The Cellar - The Obamanation

Page 25 of 28

« First

Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - The Obamanation (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=19310)

classicman

10-07-2011 06:08 PM

Solyndra loan supported by Obama fundraiser

Quote:

A prominent 2008 Barack Obama fundraiser who held a key role in the Energy Department played an active part in Solyndra's $535 million loan guarantee despite conflict of interest concerns over his wife's work at a law firm that also represented the California solar company, according to internal Obama administration emails released Friday.

Link

TheMercenary

10-14-2011 06:48 AM

New Obama metric: “Jobs supported”

Quote:

Old and busted: Jobs “saved or created.” New hotness: Jobs “supported.” In attempting to advance the argument for Barack Obama’s new jobs stimulus plan, the White House has decided to create a new term that has, er, even less meaning than their previous measure:

The American Jobs Act Will Support Nearly 400,000 Education Jobs—Preventing Layoffs and Allowing Thousands More to Be Hired or Rehired: The President’s plan will more than offset projected layoffs, providing support for nearly 400,000 education jobs—enough for states to avoid harmful layoffs and rehire tens of thousands of teachers who lost their jobs over the past three years.

How exactly did the White House come up with its new metric? Chuck Blahous gives us a detailed analysis of exactly how they crafted this measure to be, well, unmeasurable:

To start the process of estimating educator jobs at risk, the Administration refers to a June, 2011 paper by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (a left-of-center think tank). This paper quantifies recent and projected shortfalls in state budgets.

The Administration then makes various assumptions about how the projected shortfalls would be filled. In effect, they assume first that shortfalls would be filled by a combination of tax increases and spending reductions, and then that spending cuts would be applied proportionally across all categories including education. As the Administration materials state, “These spending reduction numbers were then converted into estimates of educator jobs at risk based on estimates of average teacher compensation by state. These calculations implied that, if spending reductions had their full negative impact on education staffing, up to 280,000 educator jobs across the country would be at risk in the 2011-2012 school year.”

The Administration then points to $30 billion in spending contained in the proposed American Jobs Act. The purpose of this spending, as specified in the bill text, is to “prevent teacher layoffs and support the creation of additional jobs in public early childhood, elementary, and secondary education in the 2011-12 and 2012-13 school years.”

Does this give readers a sense of deja vu? The block grants in Porkulus also assumed that states would simply lay off teachers and first responders as a result of large-scale budget deficits in the throes of the Great Recession. That’s where jobs “saved and created” originated; Obama and his team meant public-sector employees in states and local governments. Only those organizations employ a lot more people than just teachers, police officers, and fire fighters; most states have vast bureaucracies that ended up getting “saved” thanks to the infusion of cash that allowed legislatures to put off tough decisions on the size and nature of government during the economic crisis.

hotair.com

TheMercenary

10-20-2011 09:14 PM

Talk about Fear Mongering! Holy shit, someone needs to stuff a sock in that fools mouth....

Quote:

"I think it would be hard to find anyone that doesn't agree," White House press secretary Carney said about Joe Biden's remark that rapes will increase if Congress does not pass Obama's latest stimulus bill.

Carney was asked about Vice President Joe Biden saying rapes and murders will rise if the president's jobs bill is not passed.

"I think everyone will agree with the equation that fewer police officers on the street has a direct effect on the crime rate. We saw this in the 1990's. I do know that any lawmaker up on Capitol Hill will contest that simple fact or any American who makes that assessment in their local communities. Would you want fewer or more law enforcement officers on the job? Do you think that having more officers on the job would have a positive impact on crime? That is the point that the President absolutely shares," Carney said.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...will_rise.html

TheMercenary

10-20-2011 09:16 PM

Maybe at some point a reporter will ask Carney why there are fewer police on the streets today and they’re seeking billions more when the sales pitch for the original stimulus was that billions of those dollars would put more cops on the job.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-07-28/p...=PM%3APOLITICS

Oh, btw, they never paid for that and those jobs never materialized.

classicman

11-01-2011 12:22 AM

Quote:

President Obama unveiled his new plan to “ensure students are able to commit to higher levels of federally backed student loans.”

Essentially, the president has just offered a college student bailout as the finial initiative of his “We Can’t Wait” economic plan.

