Obama - Where's the change?

[phirang]

Re: Obama - Where's the change?

Obama is a salesman, and anyone who fell for it was naive.

I did, briefly, think he had some promise, but then I quickly realized Citigroup and Goldman owned his ass.

[antiserf]

Re: Obama - Where's the change?

I'm not exactly sure why some consider the restoration of habius corpus ( a fundamental principle of modern democracy for over 700 years) as a trivial event.
Or the banning of torture, something the international community considers a war crime, is a symbolic act.

But other than that, do you think if the recovery bill is not passed and we do nothing, the recession will get better?

It's early, but Obama's actions are more ambiguous than you might believe.

Obama Endorses Bush Secrecy On Torture And Rendition (2/4/2009)
...
The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union:
"Hope is flickering. The Obama administration's position is not change. It is more of the same. This represents a complete turn-around and undermining of the restoration of the rule of law. The new American administration shouldn't be complicit in hiding the abuses of its predecessors."
...

http://aclu.org/safefree/torture/38662prs20090204.html

[Slimprofits]

Re: Obama - Where's the change?

Members of economic recovery board:

1. William H. Donaldson, former Chairman, SEC
2. Roger W. Ferguson, Jr., President & CEO, TIAA-CREF
3. Robert Wolf, Chairman & CEO, UBS Group Americas
4. David F. Swensen, CIO, Yale University
5. Mark T. Gallogly, Founder & Managing Partner, Centerbridge Partners L.P.
6. Penny Pritzker, Chairman & Founder, Pritzker Realty Group
7. John Doerr, Partner, Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers
8. Jim Owens, Chairman and CEO, Caterpillar Inc.
9. Monica C. Lozano, Publisher & Chief Executive Officer, La Opinion
10. Charles E. Phillips, Jr., President, Oracle Corporation
11. Anna Burger, Secretary-Treasurer, SEIU
12. Richard L. Trumka, Secretary-Treasurer, AFL-CIO
13. Laura D'Andrea Tyson, Dean, Haas School of Business at the University of California at Berkeley
14. Martin Feldstein, George F. Baker Professor of Economics, Harvard University
15. Jeffrey R. Immelt, CEO, GE

source: abcnews.com blogs

********

Lots of conflict here. Tall Paul is Tall Paul. Austan Goolsbee is "part of a new breed at the University of Chicago's famed economics school." Markopolos praised Donaldson for his performance at SEC. Penny Pritzker was an Obama bagwoman during the campaign and is connected to the subprime debacle through Superior Bank. Wolf was a bagman during the campaign. Tyson is a FIRE economy apologist - we heard plenty from her at Davos. Ferguson is from the Fed and the CFR, Greenspan pushed for his appointment and as vice chairman at the Fed, he "was also engaged in banking regulatory, financial stability and payments systems matters." Mark Gallogly is a Democrat party bagman. John Doerr is big on ALT-E. Lozano is among other things, on the board of directors at Bank of America and the National Council of La Raza. Phillips is another huge Democrat party fundraiser/contributor. Burger and Trumka campaigned for Obama. Feldstein was on the board of AIG for a while, also the runner up to Bernanke.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Obama - Where's the change?

Here's the change (got this from a right-winger this A.M.)

[we_are_toast]

Re: Obama - Where's the change?

Members of economic recovery board:

1. William H. Donaldson, former Chairman, SEC
2. Roger W. Ferguson, Jr., President & CEO, TIAA-CREF
3. Robert Wolf, Chairman & CEO, UBS Group Americas
4. David F. Swensen, CIO, Yale University
5. Mark T. Gallogly, Founder & Managing Partner, Centerbridge Partners L.P.
6. Penny Pritzker, Chairman & Founder, Pritzker Realty Group
7. John Doerr, Partner, Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers
8. Jim Owens, Chairman and CEO, Caterpillar Inc.
9. Monica C. Lozano, Publisher & Chief Executive Officer, La Opinion
10. Charles E. Phillips, Jr., President, Oracle Corporation
11. Anna Burger, Secretary-Treasurer, SEIU
12. Richard L. Trumka, Secretary-Treasurer, AFL-CIO
13. Laura D'Andrea Tyson, Dean, Haas School of Business at the University of California at Berkeley
14. Martin Feldstein, George F. Baker Professor of Economics, Harvard University
15. Jeffrey R. Immelt, CEO, GE

source: abcnews.com blogs

********

Lots of conflict here. Tall Paul is Tall Paul. Austan Goolsbee is "part of a new breed at the University of Chicago's famed economics school." Markopolos praised Donaldson for his performance at SEC. Penny Pritzker was an Obama bagwoman during the campaign and is connected to the subprime debacle through Superior Bank. Wolf was a bagman during the campaign. Tyson is a FIRE economy apologist - we heard plenty from her at Davos. Ferguson is from the Fed and the CFR, Greenspan pushed for his appointment and as vice chairman at the Fed, he "was also engaged in banking regulatory, financial stability and payments systems matters." Mark Gallogly is a Democrat party bagman. John Doerr is big on ALT-E. Lozano is among other things, on the board of directors at Bank of America and the National Council of La Raza. Phillips is another huge Democrat party fundraiser/contributor. Burger and Trumka campaigned for Obama. Feldstein was on the board of AIG for a while, also the runner up to Bernanke.

