The Note, 4/3/09: Break Dance — Congressional break marks end of one phase of Obama presidency
EmailBy RICK KLEIN With a budget and Blago and bilateral agreements — and with bipartisanship having gone home a little early — one phase of the Obama presidency ends Friday. It’s ending quietly, but maybe quite significantly: Members of Congress leave town for a two-week block, and the streamlined messaging President Obama has sought to dominate the agenda with goes along with them. This means that members of Congress will start hearing from their constituents about how things are going — not necessarily a bad thing for the president, judging from the polls. But while Obama gets the stage to himself for a while — particularly as he wraps up his first major foreign trip, having already exceeded expectations — the messaging that filters to lawmakers will be diffuse. An anxious nation will be doing some venting, even while a few incumbents start worrying about 2010 for real. From healthcare to the environment to card-check to immigration, those with interest in domestic legislation will make themselves heard. When House members and senators come back, the president will have to recapture the momentum of his first 10 weeks to accomplish the really hard stuff on which he’ll ultimately be judged. That populism that was all the rage (yes, rage) a few weeks back hasn’t disappeared: “Populist anger is like a long-caged animal now on the loose, and the success of President Barack Obama’s economic policy may well depend on whether he can tame it and put it to good use in the next few months,” Gerald Seib writes in his Wall Street Journal column. Speaking of judging — an almost entirely positive reception abroad, and some substance to boot. This summit actually mattered: “While President Obama may have overstated things a bit when he declared it a ‘turning point’ for the now-shrinking global economy, the meeting did manage to boost the confidence of financial markets, inject another trillion dollars into the financial system and provide needed political cover for world leaders to take unpopular actions back home,” The Washington Post’s Steven Pearlstein writes. “All in all, a pretty successful opening-night performance for President Obama on the international economic stage. He achieved most of what he wanted while allowing others to claim victory and allowing the United States to shed its Bush-era reputation for inflexibility and heavy-handedness.” How many dominant personalities were there really? “Maybe it should have been called the O-20,” Politico’s Jonathan Martin writes. “His profile was so immense that it threatened to diminish both the global summit itself and the protests taking place on the streets of London.” That’s trillion, with a T: “The landmark agreement reached Thursday by the Group of 20 was more than what experts expected, given differences over government spending and regulation that had divided them. It includes a crackdown on tax havens, hedge funds and executive pay,” USA Today’s Richard Wolf writes. Got a better way to judge success? “The summit ended amid signs the world economy is stabilizing after months of sliding,” Bloomberg’s Hans Nichols and Ed Chen write. No victory lap, either: “I was struck by how much he’s learned about managing expectations,” ABC’s George Stephanopoulos reports. “The administration has managed a string of hits: a smooth rollout of the public-private partnerships to buy up those bad bank assets; a surprisingly tough move on GM and Chrysler; and a G-20 summit that under promised (thanks, in part, to French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s loose talk about leaving early) and over delivered (aided by the European Central Bank’s decision to lower interest rates again).” “What he wanted out of this trip was unity and action from the European governments. That’s what he got,” Stephanopoulos said on “Good Morning America” Friday. “Now to get that, he had to scale back his ambitions somewhat.” (Don’t miss Stephanopoulos Friday at noon ET on ABCNews.com’s new political Webcast, “Top Line.”) On the Friday agenda — it’s France and Germany and back to France for the Obamas, for meetings with the skeptics. The president will be talking to NATO members about his new plans for Afghanistan: “He is not going to be asking them for more troops to Afghanistan,” ABC’s Jake Tapper reported on “Good Morning America” Friday. “Instead he’s going to be asking them to help with the so-called civilian surge.” More reviews: “In his debut on the international stage, President Obama presented himself as the leader of an America that can no longer go it alone, and as abiding by the protocol of a global new deal,” Helene Cooper writes in The New York Times. “Gone are the days, from Pax Britannica to Pax Americana, when Britain and the United States made the rules that others followed.” The episode of Obama-as-mediator between France and China is getting big play: “President Obama just played peacemaker in a spat between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Hu Jintao, President of the People’s Republic of China,” ABC’s Jake Tapper reports. “For anyone looking for clues in Obama’s first appearance as president on the world stage about his view of his role, it was an illustrative moment,” Christi Parsons writes in the Los Angeles Times. And what else do you need to know about the First Couple? “Michelle Obama skipped the optional curtsy and easily reached out to shake hands with the queen and Prince Philip, while her husband’s head bobbed awkwardly during the introductions,” Richard Sisk writes in the New York Daily News. “The President, who was fighting off a cold, then appeared to settle on an exaggerated nod in the queen’s direction to serve as the optional bow.” On the budget — the president is getting much of what he wants, but nowhere near all of it, in substance or in symbols. “The House and Senate approved competing $3.5 trillion Democratic budget plans Thursday night, each tracking the priorities of President Barack Obama but also falling short of the bold mandate he could need to move his ambitious agenda through Congress,” Politico’s David Rogers writes. “This unity came with a price, as the leadership first shaved back many of the bolder proposals in the president’s budget — and thereby lessened his momentum going forward.” The Wall Street Journal’s Naftali Bendavid and Greg Hitt call the budget votes a “significant victory as he works to shift the government’s direction from the Bush era. Democrats made some changes in Mr. Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget, but kept intact the core of Mr. Obama’s plans for increased spending on health care, energy and education, setting up fierce fights on those issues later this year.” Looking ahead: “As the Senate debate stretched into the night, lawmakers amended the budget several times. They went on record against a proposal to reduce tax deductions for charitable contributions as a way of paying for expanded access to health care. They also took several votes reflecting concern over climate change proposals made by the White House,” they write. But remember when bipartisanship was all the rage — back in the days where dignitaries got DVDs instead if iPods? Even the Democrats couldn’t stick together on the budget.