Two key provisions offered in the plan (as pointed out by Business Insider):

People who hold both government-backed private sector student loans and direct loans issued by the government will be able to consolidate those debts in one government-backed loan, thereby lowering interest rates and reducing monthly payments. The administration estimates this will affect about 5.8 million people.
The plan will accelerate income-based payment programs already passed by Congress, which allow college graduates to cap their payments at 10 percent of their income, rather than the existing 15 percent cap. Under Obama’s executive rollout, the new cap, originally scheduled to take effect in 2014, will take effect in 2013 for an estimated 1.6 million students and recent graduates.

But will these provisions really come close to dealing with the nearly $1 trillion in outstanding college debt? Some reports say “not even close.”

Daniel Indiviglio of The Atlantic put together an interesting report that calculates the impact of the president’s proposals:

Consolidation: The first would clearly be the most significant [impact], because it is aimed at helping more student loan borrowers. How much would an interest rate reduction of up to 0.5 percent affect payments?

For the average borrower, the impact would be small. In 2011, Bachelor’s degree recipients graduating with debt had an average balance of $27,204, according to an analysis done by finaid.org, based on Department of Education data. That average has ballooned from just $17,646 over the past decade.

Using these values as the high and low bounds of average student debt over the last ten years, the monthly savings for the average student loan borrower would be between $4.50 and $7.75 per month. Clearly, this isn’t going to save the economy.

Payment Limits: . . . the government already has a program for borrowers to reduce their student loan payments to a ceiling of 15 percent of their income. At this time, just 450,000 borrowers are participating. Clearly, all of those participants would benefit from lowering the max payment to 10 percent. But how many others would?

Student loan balances have really only ballooned over the past decade. So this change would affect very few Americans over the age of 32. For the young adults who it may effect, we must remember that educational attainment has some correlation to income. Those with the most debt will have attended business school, medical school, or law school. Most of those people will also have higher incomes, making them ineligible.

Loan Forgiveness: Of all these parts of Obama’s executive order, the loan forgiveness aspect will have the least impact. By moving the timeline from 25 to 20 years, it could be significant in the long run — but it won’t be felt for decades. Remember, 82 percent of the current student loan debt outstanding was accrued in just the past decade. So it will be at least another 10 years before any of those borrowers have hit the 20-year mark in their student loan payments.

And outside of the fact that his proposals may have little to no economic impact, Peter Schiff of Euro Pacific capital points out that the initiative would actually cause “college tuition increases to not only continue but to accelerate,“ and that ”Obama would be turning higher education in to a third-party payer system (not too dissimilar from our current health care system – which is also characterized by outsized cost increases).”

But what does this mean to the average U.S. taxpayer? Schiff responds:

Under this new system, colleges might charge whatever they want because their customers simply turn the bill over to the U.S. taxpayer who has no say in the transaction. Under such a system what incentive would a kid have to live at home and go to a community college? Why not attend the most expensive university that taxpayer money will allow?

With all of these details taken into account, some have claimed that the introduction of this part of the president’s economic plan is little more than a shrewdly calculated attempt to “reach out to young, educated voters, a key constituency for Obama’s 2008 campaign who now form the core of the Occupy Wall Street movement.”

Link
Well thats a take on this plan I hadn't seen before.

infinite monkey

11-01-2011 07:41 AM

Quote:

Under this new system, colleges might charge whatever they want because their customers simply turn the bill over to the U.S. taxpayer who has no say in the transaction. Under such a system what incentive would a kid have to live at home and go to a community college? Why not attend the most expensive university that taxpayer money will allow?

Wow, this is some seriously reaching speculation. What do you debate professionals call this tactic?

I'm not surprised, from the link, the first thing I see are big giant ads for Glenn Beck touting Goldline International, said company under investigation for scamming people. Oh, and direct link to listen to Glenn Beck live. All Glenn, All the Time. ;)

http://gawker.com/5591413/glenn-beck...-investigation

Here are some other facts (not speculation) from the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators:

Quote:

The administration indicated that the .5 percent interest rate reduction incentive for borrowers who consolidate their Federal Family Education Loans (FFEL) and Direct Loans will only be offered to a limited pool of borrowers. The incentive will only be available to borrowers who received a federal loan since 2008 and also receive a federal loan in fiscal year (FY) 2012. Eligible borrowers will be notified by the Department and must consolidate between Jan. 1, 2012 and June 30, 2012 because the recent Budget Control Act eliminates the Department’s authority to provide borrower incentives After June 30, 2012. The administration encourages borrowers with FFEL and Direct Loans to wait until Jan. 1, 2012 to consolidate so can benefit from the incentive.

