_Cause]

The Dems faking outrage over the AIG thing is classic class warfare, and I see a lot of people falling for it without realizing what they are seeing. I hope you all realize that if this Bonus money is taken back, breaking a contract that these execs had signed onto before this bailout shit started, then realize that anything goes. That contract you signed on your house, not worth squat. Nothing is safe anymore. A retroactive law, and anyone can be screwed out of anything, including that semi-nice 401-k you might have left.

Where've you been?
Pensions get frozen or wiped out all the time when companies go under or face a few rough quarters (while CEO golden parachutes mostly stay intact).
As for the so-called sanctity of employee contracts, just take a look at General Motors renegotiating their preexisting labor contracts upon getting Bush's bailout.
Aren’t you the slightest bit embarrassed to come in here and peddle such transparent bullshit?

[Rockindeano]

The Dems faking outrage over the AIG thing is classic class warfare, and I see a lot of people falling for it without realizing what they are seeing. I hope you all realize that if this Bonus money is taken back, breaking a contract that these execs had signed onto before this bailout shit started, then realize that anything goes. That contract you signed on your house, not worth squat. Nothing is safe anymore. A retroactive law, and anyone can be screwed out of anything, including that semi-nice 401-k you might have left.

Where've you been?
Pensions get frozen or wiped out all the time when companies go under or face a few rough quarters (while CEO golden parachutes mostly stay intact).
As for the so-called sanctity of employee contracts, just take a look at General Motors renegotiating their preexisting labor contracts upon getting Bush's bailout.
Aren’t you the slightest bit embarrassed to come in here and peddle such transparent bullshit?

If you weren't here, it would be a helluva lot easier for him, but he is just transferring GOP talking points over to here anyway, so go easy on him.

That's all they have now Cause...scare tactics..Hope and pray that they can strike the fear of God into the populous. It's a desperate time on the right; real desperate.

[Eric]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20090316/p ... _treatment


Discuss

[The_Noble_Cause]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20090316/pl_usnw/the_american_legion_strongly_opposed_to_president_s_plan_to_charge_wounded_heroes_for_treatment


Discuss

In other words, Obama is proposing to take the VA out of the throes of socialism, and into the for-profit, free market system you guys can't stop crowing about.
I would think this would be a win-win for everyone, no?
Unless, of course, you are conceding that the gov't does something better than the free market?
Nah, can't be.
Given the way you guys have thrown monkey wrenches into the idea of universal coverage ever since Truman proposed it in 1945, this must be a victorious day for you.
May the joy and sense of accomplishment you feel at this moment stay with you for the rest of your days (or, at least until you can destroy Social Security).
.
.
.
.
Obviously, like all online brushfires, vital facts are missing here.
As long as the soldiers don't incur higher premiums or denied claims, why can't our 37th ranking for-profit system handle service related injuries?

[Eric]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20090316/pl_usnw/the_american_legion_strongly_opposed_to_president_s_plan_to_charge_wounded_heroes_for_treatment


Discuss

In other words, Obama is proposing to take the VA out of the throes of socialism, and into the for-profit, free market system you guys can't stop crowing about.
I would think this would be a win-win for everyone, no?
Unless, of course, you are conceding that the gov't does something better than the free market?
Nah, can't be.
Given the way you guys have thrown monkey wrenches into the idea of universal coverage ever since Truman proposed it in 1945, this must be a victorious day for you.
May the joy and sense of accomplishment you feel at this moment stay with you for the rest of your days (or, at least until you can destroy Social Security).
.
.
.
.
Obviously, like all online brushfires, vital facts are missing here.
As long as the soldiers don't incur higher premiums or denied claims, why can't our 37th ranking for-profit system handle service related injuries?

I found it interesting, but can't really find any more info. Regarding Universal Health Care...300 milion people x average cost per person of $7,000/year = 2.1 trillion per year. No thanks. Was with a group of folks from Romania and Germany who were astonished there would even be a conversation about this. They said Americans wouldn't like for things not to be "instant".

[jrnychick]

I was really impressed today when he said he was going to force AIG (which has taken $173 BILLION in bailout money!!!!) to get the executive bonuses back.

