44th President and 111th Congress (US Gov't 2009-2011)

[Xellos-_^]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...=moreheadlines

The Obama administration has lost its argument that a potential threat to national security should stop a lawsuit challenging the government's warrantless wiretapping program. A federal appeals court in San Francisco on Friday rejected the Justice Department's request for an emergency stay in a case involving a defunct Islamic charity.
The Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, claimed national security would be compromised if a lawsuit brought by the Oregon chapter of the charity, Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, was allowed to proceed.

so what were those changes the Obama's supporters keep yammering about during the primary?

[Vexx]

If you'll look at the actual dates, the action by the Justice Department was in process before and during the switchover. Its only an "Obama bid" because the new administration has a few tens of thousands of things to review, put a hold on, etc..... its probable there's been no marching order changes received yet.

The Washington Post has a long record of being a bit tabloid and a little background checking shows the procedural events happened mid-January and the court then went off to mull on its ruling. It took a few weeks for the court to actually announce its decision. Now if after this ruling things *continue* on the same track --- *then* we have an issue to grouse about.

[yezhanquan]

I still have difficulty digesting the fact that Obama has been President for less than 40 days. Sure, 40 days can mean a long time in politics, but given the truckloads of cleaning up the new administration has to deal with, I wouldn't be expecting earth shattering change.

[mg1942]

N Pelosi defies obama again~
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/...ems/index.html

There's definitely some conflict in the Democratic party.... Old Guard vs New School.

It's clear to me she and Reid are OUT of the inner circle and are PISSED.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by mg1942

N Pelosi defies obama again~
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/...ems/index.html

There's definitely some conflict in the Democratic party.... Old Guard vs New School.

It's clear to me she and Reid are OUT of the inner circle and are PISSED.

yeah, now *that* is probably true and very much court intrigue fun to watch ... Pelosi and Reid both, to say it kindly, pretty much botched it during the 2006-2008 period. And well... yeah it is going to be interesting with a 'populist' president from their own party versus "business as usual".

[solomon]

I knew the president wouldn't be stupid in the troop draw down, that's less a political issue than a safety issue.

Anyways, I actually don't dislike Pelosi or Reid, like everyone else seemingly does. But year I think the strong left here have to bite the bullet in this case. They should focus on what will happen if his domestic reforms come up short (I general support his outline but admittedly it is risky at this particular time).

Actually given that Reid comes from Nevada, I am surprised he is as pegged as a flaming liberal as much as Pelosi (who represents the Bay Area).

It's been a while scince I have really commented. In general so;

Well, overall I still have faith in Obama and the government (no matter what stripe you are you HAVE to). Still the BIG thing will be wiether the treasury dept can do something to get credit flowing before 2012, when the new tax programs come into place.

I think I will wait for late spring time to see any real changes, the first 100 days IS important but I also think there is too much media hype right now.

In my home the DC area, the reaction is mixed cause whlle overall moderate to democratic on average there is a lot of "wealthy" people here and it's an expensive area, so some are for some are against naturally.

I think the big stickling point is the deficit risk, Obama's plan to invest in green tech and education is neat but it has to be well coordinated. And such fruits of labor would take YEARS to yield so you have the very high risk of people getting tired of it quickly (a la the Great Society).

Most analysis say that he is less Clintonian now in overall ambitions and more hmmm Kennedy-Johnson-ish (in terms of domestic policy)? They don't say that officially but that's the vibe I get.

Some there has been a backlash aganst the tax increases on the "wealthy" in that it could hurt some small buisness (and big ones as well such as Oil). I think some will bite a bullet but a lot will possibly benefit because if small buisness is a big as the govt says it is, then I suppose there are a lot of "unwealthy" people running smaller buisness.

Once again it seems the big deal is taxes, understandable in a fiscal environment. Yet how some people confabulate what he is doing as taking us down the path to "socialism" is to me at least a hyperbole.

Then again, I am not a product of Cold War rhetoric, so I guess I don't fear high taxes as CERTAIN means to CERTAIN ends SOMETIMES, after all many Western European countries have Social Democratic Parties and principles as options and they don't "ruin" economies or democracies. Anyone have any thoughts?

[yezhanquan]

I think what Obama has to ensure is that Americans get one message: The days of easy credit are over, be it any sort of credit, from mortgages to cards. Being in debt should not be seen as a shame, of course, but neither should it be seen as something harmless.

The house of cards must be replaced by a house of stone. At the meantime, us in the rest of the world have to realise that reliance on the American consumer, is, like how Time magazine described it, "a giant Ponzi scheme". New markets would have to be found/created. There would always be bubbles, but this particular one grew a little too big before it popped.

[Whiteshirt]

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/m...us10232001.pdf

Just sickening. Of course no one is going to get prosecuted for this shit...

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Whiteshirt

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/m...us10232001.pdf

Just sickening. Of course no one is going to get prosecuted for this shit...

And it wasn't like it was a hidden agenda. The bullcrap asserted by the administration and the DOJ during those years is the prime reason I, among other things, dropped my NRA membership. It became abundantly clear that the NRA was no longer interested in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution -- only in assisting the Republican "permanent tyranny" and eviscerating the rule of law. They still send me their magazine even though I stopped subscribing nearly 10 years ago -- and it is full of the most hysterical non-factual crap one can imagine. The NRA completely ignores the corruption, completely ignores the assault on civil liberties that this document asserts, and completely ignores the real issues of gun ownership to simply support neocon theology.