Regarding the more generous IBR terms, the administration says that the plan would not override the current IBR program, but would operate separately. The plan will be a topic at the upcoming loan-related negotiated rulemaking and will likely fall under the “early implementation” provision—meaning that the Department can enact it early. Many specific details are not yet available and will likely not be addressed until negotiated rulemaking and implementation.

Quote:

Currently, nearly 6 million students have loans from both FFEL and DL servicers. The administration plans to offer repayment incentives for students with split servicers if they move all of their loans over to DL. Students would be able to receive up to a 0.5 percent reduction to the interest rate on some of their loans— .25 percent reduction on consolidated FFEL loans and an another .25 percent reduction on the entire consolidated FFEL and DL balance. The administration has referred to this initiative as a "special" consolidation where students will be able to keep the terms and conditions of their initial loans.

In 2010, Congress passed changes to the IBR program to limit monthly payments to 10 percent of discretionary income (down from the current 15 percent) and forgiving remaining debt after 20 years (down from the current 25 years). The Obama administration hopes to implement these changes, deemed the Pay As You Earn (PAYE) plan, two years ahead of schedule, beginning in 2012.

http://www.nasfaa.org/advocacy/News/...n_Details.aspx

I'm not arguing about whether or not it's a political move. I do not know. But I do know that the article posted is also a political move, from a blogger on an obviously conservative site. It's hardly an exposé about the failures of a plan that isn't even completely hammered out yet.

classicman

11-01-2011 10:34 AM

Thats the point of view the majority has taken. I found the article on FB late at night- didn't see the Beck ads. (sorry)

I guess its all a matter of perspective. If the numbers shake out to be like this part

Quote:

.. the monthly savings for the average student loan borrower would be between $4.50 and $7.75 per month.

I'll lean toward the "political move" camp. I guess every little bit helps. shrug.

infinite monkey

11-01-2011 11:02 AM

Well, sure. And student loans have been under fire for a long time. This is why schools are being required to take default management steps...some pretty difficult to administer. Ugh, are they a pain in the rumpus room.

Yet most of the really big abuses have been from proprietary schools, the very schools that the 'pubs will defend to their deaths.

I don't know the answers though. I'm just a pusher of the paper, in the most ethical and beneficial ways I can...what I can control, that is. ;)

classicman

11-01-2011 11:36 AM

Cost for college are ridiculous. Even with all the support that my kid has gotten, he'll come out owing more than my first mortgage - and he goes to a state school.
The real issue here is more the cost, secondary is how to pay for it.

piercehawkeye45

11-01-2011 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 768905)

I'm pretty sure that is wrong. It came from an Atlantic article and someone pointed out the mathematical mistake in the comment section. It is heavily dependent on the person and can really help some people.

Not saying I favor the bill but the math is probably wrong.

classicman

11-01-2011 12:18 PM

Hence I said If

Happy Monkey

11-01-2011 02:13 PM

Quote:

For the average borrower, the impact would be small. In 2011, Bachelor’s degree recipients graduating with debt had an average balance of $27,204, according to an analysis done by finaid.org, based on Department of Education data.

I, for example, graduated with no debt. Thereby making the average debt of myself and several other people quite manageable.

piercehawkeye45

11-01-2011 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 769003)

Hence I said If

I wasn't attacking you. Just verifying that there probably are mistakes with the math.

Spexxvet

11-01-2011 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 768948)

I heard within the last 24 hours that in the last 30 years, higher education has increased 130%, but middle class income has been stagnant.

classicman

11-01-2011 02:58 PM

yup. With two in the middle of it... Its freakin ridiculous.
This is apparently the next bubble to burst.
Will we be bailing out the institutions of higher learning soon?

infinite monkey

11-01-2011 03:43 PM

In the past 30 years, proprietary schools have increased...I don't know, tenfold? In most cases, very high tuition and credits that will never transfer.

Private schools have always been expensive. Community Colleges have always been cheaper. 4 year state schools have always fallen somewhere in the middle.

But beware of the latest Clown College, who will gladly take all your money, give you a subpar Clown education, and you won't be able to go on to your Clown Bachelors or Clown Masters without starting all over.

Lamplighter

11-01-2011 03:45 PM

The proprietary schools will survive (Phoenix, etc) because they advertise.

(small print in ads: "Credits are not usually transferable")
(ads should read: "Credits are not usefully transferable")

Their target audience is the unhappy-employed and jobless.
But this audience doesn't realize they probably will never
earn enough to pay back their loans.

