Topic: Another Reason to Drop Obama
started by: Stone-Magnon
Posted by Stone-Magnon on Aug. 16 2011,4:51 am
Chamber director meets ObamaPublished 4:54pm Monday, August 15, 2011
Email Comments
CANNON FALLS — Albert Lea-Freeborn County Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Randy Kehr got the rare chance Monday to shake hands with the president and introduce himself prior to the town-hall meeting.
Kehr said he was invited by 1st District Congressman Tim Walz to meet briefly with President Barack Obama prior to the start of the event, along with some other state representatives, the mayor of Cannon Falls, officials from the University of Minnesota and the United States Department of Agriculture.
The local chamber director described the president as a “personable man,” who asked people their names as they shook hands.
Kehr called the meeting a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for him” and said the president’s visit was “a great day for southern Minnesota.”
He was seated to the left of Obama during the event in reserved seating.
“We’ve been talking here in Minnesota about the need for compromise — he echoed that on a national level,” Kehr said. “Hopefully people will get the message that compromise is good — it’s not a dirty word.”
Email Comments
Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 22 2011,11:05 am
QUOTE
Another Reason to Drop Obama
< Obama drops >
Posted by Santorini on Aug. 22 2011,11:27 am
It was only a matter of time!!!
Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 22 2011,2:10 pm
Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 23 2011,4:38 pm
QUOTE
He was seated to the left of Obama
To the left of Obama? Who would be LEFT OF OBAMA?
Bill Ayers? Leon Trotsky? Lenin? Marx? Liberal?
I'm amused by these "Town Hall meetings". They are less about "gathering information" and more about "photo opportunities." Did anybody hear ANYTHING critical of "The Messiah"--despite his high unfavorability ratings?
Would you guess that the deck was stacked?
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 23 2011,6:34 pm
QUOTE
Would you guess that the deck was stacked?
Shouldn't you be hanging out at WND with the rest of the unhinged right wing loons?
Maybe the mainstream media was just too busy reporting on the republitards having the lowest approval rating in 20years? These days more people approve of the teabaggers than you republitards.
Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 24 2011,11:11 am
(Liberal @ Aug. 23 2011,6:34 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Would you guess that the deck was stacked?
Shouldn't you be hanging out at WND with the rest of the unhinged right wing loons?
Maybe the mainstream media was just too busy reporting on the republitards having the lowest approval rating in 20years? These days more people approve of the teabaggers than you republitards.
Leave it to Libbie to deflect the issue.
I merely mentioned that the deck was stacked--that far from being a "Town Hall Meeting" where Obummer would LEARN that the American voters DON'T like his policies--the reality was that it was only a campaign appearance. Another lie from the guy that makes Bill Clinton look like a paragon of truth!
True to liberal fashion, Libbie goes into high speed wobble--unable to defend the record of his President, he turns instead to attack mode.
QUOTE
Shouldn't you be hanging out at WND with the rest of the unhinged right wing loons?
Well, Libbie, is it NOT true that the Obamunists stacked the deck with his "Town Hall Meeting"? Libbie continues with
QUOTE
Maybe the mainstream media was just too busy reporting on the republitards having the lowest approval rating in 20years?
You must have been reading the DAILY KOS/SEIU poll. Time to bring you back to reality. If the Repubs were REALLY at a 20 year low, they wouldn't have waxed the Donks so badly in the election held just 9 months ago.
If the Repubs were REALLY that low, Obambi wouldn't have such horrible poll numbers.
If the Repubs were REALLY that low, Oblahblah wouldn't be 5 points behind "generic republican" today null< My Webpage >
And the Repub lead is INCREASING--see chart at the right. So much for "lowest in 20 years".
If Repubs were REALLY that low, "Generic Repubs" wouldn't be 12 points ahead of "Generic Donks" on a Congressional ballot with voters. < My Webpage >
Note again that the lead is INCREASING.
REALLY, Libbie--I know it HAS TO HURT to have your ideas rejected so badly--but you need to get out more and read something besides Daily Kos!
Posted by Santorini on Aug. 24 2011,11:25 am
(Liberal @ Aug. 23 2011,6:34 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Would you guess that the deck was stacked?
Shouldn't you be hanging out at WND with the rest of the unhinged right wing loons?
Maybe the mainstream media was just too busy reporting on the republitards having the lowest approval rating in 20years? These days more people approve of the teabaggers than you republitards.
Is it the republicans that have the lowest approval rating? or Congress?
At last count there were 242 Republicans to 193 Dems in the House and 51 Dems to 47 Republicans in the Senate!
You are right about the Tea Party! and you guys all thought they were weak...
These days more people approve of the [teabaggers than you republictards]...Who do you think make up the Tea Party?
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 24 2011,12:09 pm
QUOTE
Who do you think make up the Tea Party?
The far right wing loons, mostly the mentally ill, the senile, and the stupid. Guess which one your are.
Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 24 2011,1:28 pm
(Liberal @ Aug. 24 2011,12:09 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Who do you think make up the Tea Party?
The far right wing loons, mostly the mentally ill, the senile, and the stupid. Guess which one your are.
If you can't argue the FACTS--go after personal attacks--Liberal.
Right out of Rules For Radicals--by Obama's mentor, Saul Alinski
QUOTE
Rules for Power Tactics:
1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
It explains a lot about the Far Left in general--about the current occupant of the White House (when he's not on vacation or playing golf) and our own Libbie.
"Don't try to defend your own actions or inactions--BLAME BUSH--BLAME THE REPUBLICANS, BLAME THE TEA PARTY, BLAME THE JAPANESE TSUNAMI."
And they wonder why only the Far Left buys into their "hopey-changy" rhetoric any more?
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 24 2011,1:46 pm
I think I heard Glenn Beck saying that a couple weeks ago.QUOTE
A new CNN poll released today found that voters are angry and they are taking out their anger on John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and the entire Republican Party.
The CNN poll found that John Boehner’s approval rating has fallen off a cliff. In July, Boehner had a 43% favorable rating and a 32% unfavorable rating, (net +11). After the debt ceiling debacle the numbers have reversed. Boehner now has a 33% favorable rating, and 40% unfavorable rating. The Speaker of the House has gone from a plus eleven to a net minus seven. That is an 18 point negative swing in one month.
In contrast, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi has one from a 35% approval rating to 31% approval rating, and a her disapproval rating moved down a point from 52% to 51%. The loss for Pelosi was only a net three points.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnel didn’t fare much better than Boehner. McConnell’s favorable rating dropped from 27% to 21%. His unfavorable rating grew from 32% to 39%. In July McConnell’s net favorable rating was at a (-5), today his net negative is (-18). McConnell suffered a net thirteen point negative swing in a month.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid saw his favorable rating stay nearly the same. His favorable rating was 29% in July. It is now 28%. His unfavorable rating moved from 37%-39%. Reid’s net approval rating was (-8). It has increased slightly to (-11). The change in Reid’s numbers was within the poll’s margin of error, so his favorability can be considered unchanged.
The Republican Party itself now has a 33% favorable rating and a 59% unfavorable rating. In July the GOP had a 41% favorable rating and a 55% unfavorable rating. Republicans lost 8 points off of their favorable rating, and gained 4 points in unfavorability. The end result is a net (-12) swing in their numbers.
The Tea Party mirrored the Republican Party’s decline. In July, they had a 37% favorable rating and a 47% unfavorable rating. After pushing the country to the brink of default, they now have a 31% favorable rating and a 51% unfavorable rating. This is net (-10) point swing in their favorability.
On the flip side, the Democratic Party has a 47% favorable rating and a 47% unfavorable rating. In July the Democrats had 45% favorable rating and a 49% unfavorable rating. The party of Obama’s favorables went up by two points, and their unfavorable went down by two points for a net four point gain. The Democratic Party was the news maker to gain in favorability.
< http://www.politicususa.com/en/downgrade-gop-approval >
Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 24 2011,8:04 pm
(jimhanson @ Aug. 24 2011,1:28 pm)
QUOTE
Right out of Rules For Radicals--by Obama's mentor, Saul Alinski
You've quoted him quite a few times on this forum. In fact, I've never even heard of the book other than from you. Which makes me wonder, isn't there some irony that you keep accusing others of reading a book that you've clearly not only read, but seem to have memorized.
So, why exactly are you so familiar with Rules for Radicals?
QUOTE
To the left of Obama? Who would be LEFT OF OBAMA?
The repub spin machine has always tried to make Obama look like a radical liberal, that's what they always do. And yet Obama continues the wars, continues on with the republicans vision of cutting taxes for the
If you really think about all these things, only the people who are far right can view Obama as being a radical liberal, because he simply is not.
QUOTE
I'm amused by these "Town Hall meetings". They are less about "gathering information" and more about "photo opportunities." Did anybody hear ANYTHING critical of "The Messiah"--despite his high unfavorability ratings?
Having teleprompters and cameras around at public functions where the President is can't be considered new to this Administration. I don't remember any forum member being this critical of photo ops, teleprompters, or birth certificates until Obama took the Oath.
The conservatives weren't too critical of huge budgets, bailouts, or entitlements not too long ago either. Now Richard Armey and the Koch brothers have got them in a frenzy.
Posted by alcitizens on Aug. 25 2011,1:18 am
(irisheyes @ Aug. 24 2011,8:04 pm)
QUOTE
The repub spin machine has always tried to make Obama look like a radical liberal, that's what they always do. And yet Obama continues the wars, continues on with the republicans vision of cutting taxes for the rich job creators (are they still job creators, even though they don't create jobs in THIS country?), and Boehner even says Obama signs a budget that gave repubs 98% of what they wanted. We've still got drone strikes in countries we're not even at war with. Hell, he even gave the order to kill Bin Laden.
If you really think about all these things, only the people who are far right can view Obama as being a radical liberal, because he simply is not.