I don't get how this could be considered "impressive." How can the president force a company to not honor perfectly legal contracts? I can understand that the government will have a say in AIG contracts going forward now that they have such a huge stake in the company, but how can they make retroactive changes? Right or wrong, the employees and company entered into those contracts in good faith and as long as AIG exists, the contracts should be honored.

I think of it in this way: If I take a job that pays $75,000 a year, I sign a contract that states I agree to that pay, vacation, benefits, etc. If the company accepted TARP money, what's stopping the government from saying, "$75k is too much money for your position. You will now make $50k a year, AND you need to pay back the additional $25k that you made LAST year." Where does the government control end?

[conversationpc]

I was really impressed today when he said he was going to force AIG (which has taken $173 BILLION in bailout money!!!!) to get the executive bonuses back.

I don't get how this could be considered "impressive." How can the president force a company to not honor perfectly legal contracts? I can understand that the government will have a say in AIG contracts going forward now that they have such a huge stake in the company, but how can they make retroactive changes? Right or wrong, the employees and company entered into those contracts in good faith and as long as AIG exists, the contracts should be honored.

I think of it in this way: If I take a job that pays $75,000 a year, I sign a contract that states I agree to that pay, vacation, benefits, etc. If the company accepted TARP money, what's stopping the government from saying, "$75k is too much money for your position. You will now make $50k a year, AND you need to pay back the additional $25k that you made LAST year." Where does the government control end?

I don't think I was the one that actually made that comment. However, I have to agree with you. If they had a contract, by law, you must live up to that contract unless both parties agree to amend it, which they should've done, in my opinion.

[jrnychick]

I was really impressed today when he said he was going to force AIG (which has taken $173 BILLION in bailout money!!!!) to get the executive bonuses back.

I don't get how this could be considered "impressive." How can the president force a company to not honor perfectly legal contracts? I can understand that the government will have a say in AIG contracts going forward now that they have such a huge stake in the company, but how can they make retroactive changes? Right or wrong, the employees and company entered into those contracts in good faith and as long as AIG exists, the contracts should be honored.

I think of it in this way: If I take a job that pays $75,000 a year, I sign a contract that states I agree to that pay, vacation, benefits, etc. If the company accepted TARP money, what's stopping the government from saying, "$75k is too much money for your position. You will now make $50k a year, AND you need to pay back the additional $25k that you made LAST year." Where does the government control end?

I don't think I was the one that actually made that comment. However, I have to agree with you. If they had a contract, by law, you must live up to that contract unless both parties agree to amend it, which they should've done, in my opinion.

Sorry--I f'ed up the quotes. I was responding to Stu's comment about being impressed with Obama's statement about AIG.

[conversationpc]

[bluejeangirl76]

I wanna hear Bawney Franks outrage over these Fannie bonuses

Subprime lending, indeed.

[AlteredDNA]

I wanna hear Bawney Franks outrage over these Fannie bonuses

Subprime lending, indeed.

I think he's checking out the young man's "stimulus package"...

[Barb]

That is hilarious!

[The_Noble_Cause]

I think of it in this way: If I take a job that pays $75,000 a year, I sign a contract that states I agree to that pay, vacation, benefits, etc. If the company accepted TARP money, what's stopping the government from saying, "$75k is too much money for your position. You will now make $50k a year, AND you need to pay back the additional $25k that you made LAST year."

Not sure what rarefied economic strata you exist in, but workers getting screwed out of their benefits is not uncommon at all.
Only difference in this case is, these guys can afford to take the pinch.

Where does the government control end?

It's not even like that...
We, the American people, are now the largest shareholder in AIG.
It’s the gov't's prerogative to see that OUR money is allocated wisely, and not spent rewarding those who drove AIG into the ditch.

[jrnychick]

I think of it in this way: If I take a job that pays $75,000 a year, I sign a contract that states I agree to that pay, vacation, benefits, etc. If the company accepted TARP money, what's stopping the government from saying, "$75k is too much money for your position. You will now make $50k a year, AND you need to pay back the additional $25k that you made LAST year."

Not sure what rarefied economic strata you exist in, but workers getting screwed out of their benefits is not uncommon at all.
Only difference in this case is, these guys can afford to take the pinch.

Where does the government control end?

It's not even like that...
We, the American people, are now the largest shareholder in AIG.
It’s the gov't's prerogative to see that OUR money is allocated wisely, and not spent rewarding those who drove AIG into the ditch.