This looks pretty disappointing. It looks more political than useful. By the time they reach a compromise, whatever they come up with will have little or no impact. Volcker's group is out. We're now down to influence by outsiders, or a "seen the light" experience by Summers or Geithner.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Obama - Where's the change?

Toast - Larry freakin' Summers is one of the architects. Don't bet on an ephinany.

[Master Shake]

Re: Obama - Where's the change?

OMG! The economy is in the midst of the biggest crash in maybe it's history due to horrible mistakes over the past 25 years, and President Obama hasn't rid the country of all it's debt, restored everyone's job, and pulled the fossil fuel needle out of the country's arm in his 1st 2 weeks in office!!:eek:

It appears the iTulip community is a better reflection of the U.S. population as a whole than what I had thought.

Outside of the economy, President Obama is doing exactly what needs to be done to reverse the horrendous mistakes of the past. He is more than impressing me with what he's doing and how fast he is learning.

It appears there are 3 economic groups fighting for influence within the white house. The insiders, Summers/Geithner/G.S., those out on the porch, Volcker and the outside group he is supposed to be assembling, and the outsiders with a voice, Buffet/Soros/others... There already appears to be tension between the insiders and Volcker.

I find some of the events of the past week to be very interesting. Why would President Obama build such a structure? Why not just listen to what Summers/Geithner say and do what they suggest? Why reach to the outside? The bad bank idea is probably a favorite of the insiders, and could probably get bipartisan support. Where is it? Why is it being delayed?

Then there's the recovery plan. The 30% of tax cuts was an olive branch to an opposition party where a tax cut is the solution to every economic problem. But after no bipartisan support in the house and maybe none in the senate, we have the Washington post op-ed piece today. This indicates he now understands the opposition and he will go directly to the public for support rather than compromise everything away.

It appears President Obama does not know the best way to recover from the depression, but he's has opened the door to all possibilities. The insiders will get much of what they want in the 1st round, but the president will soon realize it's failure. The Goldman Sach's group will soon become irrelevant and Summers may be the 1st to go in the administration. The porch group and outsider group may combine to propose something that will take most economists by surprise. Maybe debt forgiveness?

After seeing the 1st 2 weeks of the new administration, I am more hopeful than I have been in some time. Not that solutions will be immediate, but the process is in place that will eventually arrive at working solutions that will slowly but surely lead us out of this disaster. The one think I am still waiting for, is the speech that calls for sacrifice from the American public.

It took 25 years and plenty of mistakes to get into this mess, it'll take more than 2 weeks and more than a few mistakes to get out.

Spoken like a true Obamessiah Kool-Aid drinker.

One thing he could do is show some leadership and not delegate the writing of this pork-laden "stimulus" bill to the Pelosi's and Reid's of the world.

He's just an empty suit with a better vocabulary and demeanor than the previous moron who occupied the office.

[metalman]

Re: Obama - Where's the change?

Spoken like a true Obamessiah Kool-Aid drinker.

One thing he could do is show some leadership and not delegate the writing of this pork-laden "stimulus" bill to the Pelosi's and Reid's of the world.

He's just an empty suit with a better vocabulary and demeanor than the previous moron who occupied the office.

who does obama really work for?

[skidder]

Re: Obama - Where's the change?

Originally Posted by pwcmba 2) I am interested to solicate from the itulip world where they would move (country) if not bound by any constrant like family, job, etc.. I guess my specific interest is in social/government stability, personal freedom, property rights, etc.. Not just a quick answer like a private island

Not so fast there! Consider New Hampshire. Let me fill you in on what I spent the last couple of days on. Tuesday I read about a resolution submitted to the state relations committee, HCR-6, that went to public comment yesterday the 5th.
Here it is: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legi...9/HCR0006.html

Here's the intro: "

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nine

A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.
Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 1, Article 7 declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled; and
Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 2, Article 1 declares that the people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or State, by the name of The State of New Hampshire; and
Whereas the State of New Hampshire when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, “First That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised;” and
Whereas the other States that included recommendations, to wit Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia, included an identical or similar recommended change; and
Whereas these recommended changes were incorporated as the ninth amendment, the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and the tenth amendment, the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, to the Constitution for the United States of America; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:
That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, -- delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress; and
That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory; and"....