If you really think about all these things, only the people who are far right can view Obama as being a radical liberal, because he simply is not.
Hallelujah!!
For Republicans, that big word means to praise..
Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 25 2011,10:29 am
Irish doesn't think that Obambi is a liberal. QUOTE
If you really think about all these things, only the people who are far right can view Obama as being a radical liberal, because he simply is not.
NYT (hardly a conservative newspaper) call him "the most liberal senator."
Obambi nationalized banks.
Obambi nationalized car companies.
Obambi spent the largest "stimulus" in US history (to no avail)
Obambi created the largest deficit in US history.
Obambi is nationalizing the largest single share of the US economy--the health care industry (at least until it is declared unconstitutional).
His policies are SO RADICAL that the majority of the states are challenging them in Federal court.
He has presided in the largest growth of government since FDR--even more than LBJ.
He is an avowed "redistributor" of wealth--that's "take money from those who earn it, and give it to those who don't"
He is a supporter of liberal causes, like ACORN and SEIU. In turn, he is by far the largest recipient of campaign money from these liberal groups. (If he WASN'T as libbie, why would all these far-left groups support him?)
He follows the liberal orthodoxy of increased spending on ineffective social programs at the expense of defense.
He has CREATED jobs--IN THE GOVERNMENT.
Look at the radical people he consorts with--Bill Ayers, Bernadette Dohrn, Rev. Wright, his socialist Czars.
He has followed libbie dictum in refusing to enforce immigration laws--something that he took an oath to do.
Only an observer that reveres Karl Marx could consider him non-liberal. And you wonder why his poll numbers are in freefall?
Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 25 2011,10:40 am
Jim QUOTE
I'm amused by these "Town Hall meetings". They are less about "gathering information" and more about "photo opportunities." Did anybody hear ANYTHING critical of "The Messiah"--despite his high unfavorability ratings?
Irish--
QUOTE
Having teleprompters and cameras around at public functions where the President is can't be considered new to this Administration. I don't remember any forum member being this critical of photo ops, teleprompters, or birth certificates until Obama took the Oath.
Yes, he IS "the TelePrompter President" (ever see him when he DOESN'T have one?)
but that wasn't my point. If you are going to CALL it a "Town Hall Meeting", then it should BE a Town Hall meeting--where people get to speak their piece. That didn't happen, did it? This wasn't about birth certificates and teleprompters--getting a little DEFENSIVE, are you? QUOTE
The conservatives weren't too critical of huge budgets, bailouts, or entitlements not too long ago either. Now Richard Armey and the Koch brothers have got them in a frenzy.
Typical libbie response--a juvenile "Well, HE did it!"Don't confuse conservatives with Repubs. The Bushs were no conservatives. Ford was not a conservative. Nixon, with wage and price controls, was DEFINITELY not a conservative. Goldwater was a conservative, as was Reagan.
"Armey and the Kock Brothers"? Who ever HEARD of the Koch Brothers until the libbies got their panties in a wad in Wisconsin over making government employees contribute to their health and pension plans--just as private industry employees do?
It is yet another example of libbie hypocrisy--they passed Obamacare and Socialist Security--FORCING every employee to pay for health and retirement--then OPPOSE making government employees do the very same thing.
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 25 2011,11:12 am
QUOTE
Obambi nationalized banks.
Obambi nationalized car companies.
I made it that far, and realized that I'm reading more crap from a dittohead.
Posted by ThirdParty on Aug. 25 2011,5:16 pm
Ah, how refreshing. Hammered point by point again, and all he's got is name calling. Almost to the 9000 post mark, ahead of schedule and still very few if any original threads, only counterpunches.
Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 25 2011,5:44 pm
QUOTE
You've quoted him quite a few times on this forum. In fact, I've never even heard of the book other than from you. Which makes me wonder, isn't there some irony that you keep accusing others of reading a book that you've clearly not only read, but seem to have memorized.
So, why exactly are you so familiar with Rules for Radicals?
So, why exactly are you so familiar with Rules for Radicals?
Do you not think it is wise to know your enemies, Grasshopper?
Perhaps if MORE people had looked at the Obama/Alinsky connection, they would have understood just how far left the Alinsky/Obama is.
Alinsky was ALSO a "Community Organizer"--and a mentor to Obama. From the lefty Washington Post < My Webpage >
Note that Alinsky was studied by ANOTHER Chicago lefty--Hillary Rodham.
None other than Alinksky's own son said that "Obama has learned his lessons well" < My Webpage >
Both Barry and Michelle quoted Alinsky < My Webpage >
How about this description of the connection between Barry Soetoro (Obama) and Alinsky? From the same source--
QUOTE
His creed was set out in his book 'Rules for Radicals' - a book he dedicated to Lucifer, whom he called the 'first radical'. It was Alinsky for whom 'change' was his mantra. And by 'change', he meant a Marxist revolution achieved by slow, incremental, Machiavellian means which turned society inside out. This had to be done through systematic deception, winning the trust of the naively idealistic middle class by using the language of morality to conceal an agenda designed to destroy it. And the way to do this, he said, was through 'people's organisations'. In FrontPageMagazine.Com John Perazzo writes:
These People's Organizations were to be composed largely of discontented individuals who believed that society was replete with injustices that prevented them from being able to live satisfying lives. Such organizations, Alinsky advised, should not be imported from the outside into a community, but rather should be staffed by locals who, with some guidance from trained radical organizers, could set their own agendas.
The installment of local leaders as the top-level officers of People's Organizations helped give the organizations credibility and authenticity in the eyes of the community. This tactic closely paralleled the longtime Communist Party strategy of creating front organizations that ostensibly were led by non-communist fellow-travelers, but which were in fact controlled by Party members behind the scenes...
Alinsky viewed as supremely important the role of the organizer, or master manipulator, whose guidance was responsible for setting the agendas of the People's Organization... Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers and the People's Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, 'must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.
These People's Organizations were to be composed largely of discontented individuals who believed that society was replete with injustices that prevented them from being able to live satisfying lives. Such organizations, Alinsky advised, should not be imported from the outside into a community, but rather should be staffed by locals who, with some guidance from trained radical organizers, could set their own agendas.
The installment of local leaders as the top-level officers of People's Organizations helped give the organizations credibility and authenticity in the eyes of the community. This tactic closely paralleled the longtime Communist Party strategy of creating front organizations that ostensibly were led by non-communist fellow-travelers, but which were in fact controlled by Party members behind the scenes...
Alinsky viewed as supremely important the role of the organizer, or master manipulator, whose guidance was responsible for setting the agendas of the People's Organization... Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers and the People's Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, 'must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.
Read the Rules for Radicals again. It is the politics of not of "Organizing", but of "Agitation."
Look no further than that screed to find out why personal attacks have become the norm from the radicals.
Alinsky's tactics worked for the 1960s radical groups--Black Panthers, Weather Underground, Nation of Islam, Students for a Democratic Society, Youth International Party (Yippees).
It worked for Jerry Rubin, Stokely Carmichael, Abbie Hoffman, Bobby Seale, Tom Hayden, Jane Fonda, Symbionese Liberation Army, and the Berrigan Bros.
It worked for Bill Ayers, Bernadette Dohrn, Rev. Wright, Louis Farakhan in the 1990s and 2000s.
And it worked for the CURRENT "Community
Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 25 2011,6:19 pm
LibbieDid Obama NOT nationalize banks?
Did Obambi NOT nationalize Chrysler and GM?
Did Oblahblah NOT nationalize 1/6 of the economy of the US--healthcare?
Did the Messiah NOT spend the largest "stimulus" in US history?
Did "The ONE" NOT create the largest deficit in US history?
Did Obummer NOT preside over the largest growth of government since FDR?
Is it NOT true that Obama proposes that Government take money from those that earn it, and give it to those that don't?
Is it NOT true that the majority of the states have found his Obamacare so reprehensible that they have challenged it on Constitutional grounds?
Is it NOT true that he not only was supported by disgraced organizations like ACORN and SEIU--but that he supported THEM in return?
Is it NOT true that Obama advocates for more social spending, at the expense of defense?
Is it NOT true that he has created jobs--IN THE GOVERNMENT?
Is it NOT true that he associates himself with radicals like Bill Ayers, Bernadette Dohrn, Rev. Wright, Green Jobs Czar and avowed Communist Van Jones (since dismissed), Kevin Jennings (a proponent of homosexuality) appointed as the "Safe School Czar"--and recently, Jeffery Immelt--head of GE--who recently moved two of GE's companies to CHINA--as "Jobs Czar".
Is it NOT true that Obambi has refused to enforce laws--from prosecution of the Black Panthers (caught on tape intimidating voters at the polls), "Sanctuary Cities" (refusal to prosecute illegals already picked up) and immigration laws--in violation of his oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States"?
How about a discussion of the FACTS, rather than EMOTION? It reminds me of the Lee Marvin line in "Dirty Dozen"
QUOTE
Before I met you I thought you were cold and unimaginative. Now I see you're quite... emotional."
Of course, if you look at FACTS, it is HARD TO BE A LIBERAL.
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 25 2011,7:15 pm
QUOTE
Did Obama NOT nationalize banks?
Did Obambi NOT nationalize Chrysler and GM?
Once again, I only made it this far. Not even FOX news would make up such an outrageous lie. In fact Corndog Bachmann tried saying that same crap to Wallace and he shot her down by pointing out that Bush bailed out the banks and AIG.
We really need a clown emoticon for these right wing loons.
Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 30 2011,5:06 pm
Libbie-- QUOTE
Once again, I only made it this far.
See if Hoosier has any extra Attention Deficit Disorder medicine. He's a pretty good guy when he's on his meds.
Maybe if you were able to PAY ATTENTION, you wouldn't BE a liberal!