In the "rarefied economic strata" I live in, I may or may not get screwed over by my employer, but the government doesn't get to step in and determine the extend of the screwing. Afford it or not, these people should not be screwed out of their money. If the government didn't like the contracts as they were written, the government should have attempted to renegotiate those contracts. I understand that the government is the largest shareholder in AIG. They can negotiate whatever contracts they want going forward. However, I don't think they should be able to go back and nullify existing contracts. As I said before, where will the line be drawn?

[The_Noble_Cause]

In the "rarefied economic strata" I live in, I may or may not get screwed over by my employer, but the government doesn't get to step in and determine the extend of the screwing. Afford it or not, these people should not be screwed out of their money.

But it's not their money.
It's our money.
Taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook for bonuses to AIG execs who already earn salaries of $250,000 and beyond.

They can negotiate whatever contracts they want going forward. However, I don't think they should be able to go back and nullify existing contracts. As I said before, where will the line be drawn?

That line never existed.
And neither you, nor FF, has bothered to explain why Detroit is expected to renegotiate autoworker contracts, but AIG is free to live high off the hog.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Sooo..according to Dodd....Obama giveth and Obama taketh away. All within a month. What a guy.

Yeah.
If only McCain's treasury pick, Phil Graham, who personally lead the charge on repealing glass- steagall and deregulating credit derivatives, was in there.
I’m sure he’d tell AIG exactly were to shove it.

Likewise, Geithner and Summers are also Wall Street guys.
Few surprises here.

[Behshad]

But it's not their money.
It's our money.
Taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook for bonuses to AIG execs who already earn salaries of $250,000 and beyond.

EXACTLY!!!
FF and some others here talk about contracts & business agreements . Sure,, AIG should try to fulfill their end of the contracts, IF they have the money. FF, Tell me how they would be able to keep their contract with anyone who was promised a bonus, had they gone out of business. Anytime any business goes bankrupt, a LOT of deals and promises are OFF.
Promising someone money and paying it with other people's money is a bigger crime than breaking a contract with those highrollers, some of which dont even work for AIG no more.

[The_Noble_Cause]

This is the kind of Change Obama really believes in.

FIRST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY...

EXCLUSIVE: Obama's $500,000 book bonanza

Deal reached 5 days before he took office

Jim McElhatton and Christina Bellantoni,
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Thursday, March 19, 2009




As he empathized with recession-weary Americans, President Obama arranged in the days just before he took office to secure a $500,000 advance for a children's book project, a disclosure report shows.

The terms of the book deal were disclosed in a Senate financial disclosure report filed Tuesday.

Analysts say there don't appear to be any rules that would bar such transactions after a president takes office, but it's unclear whether an incoming or sitting president has ever signed a book deal upon entering the White House.

"I don't recall any sitting president entering into a book deal," said campaign finance lawyer Jan Baran, former general counsel to the Republican National Committee. "They all have historically done that after they leave office.

"I recall the only ones who did sign book deals while living there were first ladies, and my recollection is they gave it to charity."

Mr. Obama approved the $500,000 advance on Jan. 15. The advance is against royalties under a deal with Crown Publishing, a division of Random House. The project calls for an abridged version of his book "Dreams From My Father" for middle-school-aged children, according to the disclosure.

A White House aide said that the deal had been in the works for weeks and that the publisher will abridge the book. The aide, speaking on a condition of anonymity, said the publisher will get half of the money while Mr. Obama will sign off on the final version.

In addition, the financial disclosure showed Mr. Obama brokered an amendment to an existing book deal with Crown Publishing to put off writing a nonfiction book until after he leaves office.

The book deal came on top of nearly $2.5 million in book royalties paid to Mr. Obama last year for "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope," according to the Senate report, which was filed by Robert F. Bauer, who served general counsel to Mr. Obama's presidential campaign.

Just to make sure I’ve got this straight…

The past eight years of illegal war, wiretaps, torture, cronyism, and unfettered casino capitalism weren’t enough for you to locate your civic backbone, but a children’s book, already written, has you raring to commit Buddhist self immolation on the Capitol steps?

Did you similarly have a problem with Reagan keeping a White House diary?
How about James K. Polk ?