“Two Democrats — Sens. Evan Bayh (Ind.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.) — voted against the resolution, along with the entire Republican Conference,” Roll Call’s John Stanton writes. “The House and Senate versions of the budget blueprint both open the door to sweeping changes to the nation’s health care and energy policies, but lawmakers face extensive negotiations after the spring recess to reconcile the two documents.” “Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said Democrats would like to find consensus with Republicans, but not at the expense of the infusion of federal money that the majority calls crucial in a time of economic distress,” Carl Hulse writes in The New York Times. “That no House or Senate Republican joined Democrats and that Republicans heaped such tough criticism on the spending proposals made clear that enacting the various overhaul bills would be difficult.” Boston Globe columnist Scot Lehigh goes Concordian: “Having led the Democrats out of Oval Office exile, Obama is also soaring — but worries about the cost of his ambitious plans have started to warm the wax of Democratic cohesion,” he writes. “Obama, of course, frames his major initiatives as absolute imperatives if we want a robust recovery. But surveying the president’s ambitious agenda, which also includes healthcare expansion, new spending on clean energy and education, and a cap-and-trade system to combat global warming, others are left wondering.” And a hit for Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, just when he was getting his mojo back: “As Geithner and the New York Fed worked to solve narrow mechanical issues in the derivatives market, they missed clear signs of a catastrophe in the making. When the housing market collapsed, derivatives stoked the fires that ignited inside some of the biggest banking companies. The firms’ failure to assess an array of risks they were taking has emerged as a key element in the multitrillion-dollar meltdown of the global financial system,” Robert O’Harrow Jr. and Jeff Gerth (!) write in The Washington Post. They continue: “Although Geithner repeatedly raised concerns about the failure of banks to understand their risks, including those taken through derivatives, he and the Federal Reserve system did not act with enough force to blunt the troubles that ensued. That was largely because he and other regulators relied too much on assurances from senior banking executives that their firms were safe and sound, according to interviews and a review of documents by The Washington Post and the nonprofit journalism organization ProPublica.” On Geithner, said Arianna Huffington, on “Top Line” Thursday: “My problem with Tim Geithner was never his communications job. It was not his delivery — it was what he’s delivering. I just think that the Geithner plan is not going to work.” Don’t miss the pics of Rod Blagojevich, poolside: “Federal prosecutors expanded their case against former Gov. Rod Blagojevich on Thursday in an indictment that drew more of his closest aides into the scandal and adds new schemes to the list of charges against him: Pocketing money funneled through his wife through a phony real estate job. Shaking down a powerful congressman. Running the state as a racket,” Rick Pearson and Jeff Coen report in the Chicago Tribune. What a detail: “After turning Illinois politics into an amusement-park ride, most notably for allegedly trying to sell President Barack Obama’s Senate seat, Blagojevich spent the day of his indictment with his family at Disney World.” Sayeth Blago: “I would ask the good people of Illinois to wait for the trial and afford me the presumption of innocence that they would give to all their friends and neighbors.” (Particularly their friends and neighbors who have f—- golden things to sell.) A do-over in Alaska? Gov. Sarah Palin, R-Alaska, likes the idea: “I absolutely agree,” Palin responded in an e-mail Thursday to the Daily News-Miner, arguing that Ted Stevens deserves another shot after losing by just 4,000 votes — after he was convicted in charges the Justice Department has now thrown out. “Alaskans deserve to have a fair election not tainted by some announcement that one of the candidates was convicted fairly of seven felonies, when in fact it wasn’t a fair conviction,” Palin said in an interview with the Anchorage Daily News. It is April 2009. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., doesn’t even formally have a primary opponent yet. But he’s attacking his likely opponent in a new ad: “Pat Toomey. As a Wall Street trader, he sold risky derivatives called credit default swaps — the same swaps that have now plunged us into this financial crisis,” the narrator says in the ad. “The ad is running for about a week statewide on the three major cable news channels — Fox, MSNBC, and CNN — at a cost of about $100,000, Specter campaign manager Chris Nicholas said,” per the Philadelphia Inquirer’s Thomas Fitzgerald. FactCheck.org’s take: “Toomey dealt in interest rate and currency derivatives. Credit default swaps didn’t become a part of Wall Street’s derivative dealings until after Toomey left the financial world.” Ads are running in 2010 races even before last of the 2008 races are settled. Norm Coleman was in Washington this week, and this is getting buzz going in Minnesota and beyond: “Asked if the FBI had contacted him, Coleman smiled and shrugged his
Shoulders,” per MinnPost.com. Ads are running in 2010 races even before last of the 2008 races are settled. Norm Coleman was in Washington this week, and this is getting buzz going in Minnesota and beyond: “Asked if the FBI had contacted him, Coleman smiled and shrugged his shoulders,” per MinnPost.com. “I can’t say anything,” Coleman said. “We want this matter to be fully reviewed and fully investigated because nothing happened and we are looking forward to that taking place.” Picture of the week — a new Mentos ad campaign? No, silly — it’s your world leaders. The Kicker: “This drastic change in circumstances, wherein truth is finally being revealed, leads me to support the call for a special, fair election — free from the improper influence of a conviction that DOJ now tells us was improper.” — Gov. Sarah Palin, looking for a do-over for Ted Stevens. “Too many questions.” — Former senator Norm Coleman, laughing. Don’t miss “Top Line,” ABCNews.com’s new daily political Webcast, hosted by Rick Klein and David Chalian, at noon ET. Friday guests: ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, and Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J. http://abcnews.go.com/politics Follow The Note on Twitter: http://twitter.com/thenote For up-to-the-minute political updates check out The Note’s blog . . . all day every day:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/
Gulf of Mexico to Become Gulf of America? 
Can Mitt Romney Win Conservatives Back?
The public won;t fall for the GOP s[pin and get in a tizzy over deficits or spending or Geithner, etc.
The Europe trip has been an unqualified success in buying further ti me for Obama at home.
http://www.political-buzz.com/
Posted by: matt | April 3, 2009, 8:41 am 8:41 am
How can we hold the White House and Congress accountable for wasting our hard earned tax dollars? How can we stop them from advancing socialism and the liberal’s Secular & progressive movement. Visit the American Tradition and Leadership: Take Back America website. Buy the book and join ATL on-line for free. Research the news items, read about the book and learn ways to make your voice heard. Promote God, family, personal responsibility and honest government. Visit and research www americantraditionandleadership dot org.
Posted by: Leon Ives | April 3, 2009, 8:41 am 8:41 am
I would say the President is working, and I feel good about America’s representation on the world’s stage. He is calm, smart, engaging, strong and stood with the best. He Is a Leader. For the first time in my adult life, I am trusting the Leader we have elected.
Posted by: sngeorgia | April 3, 2009, 8:52 am 8:52 am
why is it that the stories that come out of abc are more about the reporter than the politician. you, rick are not important. finding one critic does not mean there is a whole host of critics. i love how you quote the post to criticize gitner. where is the criticism for the post when they did not alert the public about derivatives and there danger? when is the media going to start taking it’s own inventory and stop blaming the government? i really wish you would report on why health insurance is important and balance it with the cost. all you talk about is the big budget but i ask you would you cut social security or medicare? how about military? where would you cut? why not report that for the last 8 years we wasted an opportunity to reform health care. when would be a good time for health care? maybe 2 years? but then you would say obama broke his promise. you sir need to look at your own reporting and start getting honest about your motives.