To paraphrase Red Green--"I'm a LIBERAL, but I can CHANGE, IF I have to--I guess!"
Even Monk is able to get by his irrational phobias.
Now, take a deep breath--ignore the first two questions in the post that you couldn't answer, and focus on the remaining ones!
Posted by hymiebravo on Aug. 31 2011,8:11 am
(Stone-Magnon @ Aug. 16 2011,4:51 am)
QUOTE
Chamber director meets Obama
Published 4:54pm Monday, August 15, 2011
Email Comments
CANNON FALLS — Albert Lea-Freeborn County Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Randy Kehr got the rare chance Monday to shake hands with the president and introduce himself prior to the town-hall meeting.
Kehr said he was invited by 1st District Congressman Tim Walz to meet briefly with President Barack Obama prior to the start of the event, along with some other state representatives, the mayor of Cannon Falls, officials from the University of Minnesota and the United States Department of Agriculture.
The local chamber director described the president as a “personable man,” who asked people their names as they shook hands.
Kehr called the meeting a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for him” and said the president’s visit was “a great day for southern Minnesota.”
He was seated to the left of Obama during the event in reserved seating.
“We’ve been talking here in Minnesota about the need for compromise — he echoed that on a national level,” Kehr said. “Hopefully people will get the message that compromise is good — it’s not a dirty word.”
Email Comments
Published 4:54pm Monday, August 15, 2011
Email Comments
CANNON FALLS — Albert Lea-Freeborn County Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Randy Kehr got the rare chance Monday to shake hands with the president and introduce himself prior to the town-hall meeting.
Kehr said he was invited by 1st District Congressman Tim Walz to meet briefly with President Barack Obama prior to the start of the event, along with some other state representatives, the mayor of Cannon Falls, officials from the University of Minnesota and the United States Department of Agriculture.
The local chamber director described the president as a “personable man,” who asked people their names as they shook hands.
Kehr called the meeting a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for him” and said the president’s visit was “a great day for southern Minnesota.”
He was seated to the left of Obama during the event in reserved seating.
“We’ve been talking here in Minnesota about the need for compromise — he echoed that on a national level,” Kehr said. “Hopefully people will get the message that compromise is good — it’s not a dirty word.”
Email Comments
Is Krrrr a republican?
It's certainly a lot bigger deal getting close to him now then it was when he was campaigning, in say Iowa, as a potential candidate.
After he leaves office it will become much less of a big deal.
I remember reading something about Harry Truman saying that when he was president everybody in the world wanted to know his thoughts.
Then after he left office people couldn't care less about his thoughts/ideas on matters.
What ever happened to the last guy that was president anyway? lol
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 31 2011,9:45 am
QUOTE
See if Hoosier has any extra Attention Deficit Disorder medicine. He's a pretty good guy when he's on his meds.
I only got that far by choice, I'm not going to read a bunch of lies and then respond to the lies.
You must really be struggling with the senile dementia if you think that Obama bailed out the banks, and nationalized them. It was your hero Bush that bailed out the banks, just like how it was his dad that bailed out his friends in the Savings and Loans scandal.
As far as your delusions about nationalizing the car companies, how many shares of common(voting) stock did the government take when they gave the car industry a bailout? If in your delusional state you think that giving a car company a loan is "nationalizing the company" then I guess we all must have owned Chrysler already since your hero Reagan gave them billions in 80's.
Like I said, it's just more right wing lies from you, but everyone has learned to sort of expect you to just repeat talk radio lies.
Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 31 2011,10:41 am
(Liberal @ Aug. 31 2011,9:45 am)
QUOTE
As far as your delusions about nationalizing the car companies, how many shares of common(voting) stock did the government take when they gave the car industry a bailout?
Gee, I'm not sure if they sold them yet? They filed for an IPO 2 weeks ago sell off its common stock.
QUOTE
Selling stockholders, including the United States Department of the Treasury, are offering shares of our common stock. We are not selling any shares of our common stock in this offering. < SEC form >
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 31 2011,11:07 am
Seriously, you're going to have to try a little harder to keep up. GM filed with the SEC August 18, 2010 to sell common shares. The IPO was last November, and they raised $20 billion.
Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 31 2011,1:07 pm
OK, missed the 2010. I knew they held out selling shares because of the market flux.dated 8/10/11
QUOTE
General Motors to Remain Government Motors?
Submitted by Mark Modica on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 08:02
According to a WSJ report, "people familiar with the situation" said on Tuesday that the Obama Administration has put on hold its decision to sell the taxpayers' stake in General Motors. The article also states that "Treasury officials had anticipated GM's share price would increase following its public stock offering last November at $33 a share." It would seem that Treasury anticipated wrong.
Once again, the Obama Administration is arrogantly assuming that GM share price will recover to above $33 a share in the near future. Or perhaps the administration is not as averse to continuing its intrusion in private industry as it would have us believe. Considering that President Obama is staking a great deal on the recovery of GM regarding his reelection chances, the decision to continue a market timing gamble on the company carries significant risk that the government will try and help GM recover at an ongoing cost to taxpayers.
The Obama Administration has been very generous with tax credits granted to GM. In addition to the approximate $45 billion tax loss carry over credit gifted to GM when it came out of bankruptcy, the Chevy Volt has been funded on the backs of taxpayers. The Volt receives a $7,500 subsidy on every vehicle sold. I'm sure our government has also siphoned taxpayer funds in the form of green initiative grants or loans to GM as well. All for a vehicle that has no mass appeal. Add the expense of government fleet purchases of GM vehicles to the pile of taxpayer cash thrown away on the continuing GM folly.
Also consider the fact that just a few years ago a debate played out on the suggestion that social security assets be invested in equity markets. President Obama was in the camp of those that thought taxpayer assets should not be gambled in the stock market. Why is the president now willing to gamble on the GM taxpayer stake? Will attempts be made to manipulate the stock higher? Why is Treasury so certain GM shares will increase when Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has been so wrong to this point?
Geithner made statements on a Fox Business News interview in April that guaranteed there was no risk of a credit downgrade of US debt. Prior to that, Geithner and cohort Steve Rattner, former Auto Task Force head, boasted that taxpayers should see all of their "investment" in GM returned. After being so wrong on both counts, it is time for Treasury to drop the arrogance that it has displayed from the beginning of its auto industry intrusion. Face it guys, you are not quite as smart as you perceive yourselves to be. It is time to realize that stock markets can go down as well as up and the same holds true for GM share price. A recovery is not a certainty and Treasury should end what has been an ugly chapter in American history. The US taxpayer has no reason to be invested in GM stock. Geithner should accept the fact that he was wrong on the GM gambit and sell now.
Mark Modica is an NLPC Associate Fellow
< National Legal and Policy Center >
Submitted by Mark Modica on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 08:02
According to a WSJ report, "people familiar with the situation" said on Tuesday that the Obama Administration has put on hold its decision to sell the taxpayers' stake in General Motors. The article also states that "Treasury officials had anticipated GM's share price would increase following its public stock offering last November at $33 a share." It would seem that Treasury anticipated wrong.
Once again, the Obama Administration is arrogantly assuming that GM share price will recover to above $33 a share in the near future. Or perhaps the administration is not as averse to continuing its intrusion in private industry as it would have us believe. Considering that President Obama is staking a great deal on the recovery of GM regarding his reelection chances, the decision to continue a market timing gamble on the company carries significant risk that the government will try and help GM recover at an ongoing cost to taxpayers.
The Obama Administration has been very generous with tax credits granted to GM. In addition to the approximate $45 billion tax loss carry over credit gifted to GM when it came out of bankruptcy, the Chevy Volt has been funded on the backs of taxpayers. The Volt receives a $7,500 subsidy on every vehicle sold. I'm sure our government has also siphoned taxpayer funds in the form of green initiative grants or loans to GM as well. All for a vehicle that has no mass appeal. Add the expense of government fleet purchases of GM vehicles to the pile of taxpayer cash thrown away on the continuing GM folly.
Also consider the fact that just a few years ago a debate played out on the suggestion that social security assets be invested in equity markets. President Obama was in the camp of those that thought taxpayer assets should not be gambled in the stock market. Why is the president now willing to gamble on the GM taxpayer stake? Will attempts be made to manipulate the stock higher? Why is Treasury so certain GM shares will increase when Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has been so wrong to this point?
Geithner made statements on a Fox Business News interview in April that guaranteed there was no risk of a credit downgrade of US debt. Prior to that, Geithner and cohort Steve Rattner, former Auto Task Force head, boasted that taxpayers should see all of their "investment" in GM returned. After being so wrong on both counts, it is time for Treasury to drop the arrogance that it has displayed from the beginning of its auto industry intrusion. Face it guys, you are not quite as smart as you perceive yourselves to be. It is time to realize that stock markets can go down as well as up and the same holds true for GM share price. A recovery is not a certainty and Treasury should end what has been an ugly chapter in American history. The US taxpayer has no reason to be invested in GM stock. Geithner should accept the fact that he was wrong on the GM gambit and sell now.
Mark Modica is an NLPC Associate Fellow
< National Legal and Policy Center >
< shares sales put on hold >
Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 31 2011,2:52 pm
Libbie-- QUOTE
I'm not going to read a bunch of lies and then respond to the lies.
Why NOT? Rush, Hannity, Van Sustern, Imus, Levin, Beck, there are LOTS of people that have made a very good living exposing LEFT wing hypocrisy and lies. Libbie--
QUOTE
As far as your delusions about nationalizing the car companies, how many shares of common(voting) stock did the government take when they gave the car industry a bailout?
Bush didn't bail out the car companies--the Obamunists took them over.From Heritage--
QUOTE
Congratulations: If you are a U.S. taxpayer, you will soon be a part owner of a car company.