Proprietary schools should not be eligible for governmental student loans.

infinite monkey

11-01-2011 03:50 PM

AGREED! WHOLEHEARTEDLY.

I think it's only recently those disclaimers have been there at all. I hear of commissions for enrollment which relies heavily on pushing loans so students can afford the tuition (forget any extra living expense money for transportation etc) and there have been all kinds of uncoverings of less than ethical practices...which really pisses me off because I am nothing if not ethical.

Ugh, but I better shut it. I don't need the NEXT CORPORATIONS TO GREED UP EVERYTHING jumping bad on me.

classicman

11-01-2011 03:52 PM

1 Attachment(s)

Agreed. The useless schools with useless degrees have found their niche as Lamp said.

The rest are still getting crazy. At least around here.
Note that the Comm College costs is based upon living and eating at home.

That brings me to the next insanity --- Books! They come to over $400 a freakin semester.
And when you sell them back - IF IF IF - they take them, you get about 25 cents on the dollar.
Many classes are only accepting new books. Its another racket of its own.

infinite monkey

11-01-2011 03:55 PM

No doubt. And community colleges have stepped up to the plate, offering programs like PSEOP, and offering easily transferable associates degrees, modules, to defray costs before the student goes on to get their bachelor's at a 4 year.

There will always be players, but I think higher ed administrators have an obligation to the taxpayers to not just discourage and root out the players, but to NOT KNOWINGLY DANGLE FAKE CARROTS in the players' faces.

I have zero respect for anyone who does otherwise. I will not be working at Clown College.

Clodfobble

11-05-2011 09:25 PM

Is it possible that part of the rise in college costs is the fact that everyone is expected to go to college now, even when they are not really suited for it, or they are getting a completely useless degree?

classicman

11-06-2011 12:32 AM

They'll charge whatever the market will bear.
The reality that more kid are going only adds to that. Additionally with all the loans the the gov't offers, it makes it easier to raise costs while at the same time people don't feel it till after the fact. Then you end up with so many kids who have degrees (See Clod's point) that the degree's value is vastly diminished. No prob - get a master's or a PhD... more debt .... Then reality hits as the bills come due.

DanaC

11-06-2011 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clodfobble (Post 770564)

Wss ^

I find this really interesting. This is a real problem in the Uk now. Not in terms of rising college costs, though they are a factor for a different set of reasons, but but in terms of forcing large swathes of youngsters down a university route who could once have entered the field as apprentices or trainees with only college level (pre-bachelors), or school leaver level qualifications.

The last government had the brilliant idea of trying to tackle social inequality by channelling more people into university. Great. Sounds a good idea, in theory, that increasing educational opportunity for the lower economic communities in particular might assist in tackling generational poverty and lack of expectations. But then they got silly about it. They made their target that 50% of young adults would go to university. Fifty fucking per cent.

All the polytechnics became new universities, and all the colleges started investigating degree confirment relationships with universities, to increase access for hard to reach communities. Loads of new degree courses sprang up. Degrees in things that were once taught through doing the job alongside experienced colleagues.

A-level courses (pre-degree) began to reflect the new degree options, as pathways to those degrees were needed. Kids taking so-called 'soft' courses at this level would find when they came to university applications, that they were disadvantaged for all but the technical, or career specific degrees that those a-levels were designed to fill. Last couple of years universities have started being a bit more vocal about schools making pupils aware of this when they come to choose their subject paths.

The rush for everybody to go to university, meant a corresponding rush for everybody to get the right pre-degree qualifications, which upped the entry level expectations for starter level jobs generally.

Getting a-levels at the age of 17/18 used to mean something in the workplace. Many lower management or supervisory jobs required a couple of a-levels and a couple of years in-house experience. Goodluck getting anything like that now without having a bachelors degree under your belt.

And not just a bachelors either. With so many people getting degrees there are way more first class degrees around now. A Second Class degree used to be a respectable achievement. Even a 2:2 set you apart from the mainstream. Now a 1st class degree is pretty much expected for entry into a lot of professional fields.

The pressure on young people to follow an academic, or pseudo-academic route is tremendous. The current massive hike in fees may well stall that.

Undertoad

11-06-2011 08:32 AM

Quote:

The last government had the brilliant idea of trying to tackle social inequality by channelling more people into university. Great. Sounds a good idea, in theory, that increasing educational opportunity for the lower economic communities in particular might assist in tackling generational poverty and lack of expectations. But then they got silly about it. They made their target that 50% of young adults would go to university. Fifty fucking per cent.