Here's the money shot:"
That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:
I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.
II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.
V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.
VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and
That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government; and
That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the house clerk to the President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress, and the presiding officers of each State’s legislature"

So, I spent wednesday contacting every member of that committee as well as many other state representatives urging their support. I then drove the 2 hrs down to Concord yesterday where it was standing room only.
I managed to get right up front, about 8 feet from the speakers table, to hear each representative state the case for this resolution.
I heard "revolution", "depression", and "state's rights" many times, these terms being used by state elected representatives. There was not one case made against the resolution. It was like watching history being made, very strange but electric feeling in the air. The room was over flowing and people are pissed but in a "let's change this" kind of way. I know this will pass the committee and perhaps even make it through the general vote. The rubber meets the road when the decision has to be made to actually declare Federal laws null and void in NH.
I spent this morning composing a letter and sending that to each state senator.
Oh, many speakers mentioned that they have never had such a response to a resolution before and have had lots of interview requests, many from overseas. This is getting traction, you just won't read about it in the MSM.

[FRED]

Re: Obama - Where's the change?

If you have any photos from the event we'd like to run this, with your permission, as a guest story.

[skidder]

Re: Obama - Where's the change?

I'm sorry I didn't get any but I'll write to one of the representatives I've been corresponding with, he may be able to get one for me.
There was a tape made and a couple of hand camera's so there are photos somewhere. You are welcome to use this any way that you feel is appropriate.

[skidder]

Re: Obama - Where's the change?

Also, I'm not much of a writer so if you are including any of my commentary feel free to edit where necessary, you won't offend me

[FRED]

Re: Obama - Where's the change?

Also, I'm not much of a writer so if you are including any of my commentary feel free to edit where necessary, you won't offend me

Thank you!

[GRG55]

Re: Obama - Where's the change?

paul volcker is complaining opening and in public... does that suggest to you obama has concocted a clever strategy to make it look like the outsider is getting bricked by the insiders?

volcker's a politician... a good one. going public with these frustrations -- making his boss look bad -- is thing a guy like him does after exhausing every other option. so everyone understands why he quits if he quits.

remember... obama was a senator. he's never run anything. that means his team is running him... and his team is insiders.

i'll put 50/50 odds at best that volcker stays long enough to get this outsider team together.

do you buy into the idea that obama has a first wave/second wave strategy... let the insiders fail then bring in the outsiders? how long does he need to give the insiders before they have officially failed? how long did rumsfed get on iraq? quite a few years. how do you think the usa econ will be doing in a few years at the this rate?

no, he had one chance... hire the outsiders from the start.

he blew it. it's already over.

Isn't it really too early to tell? Politics is the art of the possible. Sometimes it's clear what is the right thing, but it still can't be done because it's the "wrong" timing. To expect the new President to have tackled and solved the FIRE economy in two weeks is a bit much, isn't it?

Some of the best leaders I ever worked for deliberately cultivated conflict in their organizations. It can be a useful way to keep everyone honest, because instead of the leader being responsible for figuring out what is BS, everyone is scrutinizing everyone else...and talking about it. Think of it as "real time", continuous peer review.

[GRG55]

Re: Obama - Where's the change?

Originally Posted by pwcmba 2) I am interested to solicate from the itulip world where they would move (country) if not bound by any constrant like family, job, etc.. I guess my specific interest is in social/government stability, personal freedom, property rights, etc.. Not just a quick answer like a private island

Not so fast there! Consider New Hampshire. Let me fill you in on what I spent the last couple of days on. Tuesday I read about a resolution submitted to the state relations committee, HCR-6, that went to public comment yesterday the 5th.
Here it is: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legi...9/HCR0006.html

Here's the intro: "

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nine

A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.
Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 1, Article 7 declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled; and
Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 2, Article 1 declares that the people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or State, by the name of The State of New Hampshire; and
Whereas the State of New Hampshire when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, “First That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised;” and
Whereas the other States that included recommendations, to wit Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia, included an identical or similar recommended change; and
Whereas these recommended changes were incorporated as the ninth amendment, the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and the tenth amendment, the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, to the Constitution for the United States of America; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:
That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, -- delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress; and
That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory; and"....


Here's the money shot:"
That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:
I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.
II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.
V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.
VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and
That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government; and
That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the house clerk to the President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress, and the presiding officers of each State’s legislature"

So, I spent wednesday contacting every member of that committee as well as many other state representatives urging their support. I then drove the 2 hrs down to Concord yesterday where it was standing room only.
I managed to get right up front, about 8 feet from the speakers table, to hear each representative state the case for this resolution.
I heard "revolution", "depression", and "state's rights" many times, these terms being used by state elected representatives. There was not one case made against the resolution. It was like watching history being made, very strange but electric feeling in the air. The room was over flowing and people are pissed but in a "let's change this" kind of way. I know this will pass the committee and perhaps even make it through the general vote. The rubber meets the road when the decision has to be made to actually declare Federal laws null and void in NH.
I spent this morning composing a letter and sending that to each state senator.
Oh, many speakers mentioned that they have never had such a response to a resolution before and have had lots of interview requests, many from overseas. This is getting traction, you just won't read about it in the MSM.

Well, well. Sounds like some of you good folks are finally taking back your Republic.

Thanks for the front-line report. Much appreciated!