Under the latest reorganization plan for General Motors, Uncle Sam would take ownership of 72.5 percent of the troubled automaker while providing an additional $30 billion in funds to the company.
The proposed deal would give Washington controlling ownership of a major industrial corporation for the first time since Conrail railroad was sold in 1986. And, along with the pending acquisition of a minority stake in Chrysler, it would represent the first time the U.S. has ever owned an automaker--joining China and several European governments in that club. It is a road less traveled, for good reason, and one America needs to exit.
Government-Directed Bankruptcy
The reorganization plan was filed by the government with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday.[1] At the same time, bankruptcy proceedings for the much smaller Chrysler Corporation are being wound up.
Of course, bankruptcy itself is not necessarily bad news; the process is often the only way for troubled firms to reorganize themselves. The process for General Motors, however--as has that of Chrysler--is to be a government-directed and politically dominated affair, funded largely by tax dollars and creating firms controlled by Washington.
The short drive to bankruptcy and nationalization for Detroit began last December, when GM and Chrysler first accepted bailout money from the government. Both firms were required, as a condition of aid, to prepare detailed plans to return to viability. In March, those plans were flatly rejected by the White House, which (correctly) found the changes being proposed far from sufficient to resolve the problems of the firms.
From that moment on, Washington took over the driver's seat for both firms. To emphasize the point, President Obama took the unusual step of effectively, and unceremoniously, firing GM's chief executive officer Rick Wagoner and half the GM board.
Washington Calling the Shots
Since that time, the federal government has been calling the shots for both automakers. Tellingly, the reorganization plan Chrysler took into bankruptcy was announced not from the firm's Detroit HQ or a courthouse, but from the White House. And creditors who opposed that deal, pointing out that they would get a mere fraction of what the United Autoworkers Union (UAW) would get for its claims, were personally lambasted by the President for their failure to pursue what White House spokesman Robert Gibbs called the "common good."[2] Thanks to government pressure--and billions in additional taxpayer funds--Chrysler is soon expected to emerge from bankruptcy with ownership shared among Italian carmaker Fiat, the UAW, and the federal government.[3]
Now it is GM's turn in court, with a filing expected by June 1. As outlined in the government's SEC filing, current GM bondholders will be offered 10 percent of the firm's stock plus warrants for an additional 15 percent, in return for their $27 billion in claims. The UAW, by contrast--which is owed some $10 billion by GM for health coverage claims--will receive 17.5 percent of the stock, plus another 2.5 percent in warrants and $6.5 billion in preferred shares.
Under the latest reorganization plan for General Motors, Uncle Sam would take ownership of 72.5 percent of the troubled automaker while providing an additional $30 billion in funds to the company.
The proposed deal would give Washington controlling ownership of a major industrial corporation for the first time since Conrail railroad was sold in 1986. And, along with the pending acquisition of a minority stake in Chrysler, it would represent the first time the U.S. has ever owned an automaker--joining China and several European governments in that club. It is a road less traveled, for good reason, and one America needs to exit.
Government-Directed Bankruptcy
The reorganization plan was filed by the government with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday.[1] At the same time, bankruptcy proceedings for the much smaller Chrysler Corporation are being wound up.
Of course, bankruptcy itself is not necessarily bad news; the process is often the only way for troubled firms to reorganize themselves. The process for General Motors, however--as has that of Chrysler--is to be a government-directed and politically dominated affair, funded largely by tax dollars and creating firms controlled by Washington.
The short drive to bankruptcy and nationalization for Detroit began last December, when GM and Chrysler first accepted bailout money from the government. Both firms were required, as a condition of aid, to prepare detailed plans to return to viability. In March, those plans were flatly rejected by the White House, which (correctly) found the changes being proposed far from sufficient to resolve the problems of the firms.
From that moment on, Washington took over the driver's seat for both firms. To emphasize the point, President Obama took the unusual step of effectively, and unceremoniously, firing GM's chief executive officer Rick Wagoner and half the GM board.
Washington Calling the Shots
Since that time, the federal government has been calling the shots for both automakers. Tellingly, the reorganization plan Chrysler took into bankruptcy was announced not from the firm's Detroit HQ or a courthouse, but from the White House. And creditors who opposed that deal, pointing out that they would get a mere fraction of what the United Autoworkers Union (UAW) would get for its claims, were personally lambasted by the President for their failure to pursue what White House spokesman Robert Gibbs called the "common good."[2] Thanks to government pressure--and billions in additional taxpayer funds--Chrysler is soon expected to emerge from bankruptcy with ownership shared among Italian carmaker Fiat, the UAW, and the federal government.[3]
Now it is GM's turn in court, with a filing expected by June 1. As outlined in the government's SEC filing, current GM bondholders will be offered 10 percent of the firm's stock plus warrants for an additional 15 percent, in return for their $27 billion in claims. The UAW, by contrast--which is owed some $10 billion by GM for health coverage claims--will receive 17.5 percent of the stock, plus another 2.5 percent in warrants and $6.5 billion in preferred shares.
Is it NOT true that Obambi fired the CEO of GM? How could he legally DO that?
Is it NOT true that the government took a big stake in GM?
Is it NOT true that the "secured creditors" suddenly found themselve UNSECURED, and were forced to take 10 cents on the dollars owed them?
Is it NOT true that the United Auto Worker's Union received MORE money than the "secured creditors"?
Is it NOT true that Obambi fully funded the huge pensions of the UAW, at the expense of shareholders and creditors?
How does he DO that, without owning the majority of the shares?
From Wikipedia
QUOTE
The U.S. government still owns a 27% stake in the company.
Do you have anything to dispute that? C'mon, Libbie--you can do better than name-calling. TELL us why these are not true.
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 31 2011,3:01 pm
QUOTE
Is it NOT true that Obambi fired the CEO of GM? How could he legally DO that?
He couldn't, and didn't regardless of what the junkie Limbaugh may have told you.
QUOTE
Is it NOT true that the government took a big stake in GM?
I thought you claim they were nationalized?
Posted by irisheyes on Sep. 01 2011,3:17 am
(jimhanson @ Aug. 25 2011,10:29 am)
QUOTE
Irish doesn't think that Obambi is a liberal.
QUOTE
If you really think about all these things, only the people who are far right can view Obama as being a radical liberal, because he simply is not.
You're misquoting me again, I explained he is not a radical liberal and I even pointed out reasons why.
I was about to find a definition for radical, just in case there was doubt. But considering you frequently reference the book Rules for Radical, I have a hard time understanding how you could reference radicals frequently, and then take out the word when I use it.
QUOTE
Obambi nationalized banks.
Obambi nationalized car companies.
Obambi spent the largest "stimulus" in US history (to no avail)
Obambi created the largest deficit in US history.
Obambi is nationalizing the largest single share of the US economy--the health care industry (at least until it is declared unconstitutional).
His policies are SO RADICAL that the majority of the states are challenging them in Federal court.
He has presided in the largest growth of government since FDR--even more than LBJ.
He is an avowed "redistributor" of wealth--that's "take money from those who earn it, and give it to those who don't"
Obambi nationalized car companies.
Obambi spent the largest "stimulus" in US history (to no avail)
Obambi created the largest deficit in US history.
Obambi is nationalizing the largest single share of the US economy--the health care industry (at least until it is declared unconstitutional).
His policies are SO RADICAL that the majority of the states are challenging them in Federal court.
He has presided in the largest growth of government since FDR--even more than LBJ.
He is an avowed "redistributor" of wealth--that's "take money from those who earn it, and give it to those who don't"
You have to start getting your news from something other than Brietbart and FNC. He did not nationalize auto or banks, and the teabaggers never cared about any of the stuff you talk about until a guy who isn't a republican is doing it. Before that they loved government money, and the republicans they vote for frequently vote for the same bailouts and redistribution.
Oh, as for deficits and spending. You're right on this, but conservatives have to grasp at some point that every president outspends the previous (you don't have to like it, but as they pointed out to Reagan, you can't keep increasing money for the largest part of gov, defense, and then be confused as to why the budget is exploding). Reagan outspends Carter, George H.W. outspends Reagan, Clinton outspends George H.W., Bush outspends Clinton, and Obama outspends Bush. Surprising, but unprecedented? Not exactly, and it's only a bad thing if it's a dem that's signing the bill, otherwise you frequently blame the Congress for it (unless it's a republican House doing the spending)
You'll notice out of the above list, the only one who could balance a budget and come out with a surplus, was Clinton.
QUOTE
He is a supporter of liberal causes, like ACORN and SEIU. In turn, he is by far the largest recipient of campaign money from these liberal groups. (If he WASN'T as libbie, why would all these far-left groups support him?)
Sure, helping the working class and people who break a sweat when they're on the clock IS a liberal cause. You don't expect those organizations to contribute to the republican nominee, do you?
QUOTE
his socialist Czars.
Again, this is classic talking points from the repub spin machine. If you have an adviser or a director, you can call them a Czar if you want to use conservative newspeak. If I start a thread and refer to you as a Czar of the airport, how are you going to prove me wrong? I can even say you're a socialist czar if I want, and the statement is still correct. If not, feel free to prove it wrong.
QUOTE
He has CREATED jobs--IN THE GOVERNMENT.
*yawn* False again, private sector has grown in jobs, and the only thing conservatives can do is either outright lie (which is their favorite thing to do), or claim that they were only government jobs. If you look at many of the infrastructure projects, plenty of those workers were private sector. In fact, we've had local projects that the people doing the jobs were private sector, were they not?
QUOTE
He follows the liberal orthodoxy of increased spending on ineffective social programs at the expense of defense.
He increased spending for defense, as conservatives have wanted. Hardly a radical liberal move.
QUOTE
He has followed libbie dictum in refusing to enforce immigration laws--something that he took an oath to do.
Maybe he should give them amnesty, it worked for Reagan, and conservatives seem to love him.