We have 68.1% and they're rioting in the streets over inequality. Meanwhile an HVAC guy came out here beginning of the summer, diagnosed and replaced a fan in an hour, and it cost $600.

Mamas don't let your babies grow up to be lawyers
Don't let 'em get papers and duh-grees and such
Make em get plumbing tools, drive an old truck

Lamplighter

11-06-2011 08:34 AM

I believe there were four critical factors that pushed the US down that road:
"Sputnik"and "Civil Rights" and "Viet Nam" and "Cancer"

Before the 60's and after WW II, the G.I. Bill made college accessible for all veterans.
With very exceptions this remains true even now.

Sputnik put an enormous amount of government $ into college and university systems
Not just for engineers, but for all the sciences and general education.

Before Civil Rights, the US had a long history of educational segregation.
The HBCU's were the only institutions available for most
black students.... all the most so for poor, black students.
Opening all colleges and universities set off the ugly debates
about "quotas" and "reverse discrimination" and "un-qualified"
students that continues to this day.

Viet Nam deferments and percent of non-whites "in country" were matters of life and death.

Cancer, like sputnik, changed the entire structure of government-funded research,
primarily in medical sciences (NIH), but for most other granting agencies and foundations.

The sum of these four is that the better (non-MacD) jobs now require paper credentials.
Unfortunately, the 4-yr and graduate degree have less meaning as evidence of learning.
They are the union-card necessary (but not sufficient) to get past the employer's receptionist.

classicman

01-10-2012 10:07 AM

The new WH Chief of Staff and Citigroup

Quote:

Yesterday, the White House announced Daley’s departure — Daley will now co-chair Obama’s re-election campaign, which basically means raising huge amounts of money from his Wall Street friends — and unveiled his replacement as Chief of Staff: Jacob Lew. In 2010, Lew became head of the Office of Management and Budget when Peter Orszag left and then, a couple months later, accepted a multi-million dollar position as a high-level Citigroup official. Lew has spent many years in various government positions, but he has his own substantial ties to Citigroup. Here is what Lew was doing in 2008 at the time the financial crisis exploded, as detailed by an excellent Huffington Post report from last year:

[Lew] oversaw a Citigroup unit that profited off the housing collapse and financial crisis by investing in a hedge fund king who correctly predicted the eventual subprime meltdown and now finds himself involved in the center of the U.S. government’s fraud case against Goldman Sachs. . . .

[i]t is his few years at Citi — in particular the one year he spent at its then-$54 billion proprietary trading, hedge fund and private equity unit — that’s likely to raise the most eyebrows in the coming weeks as Lew faces a Senate confirmation hearing.

Especially his unit’s investments in a hedge fund that bet on the housing market to collapse — a reality suffered by millions of American homeowners.

In particular, the Citigroup fund run by Lew, Citi’s Alternative Investments, invested heavily in the hedge fund of John Paulson, “who made billions off the deterioration of the housing industry by making bearish bets on securities tied to home mortgages — particularly subprime home mortgages.” One of Paulson’s largest bets at the time involved Goldman Sachs, which the SEC has now charged with “defrauding investors by creating and selling exotic securities tied to subprime home mortgages in 2007 without disclosing that they were handpicked by a hedge fund [Paulson] that was betting on them to fail.”

Link

Is this the change you were looking for?

Lamplighter

01-10-2012 10:40 AM

And "you" is ??? ,,,,,,,,,,,, Maybe it's Eric Cantor

The Huffington Post
Luke Johnson
Posted: 1/9/12

Jack Lew Biography: Meet The New White House Chief Of Staff

Quote:

As the White House's budget director, Lew has received
praise for working with Republicans, even from one of Obama's harshest critics.

"No one was more prepared and more in tune with the numbers than Jack Lew,"
said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) in a 2010 Politico profile
during the height of the debt ceiling fight last summer.

"He was always very polite and respectful in his tone and
someone who I can tell is very committed to his principles.'"

classicman

01-10-2012 11:06 AM

you = Lamplighter or any other poster.
Do you have any thoughts on the actual post, the article or who he's chosen or would you prefer to just turn it onto the other team?

Lamplighter

01-10-2012 11:35 AM

My first (and only) reaction so far is that Obama still thinks he can negotiate with Cantor and that crowd. :sniff:
Of course we both know that's not going to happen... til after 2012 ;).