Posted by: william | April 3, 2009, 8:58 am 8:58 am
….and all Americans love and defend their family and Americans work hard to provide for their families and contributes to their communities. Some Americans should stop promoting divisiveness in our country. Use “God” to give understanding, faith, tolerance and love, instead of using “God” to promote anger, judgementalism, intolerance and hate.
Posted by: sngeorgia | April 3, 2009, 9:05 am 9:05 am
I mostly read the news during the day but I got to hear some snippets of Obama at the G20 last night – what a difference it makes to hear him speaking, compared to reading about it, which always comes along with negative commentary from the press.
I watched Jon Stewart the other night when he had the Budget guy on. I learned more about the budget watching that show than I had reading all news websites. I think Jon Stewart needs to be awarded some journalism prizes here soon. Jon Stewart: the new Peter Jennings.
Posted by: Amy | April 3, 2009, 9:35 am 9:35 am
President Obama spoke well and proudly represented the United States…right up until he answered a question about the War On Terror and made the comment that the humiliation and torcher at Abu Ghraib Prison 5 years ago was U.S. policy! I challenge the President or anyone to provide documented proof that Soldiers are ordered to have sex in front of prisoners and video tape it (just in case they want to embarrass us or hurt the war effort at some point in the future). Not only did he make these false statements, but he had the audacity to do it in a country that has been one of our biggest critics!
Somehow, he always seems to find a way to humiliate us or make unnecessary political attacks at a time when he should be trying to build us up…not tear us down. I know he is inexperienced and has a lot to learn, but some comments are unrecoverable and he will pay dearly for them.
Posted by: Gary | April 3, 2009, 10:08 am 10:08 am
oh the real work. you mean he may actually have to do something other than campaign? This should be funny! and depressing all at the same time.
Posted by: chad | April 3, 2009, 10:35 am 10:35 am
Gary…shut up. thanks.
Posted by: Tim | April 3, 2009, 10:37 am 10:37 am
Serious problems facing the country and world and the idelogues still are ranting the partisan garbage…I truelly believe they are brainwashed and would destroy the country before working together for a common good…can we ship tese idiots to a remote island so we don’t have to listen to their partisan rants and hate
Posted by: phillysmart | April 3, 2009, 10:38 am 10:38 am
Keep doing what you are doing Mr Obama .
All the republican whining and crying and moaning means you are doing EXACTLY what you need to do.
Stay the course !!!
Posted by: Frank W | April 3, 2009, 10:40 am 10:40 am
That’s right Frank W…the whining is louder and louder and the president is doing better and better!
He’s doing a great job….and it’s wonderful to have an intelligent president and we can actually understand what he is saying! and no smirks!
Posted by: Barb | April 3, 2009, 10:51 am 10:51 am
Tim…get an IQ. Thanks.
Posted by: Gary | April 3, 2009, 10:57 am 10:57 am
good work Mr .President, good work…and only after 75 days, and we are heading the right direction…
Posted by: indithinker | April 3, 2009, 11:04 am 11:04 am
The tax increases have begun. Tax on a pound of tobacco went from $1.09 to over $24 a pound! ‘No tax increase if you earn less than $250K’. Yeah, right. Another LIE.
Posted by: deanbob | April 3, 2009, 11:12 am 11:12 am
Keep it up mr president.
Only 4.5 trillion dollars spent with a promise of another trillion to the world.
let’s stay on this progressive course. i must learn and hear what comes after trillion.
Posted by: liberal randi | April 3, 2009, 11:13 am 11:13 am
And the tax increaseS have begun. Tax on a pound of tobacco went from $1.09 to over $24 per pound on Wednesday. ‘No tax increases if youmake less than $250K’. Yeah, right! Another LIE.
Posted by: deanbob | April 3, 2009, 11:15 am 11:15 am
randi …..QUADRILLION follows a trillion.
Posted by: deanbob | April 3, 2009, 11:16 am 11:16 am
Still very nervous
Posted by: FreeinNH | April 3, 2009, 11:17 am 11:17 am
uhhh deanbob, those taxes are levied by states, not federal….doh! bunch of “Joe the Plumbers” on here today!
Posted by: indithinker | April 3, 2009, 11:17 am 11:17 am
Our founding fathers must have been stupid. They created a constitution that no longer seems to have any value (to many).
Posted by: deanbob | April 3, 2009, 11:19 am 11:19 am
indithinker | Apr 3, 2009 11:17:16 AM….So you read the bill as well as the other senators? It was the Federal government.
Posted by: deanbob | April 3, 2009, 11:22 am 11:22 am
I suppose you want more info on the tax? It is called the Federal Excise Tax. Any more questions?
Posted by: deanbob | April 3, 2009, 11:23 am 11:23 am
Apr 3, 2009 10:38:06 AM….I think we have to work together to choose the best politicians no matter what party they belong to, if we have any hope.
Posted by: deanbob | April 3, 2009, 11:27 am 11:27 am
Keep doing what you are doing Mr Obama .
All the republican whining and crying and moaning means you are doing EXACTLY what you need to do.
Stay the course !!!
Posted by: Frank W | Apr 3, 2009 10:40:06 AM
That’s right Frank W…the whining is louder and louder and the president is doing better and better!
He’s doing a great job….and it’s wonderful to have an intelligent president and we can actually understand what he is saying! and no smirks!
Posted by: Barb
__________________________________
Right Frank and Bob!
Stay the course Obama! Keep up the good work!
ESPECIALLY the good work of making sure Al Qeada KNOWS that what went on at the Abu rabe prison camp was NOT caused by an independent bunch of hooligans but was official US policy representing what America stands for whenever Republicans are in office!
We must NEVER call the wars we are in right now a “war on terror” for we were never terrorized. Al Qeada ONLY hijacked planes and killed 3000 Americans on 9/11 in order to “EDUCATE”, not terrorize. When we went to war to retaliate, WE are the enemies!
The more those “Repugs” whine and bellyache about all of that the better Obama is doing.
Posted by: marco | April 3, 2009, 11:29 am 11:29 am
liberal randi | Apr 3, 2009 11:13:23 AM…that may be what has been spent so far; but, we are on the hook for over $12.5 trillion. If you have any children or grands children, they’ll be paying.
Posted by: deanbob | April 3, 2009, 11:31 am 11:31 am
Lets all show our sympathy for the French Republicans..AHHHHHHHH..It was a bitter week for them..the economy is showing signs of improvement..The world embraced the president and his wife..The President showed the value of a president who is intelligent, thoughtful and a listener…qualities the Neocons completely fail to appreciate..as you can tell by their INANE comments…nothing to offer to the conversation that amounts to an idea….thanks for the memories
Posted by: cowgirl | April 3, 2009, 11:45 am 11:45 am
the President is showing his intelligence to the world, I am again proud to be an American!