The country could always use a few good defenders of the Constitution and the Founders’ hallowed words.
Unfortunately, after the past eight years of total carte blanch Bushism, anything you say is less than worthless.
I repeat, a powdered wig and a pocket copy of the Constitution does not make you any less of a fascist scumbag.
Move to Wasilla, secede from the Union, and go the fuck away.

[jrnychick]

In the "rarefied economic strata" I live in, I may or may not get screwed over by my employer, but the government doesn't get to step in and determine the extend of the screwing. Afford it or not, these people should not be screwed out of their money.

But it's not their money.
It's our money.
Taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook for bonuses to AIG execs who already earn salaries of $250,000 and beyond.

They can negotiate whatever contracts they want going forward. However, I don't think they should be able to go back and nullify existing contracts. As I said before, where will the line be drawn?

That line never existed.
And neither you, nor FF, has bothered to explain why Detroit is expected to renegotiate autoworker contracts, but AIG is free to live high off the hog.

I beg to differ. It is THEIR money, because they earned it under the contract that was existing at the time. If the government wants to try to renegotiate contracts with these people, fine. Let them try to work out a new deal. But don't go deciding that contracts entered into legally and in good faith are null and void because you want to go back and undo something. The amount of money that the AIG employees made is immaterial to me. The marketplace should dictate how much a person makes in his or her given profession, not the government. If the government is now considered the employer in AIG's case, then they can set future wages at whatever they want them to be.

I haven't explained the whole auto industry thing because I don't get the double standard either. I agree with you on that one.

[The_Noble_Cause]

The marketplace should dictate how much a person makes in his or her given profession, not the government.

You can't invoke Adam Smith nostrums when the company is already 80% nationalized.

[Eric]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123741378746277081.html

Reckless

[Eric]

Just to make sure I’ve got this straight…

The past eight years of illegal war, wiretaps, torture, cronyism, and unfettered casino capitalism weren’t enough for you to locate your civic backbone, but a children’s book, already written, has you raring to commit Buddhist self immolation on the Capitol steps?

Torture? Illegal War? You are so full of shit you're septic!

If you didn't call gay sex lines you wouldn't be so worried about wiretaps! HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH

[hoagiepete]

Coach K got on Obama for not picking Duke. Here is a better response from Kansas. I'm sure he's working plenty...at least I hope. He does deserve time to fill out a bracket and enjoy some basketball.

Obama doesn’t pick KU
President Barack Obama’s NCAA Tournament bracket got plenty of run Thursday morning as players from various teams were asked about their response to Obama’s picks. The President picked Kansas to lose to Michigan State in the Elite Eight.

“I’m not disappointed at all,” KU coach Bill Self said. “Last year we may have been a little bit of flavor of the tournament type of pick because we had so many returning guys and so many obviously talented guys. We’re a little bit unknown ourselves.”

Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski said he thought Obama might have better spent his time solving the country’s economic woes. Self didn’t agree.

“I think everybody needs a little release now and then,” Self said. “I think it’s OK for our President to spend five or seven minutes of his day getting away from all the things he has to deal with daily, because I am sure his plate is more full than any of us could imagine.”

[The_Noble_Cause]

Torture?

Absolutely.
Just this week yet another suppressed memo (this one from the Red Cross) confirmed what we have been doing constitutes torture.
Not that it was ever up for debate.
We prosecuted the Japanese for the same acts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews

Illegal War? You are so full of shit you're septic!

From the Downing Street Memo to the Manning Memo, to the admissions of Bush’s own Treasury Secretary to Colin Powell’s Chief of Staff to the Spanish Prime Minister, this matter is settled.
What remains to be solved, however, is how Bush and Co. thought they could possibly pull off a Gulf-of-Tonkin sized lie in the age of 24 hour news and blogging muckrakers.

If you didn't call gay sex lines you wouldn't be so worried about wiretaps! HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH

FISA was specifically created out of the ashes of Nixon's wiretapping abuses.
Bush didn't seek to change the law, or even utilize the law's provision to go back and get warrants later.
In other words, he broke the law.
Anyone who enables such behavior clearly puts party above country and worse, has confused our republic for a monarchy.
Authoritarian gimps like you were trampling over themselves to sign Hitler's enabling act back in 1930s Germany.