I actually have no opinion on Jacob Lew... never even heard of him before this appointment.
But apparently the ChiefofStaff is a close, personal working arrangement,
so as far as I'm concerned Obama, and any President, can have whoever he wants.
The "whoever" serves "at the pleasure of" so it's not like a judge, etc.

Pico and ME

01-10-2012 11:38 AM

I think his post did answer it.

classicman

01-10-2012 01:51 PM

I'm surprised by your reply Lamp and yet not at all by yours Pico.

Pico and ME

01-10-2012 02:41 PM

And you are predictable as well.

I thought his reply simply gave a sort of wry take on the new guy, seeing as how Canter likes him. You, however, decided to do your usual schtick and challenge it as being...you know I really don't know what you are getting at this time? But it came off as your usual type of attack. Why so edgy all the time anyway?

classicman

01-10-2012 03:13 PM

What am I getting at? Where is your outrage?
Yet another banker who profited from the 2008 financial crisis is empowered in the Obama administration...
This president railed AGAINST Wall Street and those upon it. Most people were behind him on that.
This president talked about prosecuting and holding accountable those responsible ... ... ...
He criticized the "other team" for their close ties and promised change.
Yet again, he has chosen to select someone for his "inner circle" who was knee deep in the Wall Street BS,
who personally profited in the hundreds of millions of dollar for himself, who was, at least,
partly responsible for what happened, traded in the securities which bet against the housing market,
was involved with those "big bad banks" and securities firms like Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and . . . .

Please don't try to tell me you would react the same way if there was an (R) behind his name.

My reply to him was basically that Lamp has been far more open-minded in his assessments, unlike yours.
No attack.

Pico and ME

01-10-2012 03:28 PM

My outrage is at the whole system, now, and Obama was the one that turned me. I became wary of Obama right before he got elected....it just didn't smell right. Like a panacea to smooth over the ridiculous Bush years. And his behavior so far hasn't done anything to change my mind.

The grifters have their greedy hands on the government and so all politicians at that level are bought and paid for. That's the reason no one is being held accountable for the collapse of 2008.

I only hope that the outrage that sparked OWS doesn't fade away like the outrage over the Iraq War. I would like to see the power of the people actually have some oomph to it for once (and not the made up groups like The Tea Party - that's just another example of the grifters gaming the system).

classicman

01-10-2012 03:30 PM

Fair enough. Thats the first time I've seen you post anything like that.
I apologize.

Pico and ME

01-10-2012 03:38 PM

I have posted similar thought in the past, but mostly I stayed away from Obama posts. Mostly, I will get my dander up when liberal ideology is attacked. And I get really incensed whenever workers rights are threatened, because that is the big deal right now.

TheMercenary

01-12-2012 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pico and ME (Post 786568)

I only hope that the outrage that sparked OWS doesn't fade away like the outrage over the Iraq War. I would like to see the power of the people actually have some oomph to it for once (and not the made up groups like The Tea Party - that's just another example of the grifters gaming the system).

So as long as the people rise up in support of your liberal ideas and Union thugs you support it. But if large groups of people rise up and actually get people who support their view elected to office, without one civil disobedience event, without one single arrest of people who want change, you think they are "grifters gaming the system"? Thank God that is not the way our system works.

glatt

01-19-2012 07:47 AM

I have to admit, this morning when I heard that Obama denied the permit for the Keystone pipeline, I was shocked. I never in a million years though he would do that. Making that decision required a spine, and that's something I haven't seen much of from Obama.

Of course, he basically came right out and said he would approve it after the election, so he's still sort of sitting on the fence, but still.

classicman

01-19-2012 04:29 PM

I wasn't surprised that he denied it. Hes been getting A LOT of pressure about it.
I was surprised that he said he'd revisit it after the election though.
I thought he showed some backbone until he, almost immediately, flipped on it.

Lamplighter

01-19-2012 04:33 PM

The decision to reject the Keystone project is really a decision to circumvent
the Republican attempt to tie Keystone to the extension of the payroll tax bill.
The two are not otherwise related.

National Post NEws
Jan 18, 2012
Obama rejects Keystone pipeline, open to alternative*route

Quote:

The Obama administration on Wednesday denied a presidential permit
for construction of the $7-billion Keystone XL pipeline, ruling that a proper environmental review
could not be conducted before a 60-day deadline set by the U.S. Congress
to rule on the controversial oilsands project.