Posted by: That Girl | April 3, 2009, 11:46 am 11:46 am
Cowgirl,
the neocons are so ‘Je ne sais quoi’
Posted by: That Girl | April 3, 2009, 11:48 am 11:48 am
It is extremely refreshing to have President Obama represent us in a humble and calm manner with elegance and thoughtfulness. What a contrast to the “towel-snapping” cowboy who embarrassed us at home and abroard for eight years.
— john john, PA
Posted by: john john | April 3, 2009, 11:54 am 11:54 am
Mrs. Obama and the President represented the nation with dignity, humility and respect. This is an enormous victory for all Americans. The President’s sincerity, honesty and intellect will go a long way toward repairing the considerable damage the Bush administration’s cowboy “diplomacy” inflicted on our ideals and reputation. Obama’s successful effort to restore trust among our closest allies and respect among our foes is a considerable achievement – not a mixed result. Yesterday, I was reminded why this nation still has an opportunity to right itself and lead by it’s ideals of democracy and cooperation.
Posted by: rgm, wdc | April 3, 2009, 11:55 am 11:55 am
I remember in college being taught that politics is the art of the possible. Obama seems aware of that. He has to move carefully in changing the direction of U.S. policy towards a more realistic viewpoint that acknowledges a different world climate. Otherwise traditionalists who still mentally live in yesteryear (and many of them very influential in the Senate) may grow increasingly obstructionist. His is not an easy task. I am glad that it is not mine!
Posted by: D. Surr, Pennsylvania | April 3, 2009, 11:58 am 11:58 am
To all the so called consevatives…I have a handkerchief that I have been using for the last eight years..you are welcome to use for the next four years
Posted by: BSKI | April 3, 2009, 12:02 pm 12:02 pm
indeed deanbob…I stand corrected…
Posted by: indithinker | April 3, 2009, 12:03 pm 12:03 pm
Deanbob….Did you forget about the 30 yrillion dollar debt Bush left
Posted by: BSKI | April 3, 2009, 12:04 pm 12:04 pm
John John I will drink to that
Posted by: BSKI | April 3, 2009, 12:08 pm 12:08 pm
Cowboys everywhere have been served a great injustice by calling GWB a cowboy..It is an insult..GWB was nothing more than a redkneck, real cowboys believe in fairness, are thoughtful polite and gentlemanly..Care for the weak and the less fotunate, care greatly about the land and the enviroment, and leave a small footprint upon the land..having a house in texas doesn’t qualify you as a cowboy..Bush never rode a horse…just a pickup and a hat, the inability to form an intelligent thought or compose a sentance..and a real cowboy is a poet in his own right…please call bush what he is ….a REDKNECK.
Posted by: cowgirl | April 3, 2009, 12:34 pm 12:34 pm
Yipppe-Kai-Aye, Cowgirl! Let’s hear it for Roy Rogers and Gene Autry!
Posted by: Howard Beale | April 3, 2009, 12:40 pm 12:40 pm
Shane! Come back!
I love High Noon too. Gary Cooper. Sigh.
Posted by: Amy | April 3, 2009, 12:50 pm 12:50 pm
I have lipstick red cowgirl boots.
..and a cowboy lampshade in my bedroom.
viva las vacqueros! and cowgirl!
Posted by: That Girl | April 3, 2009, 1:17 pm 1:17 pm
President Obama tells us what we want to hear, but when is he going to target the root of the problems we face? The AIG Bonus issue was known by Mr. Geitner months ago, yet he acted outraged after they were paid?! The President can go on a tour of Europe and tell them (and the world) that the abuses at Abu Ghraib in 2004 was our policy, not the act of a few irresponsible Soldiers?! I have a hard time taking him seriously as our leader, when he fails to do his homework on issues that matter to every level of our society and government.
Just because he is an eloquent speaker, doesn’t mean he is doing a good job. It may take a couple years for the pixie dust to wash from the eyes of his blind supporters (or a major catastrophe that he left us unprepared to handle), but we will overcome that too. President’s Bush and Clinton did poor jobs managing our nation, and I don’t see any change in the coming years, either. I can only hope we don’t put ourselves out so far that we can never recover.
Posted by: Gary | April 3, 2009, 1:51 pm 1:51 pm
Girls love REAL cowboys…what can I say….
Posted by: cowgirl | April 3, 2009, 1:58 pm 1:58 pm
Gary…those were government policies as we now know through documentation that has been revealed..don’t blame the ordinary soldier for all that crap, even tho they are the ones that went to prison..The fact that the bush administration never MANED up to it, doesn’t negate the fact that it was their policy..As far as the president throwing pixie dust in our eyes and only telling us what we want to hear,,bailing out the banks was not anything “we” wanted to hear…we are angry about bailing them out, so he didn’t tell us what we wanted to hear—He told us what was necessary-to get the economy straightened out and the banks lending again…and I am going to trust him on it…
Posted by: cowgirl | April 3, 2009, 2:08 pm 2:08 pm
What possible result other than “mixed” could there be? One negative comment yields a “mixed result.” A room with one Democrat and one Republican in the U.S. yields a mixed result and I have no doubt there are equally polarized points of view in Europe. (For that matter, the same room with either Democrats or Republicans is just as likely to yield a mixed result). Given little likelihood of a unanimous response pro or con, I would say our President did very well indeed. Sounds his message was well-received overall, regardless of the politics of the author or the reader.
Posted by: Brian | April 3, 2009, 2:11 pm 2:11 pm
From what I have seen living here in Germany, is that there are no mixed feelings about President Obama. He represented our country with dignity and clarity of purpose. He is respected and a stark contrast to our previous president who vomited on the Japenese president and who not only mispronounced foreign leaders names but often linked them with the wrong country. There were mixed feelings about Mr Bush, dismay and disgust. President Obama will serve us well in world relations.
—B.J., Leimen, Germany
Posted by: B.J. | April 3, 2009, 2:14 pm 2:14 pm
Gary | Apr 3, 2009 1:51:03 PM
“Gary” you said; “President Obama tells us what we want to hear, but when is he going to target the root of the problems we face? The AIG Bonus issue was known by Mr. Geitner months ago, yet he acted outraged after they were paid?!”…
_____________________
You should be aware, the issue had to do with “Legal Contracts” (binding obligations) entered into in 2007.