QUOTE
Only an observer that reveres Karl Marx could consider him non-liberal. And you wonder why his poll numbers are in freefall?
So, we went from me claiming he's not a radical liberal, to you quoting me as saying he's not a liberal, and now you think I consider him a non-liberal? Nope, red marks all over your post. He is not a radical liberal as a President, he's moved to the right on MANY issues and that's exactly what I pointed out. He's still a liberal on other issues, but I never claimed he wasn't.
As for your quote about him as a Senator, I'd say Bernie Sanders seems like the most liberal Senator that I know of. Regardless, we were talking about him as president, since dems frequently have to move closer to center to get the nomination and Presidency, which is odd since repubs have to become far more conservative and less moderate in order to be taken seriously by their party. Just look at McCain, Palins flip-flopping on the Bridge to Nowhere and her state being notorious for asking for federal funds, Mitt Romney and healthcare, etc.
Posted by irisheyes on Sep. 01 2011,4:08 am
(jimhanson @ Aug. 25 2011,10:40 am)
QUOTE
Yes, he IS "the TelePrompter President" (ever see him when he DOESN'T have one?) but that wasn't my point. If you are going to CALL it a "Town Hall Meeting", then it should BE a Town Hall meeting--where people get to speak their piece. That didn't happen, did it? This wasn't about birth certificates and teleprompters--getting a little DEFENSIVE, are you?
but that wasn't my point. If you are going to CALL it a "Town Hall Meeting", then it should BE a Town Hall meeting--where people get to speak their piece. That didn't happen, did it? This wasn't about birth certificates and teleprompters--getting a little DEFENSIVE, are you? If the conservative press continues repeating things enough, the people will believe it. And yes, I've seen him speak plenty of times without a teleprompter. He went to a Q&A at a republican caucus event, and I didn't see a teleprompter. There wasn't one at the bipartisan meeting they had to discuss health care reform. I can post video of both events if you haven't watched them. I've posted about the republican Q&A before, because I thought it was funny that Obama answers the toughest questions by his opposing counterparts without a teleprompter or being prepared for what questions they would ask, and yet the conservative press ignores that and keeps repeating the spin.
As for town hall meetings, I'll need some specifics on what event you're referring to to verify this. But the tea organization has made the town halls pointless anyway, there wasn't a dialogue as much as people repeating whatever Freedomworks and Americans for Prosperity (the billionaire front group) told them to say.
QUOTE
QUOTE
The conservatives weren't too critical of huge budgets, bailouts, or entitlements not too long ago either. Now Richard Armey and the Koch brothers have got them in a frenzy.
Typical libbie response--a juvenile "Well, HE did it!" So, it's only bad when a democrat does it. Yeah, I've known that for a long time. When repubs have deficits, Czars, entitlements, or amnesty, you don't seem to mind. But have a black community organizer take the oath, and FNC and Brietbart are in full speed spin mode.QUOTE
Don't confuse conservatives with Repubs.
It's not very confusing, conservatives (or teapartiers, if you prefer) continue to hammer on certain issues, and then they vote for, support, and defend republicans all the while saying they're not republicans. If it looks like duck, quacks like a duck...
QUOTE
"Armey and the Kock Brothers"? Who ever HEARD of the Koch Brothers until the libbies got their panties in a wad in Wisconsin over making government employees contribute to their health and pension plans--just as private industry employees do?
That may be when you heard of them, but the conservative organizations that run the Tea organizations have been in the press for a long time. Armey himself was doing interviews in 2009 (before Walker was even Governor of Wisconsin) to talk about FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity. So we knew about the link between Armey and the Koch brothers before Scott Walker came onto the scene.
QUOTE
It is yet another example of libbie hypocrisy--they passed Obamacare and Socialist Security--FORCING every employee to pay for health and retirement--then OPPOSE making government employees do the very same thing.
Would you prefer they not pay into the program, because every conservative seems to love SS & Medicare when they receive it. It's the paying for things part that seems to be the issue.
As for federal workers long ago, you're right. But if the conservatives formed something like the Amish, they could probably exempt themselves also. But the problem is if they did that they wouldn't be able to receive them either, and there seems to be some dissonance on that part.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 02 2011,5:43 pm
(Liberal @ Aug. 31 2011,3:01 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Is it NOT true that Obambi fired the CEO of GM? How could he legally DO that?
He couldn't, and didn't regardless of what the junkie Limbaugh may have told you.
QUOTE
Is it NOT true that the government took a big stake in GM?
I thought you claim they were nationalized?
Do you REALLY think that the CEO of GM quit of his own accord?
Even lefty Politico and the FAR left "Humping a Post" described it as Obama firing the CEO. null< My Webpage >
I guess you can do that when the government owns 72% of the stock, and flips 15% over to the Union buddies, leaving the "secured stockholders and bondholders with 10%.
And he wonders why businesses are leery of investing, and people are reluctant to buy stock with a bozo like this in control?
Yes, I'd call taking the majority interest in a company and firing the CEO "Nationalization."
Even Hugo Chavez joked about it. You didn't hear that on Colbert? Here's the link to Reuters< My Webpage >
QUOTE
"Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right"
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 02 2011,5:51 pm
Jim-- QUOTE
Irish doesn't think that Obambi is a liberal.
Irish original quote
QUOTE
If you really think about all these things, only the people who are far right can view Obama as being a radical liberal, because he simply is not.
Irish NEW quote
QUOTE
You're misquoting me again, I explained he is not a radical liberal and I even pointed out reasons why.
Back to English class with you.
I said that you DON'T think he is a liberal. You confirm your opinion by saying
QUOTE
I explained he is not a radical liberal
QED.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 02 2011,6:27 pm
Irish-- QUOTE
He did not nationalize auto or banks
How can you SAY that--when the government has effective control? They don't call it "Government Motors" for NOTHING! QUOTE
, and the teabaggers never cared about any of the stuff you talk about until a guy who isn't a republican is doing it.
Maybe that's because Obama's actions so offended large groups of people that it CREATED the Tea Party. Irish--
QUOTE
Oh, as for deficits and spending. You're right on this, but conservatives have to grasp at some point that every president outspends the previous (you don't have to like it, but as they pointed out to Reagan, you can't keep increasing money for the largest part of gov, defense, and then be confused as to why the budget is exploding). Reagan outspends Carter, George H.W. outspends Reagan, Clinton outspends George H.W., Bush outspends Clinton, and Obama outspends Bush.
That's not true. Truman didn't outspend FDR. Eisenhower, even with the Korean War, spent less than Truman.
QUOTE
Surprising, but unprecedented? Not exactly, and it's only a bad thing if it's a dem that's signing the bill, otherwise you frequently blame the Congress for it (unless it's a republican House doing the spending)
Blame Congress? Yes. The House alone sets spending and tax policy--the only thing that the Executive Branch (that's the President, for all the Donks)
can do is sign it or not. The BIGGER picture is spending by Congress--check this graph. And where will Obambi's spending as a percentage of GDP come in? OFF THE CHARTS, at about 102%.
Note the spending REDUCTIONS when conservatives took over the House in 1994, and the big INCREASE under Pelosi.
There's no denying it--Obambi/Pelosi/Reid have taken spending to a new level.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 02 2011,7:49 pm
Irish-- QUOTE
You'll notice out of the above list, the only one who could balance a budget and come out with a surplus, was Clinton.
I'll ask YOU, since no other libbie seems to be able to answer it--JUST WHAT DID DER SCHLICKMEISTER DO TO BALANCE THE BUDGET? He didn't cut spending--Gingrich & Company did. Do you recall him saying "The era of big government is over"? Jim
QUOTE
He is a supporter of liberal causes, like ACORN and SEIU. In turn, he is by far the largest recipient of campaign money from these liberal groups. (If he WASN'T as libbie, why would all these far-left groups support him?)
Irish--
QUOTE
Sure, helping the working class and people who break a sweat when they're on the clock IS a liberal cause. You don't expect those organizations to contribute to the republican nominee, do you?
Ah, the old "The Dems are for the working man" argument. The only problem is--those contributors we were talking about were the National Education Assn. and the Lawyers. Hardly "working man." The true "blue collar" worker had his union dues CONFISCATED by the corrupt unions to further their own agenda--whether he wanted to support them or not. Is it any WONDER that union membership has fallen faster than even Obama's polls? Is it any WONDER that the Wisconsin unions are desperately trying to FORCE people to join the union every year? Jim
QUOTE
his socialist Czars.
Irish--
QUOTE
Again, this is classic talking points from the repub spin machine. If you have an adviser or a director, you can call them a Czar if you want to use conservative newspeak. If I start a thread and refer to you as a Czar of the airport, how are you going to prove me wrong? I can even say you're a socialist czar if I want, and the statement is still correct. If not, feel free to prove it wrong.
Challenge accepted.
Did Obambi NOT create more "Czar" positions than any previous president?
Look at the record of these "Czars"--people that not only are advisors to the President, but are unelected and unconfirmed power brokers in government.
We have Van Jones (since sacked) an avowed Communist, as "Green Jobs Czar."
We have an avowed homosexual as the "Safe Schools Czar"--author of "The Queering of America" and advocate for teaching ALL government school children about homosexuality.
Auto Recovery Czar - Ed Montgomery
Title: Director of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Larry Summers, the president's top economic adviser, and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis
Appointed: March 2009
Department that might have handled similar issues: Labor
Will work to leverage government resources to support the workers, communities and regions that rely on the American auto industry.
Was Deputy Secretary and Chief Economist at the Labor Department (1997 to 1998)
Is Dean of the College of Behavioral and Social Sciences at the University of Maryland (2003 to present)
Has PhD in economics from Harvard
In 2008, made $1,200 in political donations, all of which went to Obama's presidential campaign.