But Calgary-based TransCanada Corp., the company behind the 2,700-kilometre pipeline,
has been given the option of making a new application — and company officials confirmed
they will propose an alternative route for Keystone XL that avoids environmentally sensitive areas in Nebraska.

National Post News
Dec 19,2011

Lorne Gunter: Obama’s pushback on Keystone is pure posturing

Quote:

On Saturday, the U.S. Senate voted 89-10 to approve a bill
that
would extend payroll tax cuts for 160 million Americans by two months.
That’s not a surprise. Going into an election year, no politician or party
wants to be responsible for a very visible tax hike.
If the Senate had not approved the extension
— an economic stimulus measure important to President Barack Obama’s jobs creation strategy
– American workers would have seen a decrease of $100 to $150 a month on their paychecks beginning Jan 1.

But it was surprising that 49 of the 89 votes were from Democrats because,
attached to the tax-cut bill, was a rider urging Mr. Obama to make a decision
on the Keystone XL pipeline within the next 60 days.

Mr. Obama announced last month that he would put off until 2013 any decision
on the US$7-billion pipeline that will run from Alberta’s oil sands to American refineries
on the Texas Gulf Coast — until after next fall’s presidential and Congressional elections. <snip>

Gene Sperling, a senior economic adviser to Obama, told CNN that
“The experts at the State Department who are authorized
for our government to make that very serious and complex review made clear . . .
that if they were only given 60 days to look at the alternative routes in Nebraska
and to do the serious environmental and health and safety reviews,
that would (not) be enough time, and would make it almost certainly impossible
for them to extend that permit.”

Happy Monkey

01-19-2012 05:00 PM

Obama: I'll decide later.
Republicans: Decide now!
Obama: OK, I say no. But I may reverse it later.

Obama: u mad?

infinite monkey

01-19-2012 05:57 PM

I just caught a clip of Obama giving a speech at Disneyworld (loosening foreign tourist restrictions to bring more dollars to the U.S.)

He said he was glad to see Mickey, that it's nice to see a world leader with bigger ears than his.

He's so adorable. ;)

TheMercenary

01-29-2012 10:04 PM

Someone tell obama, no more excuses.

Lamplighter

01-31-2012 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 791590)

Someone tell obama, no more excuses.

If you attend the inauguration in Jan, 2013, you could tell him, in person. :rolleyes:

infinite monkey

01-31-2012 07:14 PM

snickers

Lamplighter

02-07-2012 09:58 AM

Does anyone but me think it's a bit ironic (maybe the wrong word) that
Carl Rove and a lot of Conservatives and Republicans are upset because
Chrysler is doing well as a result of the (Obama) stimulus.
They are even yelling at Clint Eastwood for his SuperBowl ad !
You'd think they would be pleased...

Grumpdy...grump...grump...grumps

infinite monkey

02-07-2012 10:15 AM

They're not yelling at Clint to his FACE! Boo-yaaah!

:)

It's not the economy, stupid (you know I don't mean you and you know the reference) it's I WANT TO WIN OR I TAKE MY BALL AND GO HOME. ;)

BigV	02-07-2012 10:16 AM

No, I think it is completely consistent behavior.

There are many people, and Karl Rove is a prominent figure among them, that want President Obama to be defeated. This is clear, and understandable, though I don't agree. TO THIS END, a success at Chrysler is unfortunate since it can not be used as effectively as a failure at Chrysler as a club to bludgeon the President's campaign. So, "crap, they're doing well and stole our ammo". Whatever.

This is symptomatic of the serious and troubling change in focus from what is best for the country to "I hate you" in our political attitudes.

infinite monkey

02-07-2012 10:19 AM

It is symptomatic of the change in focus, and it's been coming along for some time.

I said this to our most vocal 'hater' early in Obama's presidency: you cannot tout yourself as any kind of "patriot" (no matter how well you know the words) and want our country to fail so you can say "I told you so."

IMHO, they should all be shot for treason. ;)

richlevy

02-07-2012 08:24 PM

Not seeing any reasonable, viable moderate alternative being proposed by the GOP, it looks like an easy pick for Obama for me this year. Maybe if he gets his second term, Congress will get over the obstructionism and actually get something done.

I know a lot of hardcore conservatives. I am not doing this to piss them off.

That's just a happy bonus.:p:

BigV	02-07-2012 09:04 PM

Quote:

Maybe if he gets his second term, Congress will get over the obstructionism and actually get something done.

Before I laugh in your face, define "something".