I realize doing “Real Research” can be taxing, but it’s imperative you track-down the Facts, and NOT just “reach a conclusion, when YOUR Objectives been achieved”; * Note; …”Media Matters for America has pointed out that it was the George W. Bush Treasury Department that allowed AIG to continue giving out massive bonuses despite receiving government bailouts.[62] AIG also claims that only their executives can unwind their complex derivative deals. Rick Newman of US News & World Report argues that this is tantamount to extortion.[63] MSNBC host David Shuster said “The argument that these were so-called retention bonuses is undermined by the fact that 52 of the people who received them have already left the company.”[64] ***** AND, you MAY or MAY NOT want to associate this HISTORICAL NOTE to What & Whose Legislation was DESIGNED to Create the ‘Loopholes’ that allowed these “Wall Street types” to “Creatively Develop” these; Exotic Financial Tools, Credit Default Swaps and complex derivative deals, in the FIRST PLACE???
Posted by: bobj72 | April 3, 2009, 2:59 pm 2:59 pm
The socialism charge by the right on Obama is curious. I wonder how many Republicans send their children to public schools? Isn’t that socialism too. We are all dependent on each other. There are several jobs we need the government to do that we cannot do ourselves: building roads, providing utilities, making our foods safe, protecting us from crime and disasters. Any of these could be considered socialist.
Posted by: Rich | April 3, 2009, 3:04 pm 3:04 pm
bobj72: Our Treasury Secretary came from Wall Street and while I am fully aware of the “binding obligation,” but that wasn’t the point I made. My point (subtract it from the one you assigned to me), is that the Obama Administration knew about it long before the payouts and said nothing, but then pretended to be in as much shock over it as the general public was. David Gregory on “Meet the Press” last weekend brought this up like three times to Mr. Geitner and he refused to answer the question…so here we go again.
I am not defending the actions of the previous indefensible administration, but I don’t blame them for what has been a problem for several administrations.
Posted by: Gary | April 3, 2009, 3:24 pm 3:24 pm
With the election of President Obama we have taken back America. Some just don’t get it yet!
Posted by: charlesRN | April 3, 2009, 4:02 pm 4:02 pm
Gary | Apr 3, 2009 3:24:53
Gary, this can be addressed to you, David Gregory or anyone else who would raise this as a “meaningful issue!” For whatever reason, (and I’m not ‘pointing fingers’) the previous Administration approved the AIG Bonus program (contractual obligations, or whatever) and when the issue surfaced in 2009, the New Administration simply indicated, they ‘strongly disagreed’ with the 2008 decision. Then comes those who INTERPRET the New Administration’s disagreement as pretense; YOU said; … “to be in as much shock over it as the general public was.” … That’s an INTERPRETATION and nothing more!
Had the “New Administration” “Voided” the contracts, such an act would most likely have been overturned in a court of law. In addition, if they had “Voided” the contracts, I can only imagine “the high pitched yelling” from the “right-edge peanut gallery” – shouting; “socialist, marxist!!!” It’s Classic “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t politics!”
Posted by: bobj72 | April 3, 2009, 4:15 pm 4:15 pm
Will someone please explain to me HOW fannie and freddie employees deserve the 210 million in bonuses the federal regulators are claiming are warrented today??? do these people work for a waitress salary and can only get by on their tips?? I lost all of my pension plans in the crash and i can’t even write it off as a loss, let alone get a bonus…someone needs to put a stop to this nonsense….
Posted by: cowgirl | April 3, 2009, 4:37 pm 4:37 pm
obama will mess up our country for 4 years– hope he does not have a 2nd term–
Posted by: SAL | April 3, 2009, 7:41 pm 7:41 pm
…between all the sniping between the domocrats (“get the budget passed…we are on vacation next week” and the GOP…..”this is no bipartisan effort”…we miss the really big news….Michele dresses like an urban highschooler in Europe, while her hubby gives the President of Brazil a “hail and good fella” welcome a couple of days after the latter shoots off his mouth about Americans….not carried by the “major” news networks, of course. The man is in love with himself, isn’t he?
Posted by: justj joey | April 3, 2009, 8:47 pm 8:47 pm
bobj72: You have a political affiliation and if you wish to heap blame on only one entity for what has been mishandled at many levels by many administrations, so be it. I don’t approve of mismanagement and lack of oversight by the Bush Administration, just as I don’t care for how this administration is carrying that tradition forward. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. When Republicans were in charge…corruption. When Democrats were and are in charge…corruption. I don’t live in denial, I just see the big picture and understand that there is enough blame to go around. Defend the Treasure Secretary if you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that he was and is a part of the problem…and President Obama is counting on him to fix the mess that he helped create. That is all I am saying. Play your political game, but you can’t change the truth.
Posted by: Gary | April 3, 2009, 9:03 pm 9:03 pm
Gary:You NEVER confirm your points with fact; just more quotes from commentators. Example;
“Absolute power corrupts. . .” etc. You sir, have been brainwashed by the talking heads who are still sore about losing the election after they tried their best and used their worst to discredit Mr. Obama. Grow up and think for yourself. Then, you’ll really have something to say that can be respected.
Posted by: Mike from Carolina | April 4, 2009, 12:16 am 12:16 am
Won’t the new phase begin when the President finally makes pubic a copy of his original birth certificate on file in Hawaii? Why would he send lawyers into court to block the release of this very basic document? What does he have to hide?
Posted by: Terry | April 4, 2009, 1:38 am 1:38 am
Mr. Obama was unable to convince other European countries to increase their stimulus to the trillions that the USA is spending under the Obama Plan. The other countries refused to engage in reckless spending. Mr. Obama also was unable to get a significant commitment from other countries regarding additional troops in Afghanistan. Basically he failed to get equal participation in the Afghanistan war. You must be talking about his popularity success. Popularity is much different than proficiency in foreign affairs. In the meantime back in the USA,job loss went up dramatically. And the economy is recovering??? I don’t think so.
Posted by: Linda | April 4, 2009, 1:52 am 1:52 am
Mike from Carolina: It’s sad that you have to resort to trying to discredit me as someone who doesn’t think for themselves, when in fact I consistently use facts to back my position. First, I am far more advanced intellectually than you think, but since you have NEVER talked to me, your conclusion is baseless. Second, I don’t represent Republicans (as you insinuated), nor am I going to be intimidated by those who currently hold the majority point of view, and accept what they tout without question. If your political affiliation does not allow you to view events beyond their talking points, then we have no basis for conversation. My job for the past two decades-plus has been directly affected by the decisions of our Presidents, for better or for worse. You can disagree with me, but understand that your opinion is based on 0% knowledge of my experience. But, no hard feelings on this end.