Not to say there aren't some irrationally anti-gun elements in the Dems to watch out for and the Dems themselves don't suffer from some confusion about the rule-of-law at times (e.g. the Roland Burris senatorial embarrassment), but I think I'd rather deal with their problems until the Republicans get over their insanity or fold up in favor of a new party.

[solomon]

But how does the crusade against "gun control" tie in with the expansion of Excecutive Powers in order to supposedly keep americans safe? That's what I thought the NRA was about

[Vexx]

The expansion of Executive Power was mostly possible because of the support of single issue "hot button" groups that made the difference in elections from 1994 til 2008.
The NRA was always focused on the rights of gun owners but until the early 90s it had a more balanced approach in selecting candidates and rated them honestly, considering their overall perspective. It wasn't unusual to recommend Democrats. It didn't completely ignore the other parts of the BoR and the Constitution. It tended to avoid heavily corrupted politicians. It didn't even make recommendations at all until 1980. But the leadership of the NRA changed in the early 90s (Wayne LaPierre) and came under control of an extreme right fringe loyal only to Bush/Cheney and neocons. For them to proclaim patriotism while rubberstamping their support of virtually any expansion of executive power was the height of hypocrisy.

Frankly, I think it was just a matter of time before a permanent conservative regime would have blindsided gunowners "in the name of national security" (using the Mexican collapse of law&order fueled by arms transfer from the US).

(ah and whoever seemed to think "NRA was always evil" in their little note -- you are factually misinformed but it may be that history isn't your strong suit since you don't seem to want to have an open discussion about it See also the alternative more pro-active groups - Gun Owners of America and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership ).

At the moment, La Pierre and his cronies are trying to whip up fear and hatred of Obama's administration with a phalanx of claims that, if the Democrats remember 1994, will not materialize. Closing the "gun convention sale loophole" and dealing directly with the illegal arms trafficking channels is something most sane gun owners are fine with. Frankly, in accordance with the "people's militia" civil defense concept - I'd be happy if citizens were required to have regular training in firearms use and safety along with other disaster preparedness training.

[Cox]

So change of subject... How much money will this government spend before it learns that it is hurting the economy?

[Reckoner]

DOW down 300 points and a stock market freeze, along with a summit for health care reform. Is there ever an unexciting day in politics anymore?

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Cox

So change of subject... How much money will this government spend before it learns that it is hurting the economy?

The Budget hasn't been passed yet, so the administration/Congress hasn't spent much money at all...yet (just the Recovery act and a few smaller packages that were hold overs from Bush's term...all of which is significantly less that the Budget).

edit: I am not supporting or denounicing the act of spending (which is pivotal during a recession). I am merely pointing out that the budget hasn't passed yet, so the administration spending too much money, or any other equally falacious statements, is irrelevent right now, even if in the future it could become more relevent.

[Nosauz]

If the governement didn't spend and gave that money to consumers, do you think they would spend it or save it? The nature of the economy is one of give and take, clearly there was too take, and now not enough give, but what compounds this issue is the fear mongering surrounding the economy, such as a looming depression. In all actuality there's no more liquidity in the market, incomes are being squeezed, not only are people being pushed to the brink but those that do have extra money are less likely to spend because of the current economic instibality. Government bailout would be one of the last choices I would choose to fix the economy because I think tax money should be spend in away to help the taxpayer and not corporations that got us into the mess, but saying tax cuts will solve the issue is just being naive. There is no confidence in the market are many people have most of their money tied down on their homes, with loans being worth more than their houses. Honestly we can only give it time, if McCain had won the situation would also be dire, Obama is just unlucky to be president. The only thing I think that President Obama needs to do ontop of addressing the home front and the economy is Pakistan. That region has seen Taliban control part of the state and if Islamic extremists where to ever get their hands on nuclear weaponry the global economy would be the least of our worries.

At this point in time, everybody should be helping to save the country but self preservation seems to prevail among most. Don't think this crisis was solely Obama's fault, though I find him bailing out Chrysler and GM pretty much appalling waste of American tax payer money.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Cox

So change of subject... How much money will this government spend before it learns that it is hurting the economy?

I don't know -- since we've got the most adept economists from virtually every "school of economics" either left or right saying that the spending is vital to stop a complete train wreck, not sure where you're getting that.
I'm not up for disputing the recommendations of people like Greenspan, Buffet, Bernanke, Stein, and a host of others I'm too lazy to actually type out.

[Zippicus]

Originally Posted by Cox

So change of subject... How much money will this government spend before it learns that it is hurting the economy?

I would have liked to have been able to say "when they run out of money to spend" but that hasn't even slowed them down. So my next guess will be when China stops lending us money.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Zippicus

...when China stops lending us money.

(or when they stop buying our bonds)

Yeah, that'd definitely put an extra flaming engine into the tailspin.

[Shadow Kira01]

Originally Posted by Zippicus

I would have liked to have been able to say "when they run out of money to spend" but that hasn't even slowed them down. So my next guess will be when China stops lending us money.

China actually lends the United States money?

This is the 1st time I heard of it. Interesting..

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

China actually lends the United States money?

This is the 1st time I heard of it. Interesting..

The Chinese are one of the major purchasers of US bonds - the financial instrument by which the US borrows money. I sell you a bond for $50M and after X years it gets paid back with interest. They dress it up but its just a loan.

Cities, counties, and states issue bonds as well in order to get projects done. I own some municipal bonds -- the interest isn't fabulous but the profit from it is tax exempt.