Wife is the granddaughter of a General Motors worker from Portland, Mich.
Drives a 2000 Lincoln
ANY MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE? CAR EXPERIENCE?
Border Czar * - Alan Bersin
Title: Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and Special Representative for Border Affairs
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano
Appointed: April 2009
Agencies that might have handled similar issues: Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
Will coordinate all of the department's border security and law-enforcement efforts.
Essentially had the same job under President Clinton; served as Attorney General Janet Reno's special representative on border issues, a job that he held while retaining the position of U.S. attorney for San Diego.
This time, boss will be Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who will expect him to handle illegal immigration and drug violence issues along the Mexican-American border
Previous experience: Chairman of the San Diego Regional Airport Authority (2006 to 2009); Secretary of Education for California (2005 to 2006); Superintendent of San Diego Public Schools (1998 to 2005); U.S. Attorney for San Diego (1993 to 1998)
Graduate of Harvard and Yale Law School
Talking about border security shortly before he was named Clinton border czar in 1995, said he wanted to focus on suspected smugglers of both drugs and people and was not interested in prosecuting "economic migrants."
Often tied to the 1994 border policy called "Operation Gatekeeper." The policy shifted the U.S. focus from the arresting of immigrants who actually crossed the border to an increased border presence designed to stop border crossing in the first place. When Bersin left the position in 1998, border arrests were on pace for an 18-year low of just more than 200,000. Latino groups complained that Operation Gatekeeper was immoral, saying the program monitored the border near San Diego but simply forced illegal immigrants to other, more dangerous areas.
Has given more than $50,000 to political campaigns since 1999, almost all of it to Democrats.
Drug Czar * - Gil Kerlikowske
Title: Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy
Salary: unknown
Reports to: President Obama
Appointed: March 2009
Confirmed by Senate: May 7, 2009
Department that might have handled similar issues: Justice
Directs drug-control policy in the U.S.; is expected to shift drug policy to intervention, treatment and a reduction of problem drug use.
Was police chief for the city of Seattle from 2000-2009
Was Deputy Director of the Department of Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (1998 to 2000); Police Chief for the city of Buffalo (1994 to 1998); Police chief of Fort Pierce, Fla. (N/A to 1994)
A strong gun-control advocate, urged both the Washington legislature and the U.S. Congress to pass an assault-weapons ban and has worked to close the loophole that doesn't require background checks at gun shows
2003: admitted that busting people for personal marijuana possession was not a top priority of the Seattle police department.
As Seattle police chief, assigned an officer full-time to the drug court, which commuted sentences of drug users who complete medical treatment in lieu of going to jail.
Energy and Environment Czar - Carol Browner
Title: Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change
Salary: $172,200
Reports to: President Obama
Appointed: January 2009
Agency that might have handled similar issues: EPA
Coordinates energy and climate policy, emphasizing regulation and conservation.
Was Environmental Protection Agency administrator in the Clinton administration (1993-2000)
Was Florida Secretary of the Environment (1991 to 1993)
Founded and continues to serve as a principal of The Albright Group LLC, a global strategy firm led by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Also a principal of Albright Capital Management, an investment advisory firm that concentrates on emerging markets.
Worked on the Socialist International's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which argues that the global community must work collectively to address environmental policies Described Bush administration as the "worst environmental administration ever"
While orchestrating private discussions between the White House and auto industry officials on vehicle fuel efficiency standards, kept the talks as quiet as possible. Mary Nichols, the head of the California Air Resources Board, said, "We put nothing in writing, ever."
2003: A federal judge held the Environmental Protection Agency in contempt for destroying computer files during the Clinton administration that had been sought by a conservative legal foundation. U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth also ordered the EPA to pay the Landmark Legal Foundation's legal fees and costs because the agency disobeyed his order to preserve the electronic records of Browner, the former EPA chief.
Contemplating VAT tax to pay for Obama's huge spending bills
Facing a historic national debt that President Obama correctly characterized as "unsustainable," yet still desiring to implement some sort of national health-care package, US policymakers, notably Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad and former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, have recently hinted at the possibility of a national sales tax. More specifically, they hint at possible implementation of a national value-added tax (VAT) which would tax at a certain rate the difference between the cost of inputs and the price of the output along each individual step of production.
Beyond the factual objection that a national tax on consumption would fall disproportionately on low-income consumers who spend a greater percentage of their income on consumption goods and save at a lower rate than do higher-income consumers, the VAT is a particularly odious proposal for all consumers because of its effect on overall economic activity.
Browner is a member of the Commission for a Sustainable World Society (CSWS), which is a formal organ of the Socialist International.
Socialist International, an umbrella group for many of the world's social democratic political parties such as Britain's Labor Party, says it supports socialism and is harshly critical of U.S. policies.
The group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, the organization's action arm on climate change, says the developed world must reduce consumption and commit to binding and punitive limits on greenhouse gas emissions.
At the Congress of the Socialist International held last June 30-July2, the CSWS officially resolved that "market solutions alone are insufficient and will not provide the financial support and resources necessary to achieve the required combination of deep emission reduction, adaptation to already changing climate conditions, energy security and equitable and environmentally sound economic development." Again, that's bureaucratese. It means that international taxes should be imposed to provide the "resources necessary" to impose what the CSWS repeatedly refers to as a 'regime" against "global warming." By appointing Browner to a White House post, Obama has at the least implicitly endorsed an utterly radical socialist agenda for his administration's environmental policy. The incoming chief executive thus strengthens critics who contend environmental policies aren't really about protecting endangered species or preserving virgin lands, but rather expanding government power and limiting individual freedom.
Government Performance Czar - Jeffrey Zients
Title: Chief Performance Officer
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orzag
Appointed: April 2009
Confirmed by the Senate (as deputy director for management for the OMB): June 19, 2009
Agency that might have handled similar issues: OMB
Charged with cutting costs and finding best practices throughout government.
Has never worked in government before
Was a chief executive and former management consultant
Was founder of Portfolio Logic (2004 to present); Partner of the Washington Baseball Club (2004 to 2006); CEO of the Advisory Board (1998 to 2004)
Has donated just over $90,000 to political campaigns since 1999, almost all of which went to Democratic candidates
Pay Czar - Kenneth R. Feinberg
Title: Special Master on executive pay Salary: reportedly receiving no compensation for his work.
Reports to: Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner
Appointed: June 2009
Department that might have handled similar issues: Treasury
Named to examine compensation practices at companies that have been bailed out more than once by the federal government
Oversaw the payouts to the families of the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks
Was the chief administrator to the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund, which commemorates the students who died in the April 2007 shooting rampage at Virginia Tech
Founder and managing partner of Feinberg Rozen LLP (1992 to present), law firm specializing in mediation
Was Chief of staff for Sen. Edward Kennedy (1978 to 1980)
While working with the Feinberg Group, donated over $150,000, nearly all of which has gone to Democratic candidates and political action committees. In 2007, donated $2,300 to 2008 presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani ®.
Regulatory Czar - Cass R. Sunstein *
Title: Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Office of Management and Budget head Peter Orszag
Appointed: January 2009
Nomination was sent to Senate on April 20, 2009 - no action yet taken
Agency that might have handled similar issues: OMB
Will be responsible for reviewing draft regulations and assessing their costs and benefits
Is a Harvard Law School professor; prior to that, was a professor at the Univ. of Chicago Law School (1981-2008)
Academic specialties: constitutional law, administrative law, and regulatory policy
Obama: "Cass is not only a valued advisor, he is a dear friend"
Known for advancing a field called "law and behavioral economics" that seeks to shape law and policy around the way research shows people actually behave; though embraced by conservatives, critics say it fails to account for the sometimes less-than-rational aspects of human behavior.
In his 2002 book, Republic.com, discussed the drawbacks of limitless choices on the Internet that allow people to seek out only like-minded people and opinions that merely fortify their own views; he talked about the idea of the government requiring sites to link to opposing views. He later came to realize it was a "bad idea."
In his 2004 book, Animal Rights, suggested that animals ought to be able to bring suit, with private citizens acting as their representatives, to ensure that animals are not treated in a way that violates current law.
In a 2007 speech at Harvard he called for banning hunting in the U.S. The American Conservative Union started a website, Stop Sunstein, in an effort to keep him out of the White House.
Sunstein has also supported outlawing sport hunting, giving animals the legal right to file lawsuits and using government regulations to phase out meat consumption.
The center quotes Sunstein's 2007 speech at Harvard University, where he argued in favor of "eliminating current practices such as … meat eating" and proposed: "We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn't a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It's time now."
According to the group, Sunstein was editor of the 2004 book "Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions" that said "animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives … Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian-like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients' behalf."
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., who held up Sunstein's nomination worries that Sunstein's odd legal views may someday lead to a farmer having to defend himself in court against a lawsuit filed on behalf of his chickens or pigs.
Science Czar - John Holdren
Title: Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology
Salary: unknown
Reports to: President Obama
Appointed: December 2008
Confirmed by Senate: March 19, 2009
Agency or department that might have handled similar issues: Energy
Top adviser to Obama on science and technology, issues that are increasingly relevant to other issues such as homeland security, energy and environmentalism
Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy and Director, Program in Science, Technology, and Public Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government (1996-2009); Harvard University Professor of Environmental Science and Public Policy (1996-2009); University of California, Berkeley Professor of Energy and Resources Emeritus (1996 to present)
Studied aerospace engineering and plasma physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology - where he earned his BS and MS - and Stanford University, where he received his doctorate in 1970
Is an outspoken advocate of the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and believes the United States should sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.
In a 2008 New York Times op-ed, Holdren called climate change skeptics "dangerous" members of a "denier fringe."
In 1971, co-authored a paper in Global Ecology suggesting "some form of ecocatastrophe, if not thermonuclear war, seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century."