Griff

02-08-2012 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamplighter (Post 793390)

I wasn't paying much attention but or and I feel like I totally misunderstood that commercial. When it was over I had two impressions. 1) I thought the tone was more appropriate to the beginning of a recession not the end. It felt super negative. 2) There was a flash of Obama when Eastwood said something about divisiveness? I was thinking, why do you hate America Clint?

Lamplighter

02-09-2012 12:13 PM

The Obama Administration has finalized the agreement with banks and
State's Attorneys General with regards to forgeries of documents relating to foreclosures.
It won't offer much ($1-2K) to families who were already forced into foreclosure,
but it may help those who are facing foreclosure or reductions in interest rates for others.

Importantly, the States Attorneys General have retained their rights
to investigate criminal activities, e.g., forgeries of documents.
One visible action has occurred...

The JD Journal
2/9/12

Missouri Jury Indicts First High-level Executive in Robo-Signing Case

Quote:

A grand jury in Missouri has indicted on criminal charges
Georgia-based firm DocX and its founder and former president Lorraine O. Brown on forgery charges.
This is the first high-level prosecution and indictment in a robo-signing case.
DocX is a subsidiary of mortgage processor Lender Processing Services.
The Missouri jury has indicted DocX employees with forging signatures
on hundreds of real estate documents, some of which resulted in foreclosures.

This is the first time that a senior level executive could end up in jail over robo-signing
– a practice where the lender signs the documents, including foreclosure documents,
without bothering to read them or having a notary present.<snip>

Homeowners in Missouri may also benefit from this indictment.
For the homeowners whose documents are found to be robo-signed,
the relevant documents will be considered void.

classicman

02-09-2012 01:52 PM

Quote:

136 counts of forgery in the preparation of documents used to evict financially strained borrowers from their homes.

Quote:

Employees of DocX, a unit of Lender Processing Services of Jacksonville, Fla., executed and notarized millions of mortgage documents for big banks and loan servicers over the year

DocX could be fined up to $10,000 for each forgery conviction.

136 out of millions...

nor do I see Lorraine as a "senior level executive" more like a large fish in a rather small pond.
Perhaps its a start. I hope so.

classicman

02-09-2012 01:53 PM

Quote:

The Obama Administration has finalized the agreement with banks and
State's Attorneys General with regards to forgeries of documents relating to foreclosures.

It is something, but nowhere near enough.
I dunno what they could do, but this seems like a pittance relatively speaking.

Lamplighter

02-09-2012 02:23 PM

Well, it's probably never going to be "enough".
With so many people already evicted/foreclosed there is no way to right that wrong.
Certainly 2K is do nothing except make them mad.

But, it has sounded to me as though the courts are completely clogged with cases,
and the banks were unwilling to do anything that might be an admission of wrong-doing.
Perhaps this agreement will be one less rock in the road.

Obama has called for some sort of additional $ legislation from the House,
but with the politics in there it just "ain't gonna happen" ... at least til after the election.

classicman

02-09-2012 02:42 PM

Heads need to roll. $100 Billion would be a much better start with NOTHING off the table.
Throw in a few real prosecutions and then we can talk.
Till then, this is little more than election year posturing.

classicman

02-09-2012 03:07 PM

Quote:

Statement of National People's Action and The New Bottom Line on AG-Bank Mortgage Settlement Agreement
The mortgage fraud settlement being announced today is a tiny drop in a big bucket. It does not do justice for the millions of homeowners who lost their homes or hold the banks fully accountable for their crimes. For homeowners who were defrauded and lost their homes, $2,000 is too little, too late. It is a paltry down payment toward full relief for homeowners.

~snip~

This fight is not over. The Obama Administration needs to make sure that its task force goes the distance and
delivers at least $336 billion in principal reduction on underwater mortgages and $50 billion in restitution for affected homeowners.

From what I heard on ABC news, the vast majority of the money is going to CA.

TheMercenary

02-09-2012 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamplighter (Post 792031)

If you attend the inauguration in Jan, 2013, you could tell him, in person. :rolleyes:

I would have congratulated him on his accomplishment. Today I would tell him to fuck off.

TheMercenary

02-09-2012 04:36 PM

Quote:

While running as a candidate, Obama railed against 527's and said that someone can't be against them one day and for them the next. (December 22, 2007)

Earlier this week the Obama campaign announced that the President will embrace the Super PAC Priorities USA that will be backing him.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid..._for_them.html

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:32 AM.

Page 25 of 28

« First

Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page