Posted by: Gary | April 4, 2009, 9:26 am 9:26 am
“The Obama administration is engineering its new bailout initiatives in a way that it believes will allow firms benefiting from the programs to avoid restrictions imposed by Congress, including limits on lavish executive pay, according to government officials.” I would respectfully request everyone go to msnbc.com and read the articles. It seems the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Posted by: Michiel W | April 4, 2009, 2:37 pm 2:37 pm
Gary | Apr 3, 2009 9:03:14 PM
O.K. Gary, you say; “Play your political game, but you can’t change the truth.”
_____________________
So I’ll ‘play this one out with you.’ NO, you can’t change the truth. Nor can you Develop Your Truth, based on Your interpretation.
Now if, the Treasury Secretary had played the role of……. say Ex Senator Phil Gramm (“The ghost of Deregulation”), “Gramm, Leach, Bliley”, The S & L Scandal, “The Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000″, Enron & the “Enron Loophole”, and on, and on, and…. BTW, the
O.K. Gary, you say; “Play your political game, but you can’t change the truth.”
_____________________
So I’ll ‘play this one out with you.’ NO, you can’t change the truth. Nor can you Develop Your Truth, based on Your interpretation. Now if, the Treasury Secretary had played the role of……. say Ex Senator Phil Gramm (“The ghost of Deregulation”, “Gramm, Leach, Bliley”, The “Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000″, The S & L Scandal, Enron and the “Enron Loophole” (which ties-directly to the “Exotic” Home Loan programs and Credit Default Swaps.) All of these can very easily be ‘traced back’ to the activities of Ex Senator Gramm. And, you do realize many of these legislative activities have impacted the Global Financial Markets.
You also said; “When Democrats were and are in charge…corruption.”
____________________
Can, will you supply me with your Facts? I’m NOT naive, nor am I a cheerleader for the Democrats. Bribery is nothing new to mankind!” And so long as political contributions are “Protected under the First Amendment” bribery will “rear its’ ugly head” from time-to-time. But let’s be realists, How many politicians would you say have been “found Guilty” of Bribery over the last 10 years? What, Maybe 10? 10 out of upwards of 600 (including Executive Apointees) and that’s a Corruption rate of 1.66% over 10 years, or 0.16% per year, and a rate like that would probably be acceptable, even to an idealist! I don’t really think we have an “inordinate amount of corruption” in government. Personally, I’m much more concerned about Policies, Honesty and “transparency” in Government!!!
Posted by: bobj72 | April 4, 2009, 7:12 pm 7:12 pm
cowgirl | Apr 3, 2009 4:37:13 PM
“cowgirl” you asked; “HOW fannie and freddie employees deserve the 210 million in bonuses the federal regulators are claiming are warrented today???”
_________________
Fannie & Freddie own or Guarantee almost 31 Million Mortgages worth about $5.5 Trillion, more than half of all U. S. home loans. Have they lost money over the last 2 yr’s? No Question. But it’s guaranteed it’s NOT half of the losses from the “Housing Melt-Down” as you might expect. You see, these entities DID NOT buy Subprime mortgages directly. The Subprime mortgages they acquired when they “Jumped In On” the securitized (bundled) mortgages that were supposedly “insured” with the “Credit Default Swaps.” They were
being “snapped up” by ALL the “unsuspecting investors”, globally!
So, Fannie plans to pay bonuses to their “Top 4″ Executives, at least $1M each in “Retention Awards.” Freddie has not submitted their specific plan yet. But with Fannie, when you do the math, they are actually proposing to pay “Retention Awards” of $210 Million Dollars to 7,600 employees. That’s approximaqtely $27,000 per employee, or about 6 months salary for an employee earning $54,000 Dollars annually. It’s less actually, when you subtract out the “Retention Awards” proposed for the “Top Execs.” Frankly, those are “very reasonable sums” for “Retention Awards”, even with the economy where it is today – to Retain 7,600 “Valued Employees” to efficiently manage assets worth $5 Trillion, 500 Billion Dollars! ($5,500,000,000,000.00)
Think of it in these terms; “Would you be willing to pay a competent, tenured employee a “Retention Incentive” of $27,000.- if that employee had the responsibility of managing $612 Billion Dollars of Your Assets?” I think I know the answer. Have a good weekend.
uarantee the employee
$27,000.00
Posted by: bobj72 | April 4, 2009, 8:40 pm 8:40 pm
bobj72: You ask me to supply you with facts…and I did, but you call circumstances and statements documented on television and print, as being ‘my interpretation.’ Can’t help you there.
As for bribery…there have been several high profile cases over the past decade from both Republicans and Democrats. Sorry, but I disagree with your acceptance of such abuses…one convicted politician, is one too many! This is not just ‘part of the game’ as you characterize it, but simply criminal behavior that must be prosecuted like any other in society. We don’t work for them; they work for us…but you wouldn’t know it by their actions and the failure to prevent such abuses.
Much of your garble doesn’t provide a consistent standard of measurement for both sides of the argument to have a sensible debate. By setting the terms of the discussion based on ‘your interpretation’ of events, doesn’t allow for a constructive discussion. I have criticized both sides for mishandling the current economic crisis, because I realize there isn’t just one group responsible, but you are too politically corrupt to acknowledge this basic fact.
So, have fun with your position and find someone else’s time to waste.
Posted by: Gary | April 5, 2009, 12:36 pm 12:36 pm
Gary | Apr 5, 2009 12:36:22 PM
“So, have fun with your position and find someone else’s time to waste.”
________________
Gary, you are a rude, non-thinking, immature, naive, suceptable and childish person. “Cutsie, little-girl statements re: “wasting your time” is a *Trademark; which says; “I don’t know what-the-heck I’m talking about, so I’ll go on the attack!” You have a Vague definition of what constitutes a Fact. You ‘offer up’ these grandiose, egotistical statements; “My job for the past two decades-plus has been directly affected by the decisions of our Presidents, for better or for worse.” Who Asked YOU? And Who Cares? Or… statements of “false truths”, i.e. “circumstances and statements documented on television and print, as being ‘my interpretation”, THIS highlights your immaturity and vulnerability. The real risk we have here is a person like you, (intellectually arrogant, posturing to ‘mask’ a major deficit disorder of ignorance), who’s NOT ‘grounded in provable & irrefutable Truth’, is so easily Influenced by others.
As for me, I DO NOT take “sleaze-bag” political bribery lightly. I think they should be treated as any other common criminal.
But, understand “The game” IS reality. And ‘the rules’ will be broken, so “Man-Up” Buddy, your ‘Alter Boy’ expectations “won’t kick that can too far down the road!” Oh, and BTW you don’t get to “Write the rules!” You’re simply a “paying fan, sitting in the stands.”