Some conservative media outlets have called attention to a book Holdren co-authored in 1977 titled Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment. The book reportedly includes this statement: "population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution." Holdren's office says he "does not now and never has been an advocate of compulsory abortions or other repressive measures to limit fertility."
We at Neville have dubbed Holdren Dr. Strangelove.
Holdren has stated: "The Fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences, and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being."
He also wants to put sterilants into the water to control population.
Holdren is a globalist who has endorsed "surrender of sovereignty" to "a comprehensive Planetary Regime" that would control all the world's resources, direct global redistribution of wealth, oversee the "de-development" of the West, control a World Army and taxation regime, and enforce world population limits. He has castigated the United States as "the meanest of wealthy countries," written a justification of compulsory abortion for American women, advocated drastically lowering the U.S. standard of living, and left the door open to trying global warming "deniers" for crimes against humanity.
In his 1995 Nobel Prize acceptance speech Holdren stated "The post-Cold-War world needs a more powerful United Nations, probably with a standing volunteer force -- owing loyalty directly to the UN rather than to contingents from individual nations."
Holdren states the UN must mandate "A requirement for the early establishment of a substantial price on carbon emissions in all countries, whether by a carbon tax or a tradable permit approach."
Holdren gave a clear indication of his philosophical views in the 1977 book Ecoscience, which he co-authored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich. [1] In its pages, the authors noted, "The neo-Malthusiasn view proposes...population limitation and redistribution of wealth." They concluded, "On these points, we find ourselves firmly in the neo-Malthusian camp" (p. 954). Economist Thomas Malthus is one of the most literally anti-human theorists in human history. He viewed overpopulation as the fount of all woe, but one which could be staunched with enough blood. In "An Essay on the Principle of Population" Malthus wrote, "All the children who are born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the death of grown persons...if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use...and court the return of the plague."
Holdren and the Ehrlichs maintained "there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated." Hiding behind the passive voice, they note, "it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing constitutionif the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society." To underscore they mean business, they conclude, "If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" (pp. 837-838). Moreover, if the United States government refuses to take proper measures, they authorize the United Nations to take compelling force.
Such a comprehensive Plenetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable...not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes...The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade...The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits...the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits. (p. 943.)
Part of the power wielded by this "Regime" would be in the form of a World Army. The trio wrote that the United States must destroy all its nuclear arsenal. But this would not render us defenseless against Communist aggression. "Security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force...The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization" (p. 917).
The redistribution of blood and treasure were high priorities for Holdren, et. al. They advised the "de-development of overdeveloped countries...should be given top priority" (p. 926), and such nations -- e.g., the United States and the developed West -- should "divert their excess productivity into helping the poorer people of the world rather than exploiting them" (p. 931).
How much wealth redistribution would be sufficient? The authors favorably cited a proposal that "the rich nations devote 20 percent of their GNPs for ten or fifteen years to the task of population control and development of the poor countries." They comment, "We believe an effort of this magnitude is not only justified but essential." (p. 925). Reaffirming the goal in his 1995 Nobel speech, he stretched this to a program "sustained over several decades."
"A means for transferring some of the revenue produced by carbon taxes upon, or permits purchased by, countries and consumers with high incomes and high per capita emissions to countries and consumers with low incomes and low per capita emissions" (pp. 70-72).
In a 1995 article co-written with Paul Ehrlich, he lists among the factors preventing a "sustainable" world such "Underlying human frailties" as "Greed, selfishness, intolerance, and shortsightedness." These, he expounds, "collectively have been elevated by conservative political doctrine and practice (above all in the United States in 1980 92) to the status of a credo."
"Civilians should realize that peace and freedom from tension are not viewed as an ideal situation by many members of the military-industrial-government complex. By and large, professional military officers, especially field grade and higher, hope for an end to international tensions about as fervently as farmers hope for drought" (p. 918).
Stimulus Accountability Czar
- Earl Devaney Title: Chair of the Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Vice President Biden
Appointed: February 2009 Agency that might have handled similar issues: OMB
Leads oversight board that monitors money spent by the stimulus package WHO KNEW THAT ANYBODY WAS WATCHING OVER THE STIMULUS MONEY?
Urban Affairs Czar - Adolfo Carrion Jr.
Title: White House Director of Urban Affairs
Salary: $158,500
Reports to: President Obama
Appointed: February 2009
Department that might have handled similar issues: Housing and Urban Development
Job entails coordinating transportation and housing initiatives, as well as serving as a conduit for federal aid to economically hard-hit cities.
Has undergraduate degree in world religions from Kings College; became an associate pastor at a Bronx church; earned his master's degree in urban planning from Hunter College
Was Bronx Borough President (2001-2009); President of the National Association of Latino Elected Officials (since 2007); City Council member (1998 to 2000)
Many reporters say he has higher ambitions and will probably run for New York City mayor in the next ten years.
Was an active campaigner for Obama, travelling across the country to speak on his behalf. He focused particularly on states with large Hispanic populations. The NY Daily News reported numerous developers made tens of thousands of dollars in campaign donations to Carrión around the same time he was considering approving their projects in the Bronx.
Diversity Czar - Mark Lloyd
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has announced a new "Chief Diversity Officer," communications attorney Mark Lloyd.
But Doctor of Jurisprudence Lloyd is far more than merely a communications attorney. He was a Senior Fellow at the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress (CAP), for whom he co-wrote a June 2007 report entitled "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio."
The report rails against the fact that the American people overwhelmingly prefer to listen to conservative (and Christian) talk radio rather than the liberal alternative, and suggests ways the federal government can remedy this free-market created "problem."
Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.
Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.
Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay an estimated $100-million and $250-million each and every year to support public broadcasting. These last two get perilously close to the use of "localism" to silence conservative (and Christian) radio stations, about which we have been warning for quite some time. This financially onerous combination of fines and fees would essentially force many private broadcasters out of business.
Lloyd: "Local public broadcasters and regional and national communications operations should be required to encourage and broadcast diverse views and programs. These programs should include coverage of all local, state and federal government meetings, as well as daily news and public issues programming."
Ron Bloom, the "Manufacturing Czar"--worked for the Steel Workers Union. Is it any wonder that he is in favor of the defeated "card check"? Do you suppose that HE is neutral?
32 "CZARS"--many of them ardent socialist that would make Robert Reich blush. Most of them unexperienced in the private sector. In that regard, they mirror the naivete of O-Bomb-A himself.
Posted by alcitizens on Sep. 03 2011,12:19 am
George W Bush Czars..Faith Czar Director, White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Willett, Don[73] 2001 Exec order Bush, George W. Faith-Based Czar,
Faith Czar Director, White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives DiIulio, John[74] 2001 Exec order Bush, George W.
Terrorism Czar National coordinator for security, infrastructure protection and counter-terrorism, cabinet level rank removed Clarke, Richard A. [126] 2001 Jan - 2001 Oct Pres appointed[citation needed] Bush, George W.
Terrorism Czar National Director and Deputy National Security Advisor for Combating Terrorism Downing, Wayne[127] 2001 Nov Pres appointed[citation needed] Bush, George W.
Science Czar Science Advisor to the President, Director, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Marburger, John[121] 2001 Oct - 2009 Jan Senate confirmed Bush, George W.
Cyber Security Czar, Cyber Czar Special Advisor to the President on Cybersecurity Clarke, Richard A.[37] 2001 October Pres appointed Bush,
AIDS Czar Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy Evertz, Scott[13] 2001-2002 Pres appointed Bush, George W.
Budget czar Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget Daniels, Mitchell E.[27] 2001-2003 Pres Nominated, Senate Confirmed Bush, George W. √
Clean Up Czar Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, Department of Energy (nuclear clean up) Roberson, Jessie[31] 2001-2004 Pres nominated, Senate confirmed Bush, George W.
Bioethics Czar Advisor to the President, Chairman of The President's Council on Bioethics Kass, Leon[22] 2001-2005 New position, exec, appointed by Pres Bush,
Reading Czar President's Advisor on Reading First Initiative, Director of Reading Research,
National Institutes of Child Health and Development, Member of the President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education Lyon, G. Reid[114] 2001-2005 Pres. appointed Bush, George W.
Regulatory Czar Director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Office of Management and Budget John D. Graham [116] 2001-2006 Pres nominated, Senate confirmed Bush, George W.
Drug Czar Director National Drug Control Policy Walters, John P.[61] 2001-2009 Pres Appointed with Senate Confirmation Bush, George W. AIDS Czar Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy O'Neill, Joe[14] 2002-2003 Pres appointed Bush, George W.
Faith-Based Czar, Faith Czar Director, White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Towey, Jim[75] 2002-2006 Exec order Bush, George W.
Homeless Czar, Homelessness Czar Executive Director United States Interagency Council on Homelessness Phil Mangano[92] 2002-2008 Pres. appointed Bush, George W.
Budget Czar Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget Bolten, Joshua[28] 2003-2006 Pres nominated, Senate confirmed Bush, George W.
Global AIDS Czar United States Global AIDS Coordinator Tobias, Randall[82] 2003-2007 Pres appointed[citation needed] Bush, George W.
AIDS Czar Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy Thompson, Carol[15] 2004-2006 Pres appointed Bush, George W.
Bird flu Czar Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, Advisor to the President for Public Health Emergency Preparedness Simonson, Stewart[23] 2004-2006 New position, Pres appointed Bush, George W.
Domestic Policy Czar Chief Domestic Policy Coordinator, Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor to the President, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Rove, Karl[53] 2004-2006 Pres appointed Bush, George W.
Health IT Czar National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, Department of Health and Human Services Brailer, David J.[90] 2004-2006 Exec order (new position), appointed by Sec. of HHS Bush, George W.