Posted by: bobj72 | April 5, 2009, 10:46 pm 10:46 pm
bobj72: Your rude and childish comments are intended to insult me, but you are far more clueless than I. You think you know what you’re talking about…and this is the real tragedy, because there are too many Americans who think like you and as a result, we will suffer for it. I don’t wish to say ‘I told you so’ because that would mean that our leadership has failed, but maybe through suffering the consequences, we will learn the lessons that we didn’t learn 40 years ago with Robert Kennedy. I will hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.
Posted by: Gary | April 6, 2009, 1:13 pm 1:13 pm
Gary | Apr 6, 2009 1:13:10 PM
Gary, do you realize what you’re suggesting here??? You said; ” I don’t wish to say ‘I told you so’ because that would mean that our leadership has failed, but maybe through suffering the consequences, we will learn the lessons that we didn’t learn 40 years ago with Robert Kennedy. I will hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.”
_____________________
Your “40 years ago with Robert Kennedy” proclaimation, is The Year Following Robert Kennedy’s ASSASSINATION! What are YOU SUGGESTING here???
Posted by: bobj72 | April 7, 2009, 11:53 am 11:53 am
Suggesting that it was 40 years ago that Richard Nixon, NOT Robert Kennedy, was sworn into office. Had RFK not been assassinated, he would have had to make all the concessions that Nixon and all other President’s have had to make since that election…then the ideals of the ‘Left’ would have understood the limits of political power and personal will to overcome the challenges of the ‘real world.’
You lost me with your “suggestion” comment…????
Posted by: Gary | April 8, 2009, 12:25 pm 12:25 pm
Gary, so you won’t be lost. Robert Kennedy wasn’t living 40 years ago. So what relationship, if any would he have on the comment you made? Other than to create an ambiguous statement. If your point was in reference to Richard Nixon, there was obviously no purpose in mentioning Robert Kennedy’s name.
___________________
Track this with me, and I’m sure (I hope) you’ll see what “suggestion” I interpret your comment to be making.)
(* Notes a reasoned interpretation of your statement.)
“I don’t wish to say ‘I told you so’
(* Told who, what? You seem to be more concerned with “being rude & demeaning “than you are with making a “clear point.”)
because that would mean that our leadership has failed, but maybe through suffering the consequences,
(* some negative-type outcome?)
we will learn the lessons that we didn’t learn 40 years ago with Robert Kennedy.”
(* something to be associated with the time, and consequences to the subject? Now, since Robert Kennedy isn’t here, one must assume ‘the writer’ is referencing the time and event, last associated with the subject. And that would be the act committed by Sirhan in L.A., CA in 1968!)
What I’m suggesting is that your comment sounds like a “warning” of some type. Whether you intended that, or not.
Posted by: bobj72 | April 8, 2009, 3:16 pm 3:16 pm
bobj72: You are off the mark by about 180 degrees…sorry to disappoint. I know that is what you “want” my point to be, but let me break it down for you.
If you are familiar with the reason RFK was popular, you will know that Liberals/Democrats saw him as the man best suited to end the war in Vietnam, ending social injustice, etc. While we will never know how events would have turned out, for better or for worse, I don’t believe that had he been elected that he would have been able to make the changes as easy as he did in his speeches…as President Obama is finding out (and will continue to find out) today. Their speeches are similar, telling us what they want to do, but failing to mention the consequences if things don’t work out as planned. During his campaign, Barrack Obama sounded like Robert Kennedy when discussing the failed policies of the administrations they wanted to replace and giving the illusion that they would have been armed with the knowledge they had obtained after the fact to make different decisions had they been in charge (this is called “time-warping” and is impossible). Hindsight is always 20/20 and I am sure that if LBJ or GWB had seen how their decisions turned out, they would have handled things much different…but again, we will never know.
The fact that “tried” to insinuate that I want the President assassinated, tells me that you are incapable of rational thought. A non-bias person “may” have asked me to explain my linkage of Obama to Kennedy, but you just “assumed” the worst, in a desperate attempt to discredit me. I doubt anyone 21 years or older and able to vote in 1968, believes that the only relevant thing about him was that he was assassinated. He stood for the principles that they admired and while his untimely death was traumatic, it doesn’t define the reasons why he is popular, even to this day. If doubt that is the only thing you remember him for, but I am a very big student of history and he was a big part of it during that turbulent decade. So, what you “suggested” is way out of line and has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
Posted by: Gary | April 8, 2009, 5:32 pm 5:32 pm
Gary, unless you’re just in this “for exercise”, I would prefer to put it to rest. I thoroughly reviewed our discussion (from your start @ Gary | Apr 3, 2009 10:08:50 AM) and I did not find a hint of any reference you made re: Bobby Kennedy, until your 1:10:13PM statement, which we are still discussing. Therefore, my charge that you made a “reckless Suggestion” stands. But I do accept your after-the-fact explanation of what you MEANT!
But with your explanation you cleaverly weave-in; “The fact that (you, bobj72) “tried” to insinuate that I want the President assassinated, tells me that you are incapable of rational thought. A non-bias person “may” have asked me to explain my linkage of Obama to Kennedy, but you just “assumed” the worst, in a desperate attempt to discredit me.” (Are the provocative insinuations and name calling, really necessary?)
Your rosy rhetoric is designed to discredit or otherwise “blunt” your dislike for President Barack Obama. It’s O.K., don’t like the guy. But add to that, your presumption in suggesting I SHOULD HAVE “asked you to explain your linkage of Obama to Kennedy!!!” I didn’t attempt to discredit you…You…. Personally I think you’re an O.K Guy, it’s just your “debate-Style”; see, in the process of your lengthy discussion you overlooked the necessity to “link” your argument to established Facts….. When that happens, you can run the risk of being completely misunderstood, as is the case here. …Facts… now isn’t that “where I came in?” Fact or Opinion….. the difference is……..
Posted by: bobj72 | April 8, 2009, 7:37 pm 7:37 pm
bobj72: First, it’s not that I don’t like President Obama…I just disagree with “some” of his policy decisions, especially since there is no checks-and-balances with his party in virtual total control of Congress. He talked down the economy, scaring everyone with his comments that we are in the worst economic situation since the Great Depression (which caused most Americans to limit or stop spending on non-essentials, paniced markets around the world, etc), just so he could ram his economic stimulus package through Congress with almost no time for review. Then, after he signed the legislation into law, he began talking up the economy…but the damage was already done and now he and his advisers are finding it difficult to get things going again. On the national security front, he can’t get our allies to commit more to resources to help fight terrorism, even though other nations (ie, Spain, England, Pakistan, India, Indonesia and others) have suffered major terrorist attacks on their soil since 9/11. Now, I don’t blame him for the lack of will on the part of other nations. And while I think President Bush did a horrible job of working with other nations and being less abrasive in his speeches, he isn’t responsible for the apathy of Europe to do more over the past several decades, either. It may take a massive attack there to get them engaged, but we need to do what we have to do to protect our own vital interests. President Obama’s speech condemning our military and government in his Town Hall Meeting in France last week, calling the abuses at Abu Ghraib Prison in 2003-2004, U.S. policy; instead of the truth, which is a group of individuals acting on their own. Those who believe otherwise, don’t know the truth, and for our President to make such a grievous error makes me question his ability to make sound and timely decisions. I know he doesn’t have a military background, and I don’t think that ‘common sense’ requires the President to have one, but c’mon…this is a major symptom that isn’t going to get better with time. It didn’t with the past two President’s and it won’t get better for this one, either. It’s true, I didn’t vote for President Obama, because I believe Senator John McCain was better prepared for the job (minus Governor Palin or Senator Biden, of course), but I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt once he took office. So far, he has made many decisions that will have long-lasting consequences and he has suggested how he plans to handle several other issues and those concern me just as much, if not more. His overconfidence that he can just “will” his agenda to success is going to come back to haunt him. I have no doubt.
Second, the discussion back on April 3rd didn’t involve Robert Kennedy, but I made the point to explain the parallel between the ideologues of the 60′s movement and today’s version are inspired by what we want to hear, but not grounded in the reality of what is really achievable. We will learn that lesson, but at what price? That is what concerns me and why I have questioned our nations leadership for the past two decades. I don’t see “change” for the better, because those in charge are not prepared for the potential consequences. The severity of those consequences might be minimal, they might be massive, or they may fall somewhere in between…we don’t know, yet. All I do know, is that things will get worse before they get better…but for how long?
You can challenge everything I just wrote, and I encourage others to do so, but don’t expect me to follow along without addressing the “what if’s” and acknowledging the consequences that have to this point been ignored. It’s funny that those who spoke of “speaking truth to power” a few short years ago, are content with following the lies and misrepresentations of today’s power. What goes around, will come around.
Posted by: Gary | April 9, 2009, 1:31 pm 1:31 pm
Gary | Apr 9, 2009 1:31:16 PM
“…What goes around, will come around.”
___________________
Gary, I have a real appreciation for your discussion, with a “slice here-and-there, I agree with almost all of what you’ve proffered. (Opinion, this IS the worst econimic situation since TGD. Question becomes, how do you get that point across, without causing anxiety – that virtually “cut spending off!” It’s my opinion, the Stimulus was a legitimate strategy, put in place by some of the ‘best finance/economic minds’ – and wasn’t the objective of communicating the severity of the economic downturn. The only other major deal, I don’t take issue with, but would add a simple caveate; Abu Ghraib; I do not believe there was any Policy supporting such “mindless behavior” of a few. I do think however, there was a gross lack of direction “from up the chain of command” which essentially created a “no holds barred”, “wink-and-nod approval” for anything that might take place. (“You just can’t have animals running the zoo!) I think you’ve got a good mind, you seem extremely well balanced & fair. (You can become a bit brazen, when angered… you gotta’ watch that! :>)
I contend it’s going to take a collective, bipartisan effort of well-intended intelligent folks to get us all beyond this thing! Gotta’ remember; It’s all about US, We the people of the Greatest Country on Earth, AMERICA!!!
Posted by: bobj72 | April 9, 2009, 7:16 pm 7:16 pm
I believe a stimulus package was necessary, but when about 40% of the $783 Billion doesn’t create jobs or stimulate the economy…I think it needed a lot of revision. Tens of Billions went to programs that will eventually wind up as campaign funds. The “transparency” of recovery.gov will not show many of the funds going down to the ultimate recipients. The fleecing of future generations has begun and their doesn’t appear to be a cap on how much can be borrowed. The Trillions already borrowed will never be repaid and Congress is writing the bill for another package of equal or greater value…and the only thing that stands in their way (at this point in time), are a couple of Republican Senators.
I’m also concerned that the unemployment rate will continue to grow, as the wealthy are increasingly taxed to support the growing number of welfare recipients. The reason the President’s plan to “redistribute wealth” will fail, is because he can’t legislate attitude. Increase the taxes on the rich, they will raise prices on average Americans to compensate. Raise taxes on small business owners, and they will be forced to cut the labor force (and do more with less) to sustain a survivable profit margin.
If we are to get the economy growing again AND create the 3.5 million jobs the President promised by 2012, he and lawmakers in Congress must regain the public trust by overhauling business practices, like allowing banks to become “too big to fail,” eliminating bailouts (ie, safety nets that encourage financial mismanagement) and require failed businesses to go under and be replaced by those that know the consequences for failure. For the President to fire a CEO of a Bank or any business, is way out of line. The message that sent was that the President used our taxpayer money to buy a major corporation and now he runs it. I find that to be anti-American, because it violates the workings of a Free Market system. No President should have such power and the ability to abuse it. He makes it sound legit, but undermining our economic core values and softening the American spirit of competition, will only create more problems than it solves. I believe that corporate greed has created this crisis, but now government regulation will worsen it. The road to recovery is a long ways away. This script isn’t new, but it’s new to modern America.
As for Abu Ghraib…the chain of command was eventually held responsible for the lack of oversight, but the more serious offenses, like guards videotaping themselves having sex in front of the prisoners, never would have been condoned by anyone in the chain of command, since it doesn’t measure up to any method for extracting information. These sadistic individuals were perverted and violated Army policy. I also know people who handled enemy combatants during Desert Storm, Somalia and the current war in Iraq…and they explained how senseless the accusations that the chain of command (all the way to the President) could have authorized, or even accepted such abuses, then allowing them to videotape it to take home and use to embarrass us in front of the world. Common sense doesn’t support the desire to “blame Bush” or fuel anti-war sentiment. The media, for it’s part, largely downplayed the truth and sought to promote the juicier story for ratings and sales. I think we will have to wait decades for the truth to emerge, but eventually, it will. Historians tend to correct the errors of the times…but far too late.
I hope I bi-partisan America emerges to get us beyond our current economic crisis and our foreign policy threats from Global Terrorism, China, Russia and Iran. That’s a lot for one decade…I just hope we are up for the challenge, like the “Greatest Generation.”
Posted by: Gary | April 9, 2009, 10:37 pm 10:37 pm