Manufacturing Czar Assistant Secretary for manufacturing and services, U.S. Commerce Department Frink, Albert[101] 2004-2007 Senate confirmed Bush, George W.
Terrorism Czar Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security Brennan, John O. 2004[citation needed] Pres appointed[citation needed] Bush, George W.
Policy Czar Assistant to the President for Policy and Strategic Planning Gerson, Michael[110] 2005-2006 Pres Appointed Bush, George W.
Intelligence Czar Director of National Intelligence Negroponte, John[98] 2005-2007 Congress mandated (new position) Pres. nominated, Senate confirmed Bush, George W.
Public Diplomacy Czar Special advisor to the President, Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Hughes, Karen[112] 2005-2007 Pres nominated, Senate confirmed Bush, George W.
Clean Up Czar Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, United States Department of Energy (nuclear clean up) Rispoli, James[32] 2005-2008 Appointed, Senate confirmed Bush, George W. √
Democracy Czar Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy Abrams, Elliott[51] 2005-2008 Pres appointed Bush, George W.
Gulf Coast Reconstruction Czar, Hurricane Katrina Recovery Czar Federal Coordinator of Hurricane Katrina Recovery Effort Powell, Donald E.[94] 2005-2008 Pres appointed Bush, George W.
Homeland Security Czar Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Chertoff, Michael[91] 2005-2009 Pres nominated, Senate Confirmed Bush, George W. Intelligence Czar Director of National Intelligence Mcconnell, John Michael[98] 2005-2009 Pres nominated, Senate confirmed Bush, George W.
Budget Czar Director Office of Management and Budget Portman, Rob [29] 2006-2007 Pres nominated, Senate confirmed Bush, George W
Abstinence Czar Administrator of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) Tobias, Randall[8] 2006-2007 Pres Nominated, Senate confirmed Bush, George W.
Birth Control Czar Deputy Assistant Secretary of Population Affairs, Department of Health and
Human Services Keroack, Erik [24] 2006-2007 Pres Appointed George W. Bush
Faith-Based Czar, Faith Czar Director, White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Hein, Jay[76] 2006-2008 Exec order Bush, George W.
Health Czar for WTC, World Trade Center Health Czar Special coordinator to respond to health effects of September 11 attacks, World Trade Center (WTC) Medical Monitoring and Treatment Program also served as Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Howard, John[89] 2006-2008 Pres Appointed Bush, George W.
Global AIDS Czar Coordinator of U.S.Government Activities to Combat HIV/AIDS Globally, with the rank of Ambassador Dybul, Mark [83] 2006-2009 Pres nominated, Senate confirmed Bush, George W.
Regulatory Czar Director of the Office of Information and Regulatory AffairsOffice of Management and Budget Dudley, Susan[117] 2006-2009 Nominee failed to win Senate confirmation 2 attempts, stayed in office as recess appointment by President Bush Bush, George W.
War Czar Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan Lute, Douglas[130] 2007 New Position, Pres appointed - confirmed as Lt. General on June 28, 2007 but not as "war czar" adviser to the president Bush, George W.
Food Safety Czar Assistant Commissioner for Food Protection Acheson, David W. K.[81] 2007-2008 Pres. appointed Bush, George W.
Manufacturing Czar Assistant Secretary for manufacturing and services, U.S. Commerce Department Sutton, William G.[102] 2007-2008 Senate confirmed Bush, George W.
Cyber Security Czar, Cyber Czar Director, National Cyber Security Center Beckstrom, Rod[38] 2008 - 2009 Pres appointed[citation needed] Bush, George W.
Bank Bailout Czar United States Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability Kashkari, Neel[20]. 2008-2009 New position, Pres nominated, Senate confirmed Bush, George W.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars >
Posted by Glad I Left on Sep. 03 2011,7:48 am
The wikipedia one that alci posted shows a lot (not all though) of the ones W. appointed were confirmed by the senate, which in any appointed position of power is the way it should be IMO.Jim's wall of text didn't have any mention of Obamas appointees being confirmed (or not) by the senate.
Not that they weren't, Jim claims they weren't but I am too lazy too look it up.
As much as I hate to defend W, I still call things evenly.
Posted by irisheyes on Sep. 07 2011,7:08 am
(jimhanson @ Sep. 02 2011,5:51 pm)
QUOTE
Jim--
Irish original quote
Irish NEW quote
Back to English class with you.
I said that you DON'T think he is a liberal. You confirm your opinion by saying
QED.
QUOTE
Irish doesn't think that Obambi is a liberal.
Irish original quote
QUOTE
If you really think about all these things, only the people who are far right can view Obama as being a radical liberal, because he simply is not.
Irish NEW quote
QUOTE
You're misquoting me again, I explained he is not a radical liberal and I even pointed out reasons why.
Back to English class with you.
I said that you DON'T think he is a liberal. You confirm your opinion by saying
QUOTE
I explained he is not a radical liberal
QED.
It's the word radical that you're still having trouble with. One word does make a difference, or as Rush would say, "words mean things".
Posted by irisheyes on Sep. 07 2011,7:51 am
(jimhanson @ Sep. 02 2011,6:27 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Surprising, but unprecedented? Not exactly, and it's only a bad thing if it's a dem that's signing the bill, otherwise you frequently blame the Congress for it (unless it's a republican House doing the spending)
Blame Congress? Yes. The House alone sets spending and tax policy--the only thing that the Executive Branch (that's the President, for all the Donks)
can do is sign it or not. The BIGGER picture is spending by Congress--check this graph. And where will Obambi's spending as a percentage of GDP come in? OFF THE CHARTS, at about 102%.
Note the spending REDUCTIONS when conservatives took over the House in 1994, and the big INCREASE under Pelosi.
There's no denying it--Obambi/Pelosi/Reid have taken spending to a new level.
You're making my point. You blame Congress, but now that the repubs control the House you decide to blame Obama instead. The next time there's a republcan President I'm betting the budget won't be their fault and you'll go back to blaming the Congress.
Why do you still blame Pelosi, but not a negative word about Boehner?
You say the House alone sets spending and tax policy, yet in the very next paragraph you refer to it as "Obambi's spending".
So many flip-flops, it's like I'm at the beach!
Posted by irisheyes on Sep. 07 2011,8:03 am
(jimhanson @ Sep. 02 2011,7:49 pm)
QUOTE
Jim
Irish--
Challenge accepted.
Did Obambi NOT create more "Czar" positions than any previous president?
Look at the record of these "Czars"--people that not only are advisors to the President, but are unelected and unconfirmed power brokers in government.
We have Van Jones (since sacked) an avowed Communist, as "Green Jobs Czar."
We have an avowed homosexual as the "Safe Schools Czar"--author of "The Queering of America" and advocate for teaching ALL government school children about homosexuality.
QUOTE
his socialist Czars.
Irish--
QUOTE
Again, this is classic talking points from the repub spin machine. If you have an adviser or a director, you can call them a Czar if you want to use conservative newspeak. If I start a thread and refer to you as a Czar of the airport, how are you going to prove me wrong? I can even say you're a socialist czar if I want, and the statement is still correct. If not, feel free to prove it wrong.
Challenge accepted.
Did Obambi NOT create more "Czar" positions than any previous president?
Look at the record of these "Czars"--people that not only are advisors to the President, but are unelected and unconfirmed power brokers in government.
We have Van Jones (since sacked) an avowed Communist, as "Green Jobs Czar."
We have an avowed homosexual as the "Safe Schools Czar"--author of "The Queering of America" and advocate for teaching ALL government school children about homosexuality.
I didn't ask you to copy & paste a list from Glenn Beck's website (I Googled parts of your post and the source is naturally < Glenn Beck >). My post was regarding the label of Socialist czar, and that if someone wanted they could easily consider you a socialist czar. Since you're in charge of something in which the means of production is government controlled. I said feel free to prove me wrong, and somehow that turned into a diatribe about Van Jones, something about trying to turn the kids gay, etc.
Posted by nedkelly on Sep. 07 2011,5:29 pm
For all of you who don't like Obama... Who would you replace him with?
?? So far not many good choices... 
.....ned
Posted by Glad I Left on Sep. 07 2011,6:45 pm
I agree Ned. Like most elections lately I am voting for who dislike least.
Posted by Glad I Left on Oct. 07 2011,8:29 am
Back to the original subject of the topic.It's all about the economy, it belongs to Obama no matter how much he tries to blame anyone and anything else.
I am sure we all remember his grand speech from 14 July 2009.
The guy is an economic idiot, plain and simple.
Posted by Stone-Magnon on Oct. 07 2011,8:45 am
Ya sure, Bush and Cheney had nothing to do with it...Freaking partisan idiots. Ya, it's all on Obama because you declare it.
Freaking idiots to the left of me and clowns to the right. I mean how stupid do you have to be to say something like that?
Posted by Glad I Left on Oct. 07 2011,8:54 am
Hey, I am not siding with W either. He had his hand in it as well. The fact remains it is still Obama's presidency, his policies have failed. It is time to put on the big boy pants and admit the fact that your policies don't work and quit blaming everything else.
Posted by Liberal on Oct. 07 2011,11:50 am
These are the same people that didn't give Clinton credit for the balanced budget. Back then it was St. Ronny, and Bush Sr. economic policies and the GOtP controlled Congress that set the ground work for Clinton's budget.
Posted by Glad I Left on Oct. 07 2011,1:38 pm
Who are "these"?
Posted by Liberal on Oct. 07 2011,4:46 pm
The "Obama own this economy" crowd. Of course if Bush were still in office you'd have The Jimmy & Friends telling us how Congress is responsible for spending, not the President.
Posted by Glad I Left on Oct. 07 2011,8:35 pm
Well, I hope you're not including me in the Jimmy & Friends crowd.You'd be hard pressed to find any of my post in support of Reagan's or against Clinton's economic policies.