Okay, anyone disappointed in Obama so far?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the income gap between the CEOs and the person on the factory floor is much wider in the US than it is Japan and Western Europe. I'm not comparing us to Mexico or former Soviet Socialist Republics.

It is definitely much MUCH wider than it was here in the US in the 1950s.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080630/extreme_inequality

I'm shocked at how much hedge fund managers earn. Is the information on that graph possibly correct? In 2005 the top 5 hedge fund managers earned $12,600,000,000? Meanwhile, the top 5 military leaders earned $957,567? I knew we had great income inequality in this country but I had no idea it was such a disparity.

the hudge fund pay is largely a private agreement between the investors and the managers, and not your business, whether it shocks you or not.

I dunno. I'm way beyond taking anything at face value with regards to financial matters anymore. I knew nothing about hedge funds before I started looking into them yesterday (because of my shock at how much money people were making off of them). 5 human people who work managing hedge funds earned $12 BILLION dollars in one year??? What can I say, that is setting off my "spidey sense". That kind of money just doesn't seem legit.

So I look very briefly into what a hedge fund is, and what is it? A place for very rich people to invest a lot of money with, apparently, very little regulation and oversight. Because it is a private company, hedge funds do not have to register with the SEC. I'm sorry, but again my "spidey sense" is just going off here. There's been some shadowy system of banking going on only for the very rich, that has been operating as a mutual fund for those who can afford to buy into it, only all in secrecy with no need for transparency? I just dunno that that is no0ne of my business, as a citizen.

We have laws in this country, but apparently the richer you are, the more power you have over getting legislators elected, and they then can help write the laws that YOU want.

So yeah, it seems like legally there's a private company with some directors and a fund manager, and the decisions as to what to pay the manager are technically "none of my business" -- but I just can't help wondering -- with so much money floating around, what are the chances that these people have been lobbying congress or buying political influence to keep the rules the way they want them, with regards to this "shadow banking system" that's been going on? As a citizen, it actually IS my business to pay attention to ginormous income and wealth disparities, because it looks to me like a WHOLE LOT of shenenigans have been going on in the financial industry. Stuff I don't understand at the moment, but plan to learn more about. Because, yes, I am SHOCKED about the whole thing.

Ginormous income disparities are just the obvious symptom of what's apparently been going on for over a decade or even longer.

Sure, it's great to be be paid more if you are worth more, and in that case would be a legitimate income disparity. But I think the entire system is stacked aganist the bottom 99% and in favor of the top 1%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Very dis-appointed at the economic moves.

You only need to watch the stock market, the best leading indicator, to know where the economy is going.

So now that the stock market has been going up, do you approve?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Very dis-appointed at the economic moves.

You only need to watch the stock market, the best leading indicator, to know where the economy is going.

So now that the stock market has been going up, do you approve?

Not the PP but let's get the DOW back to 9000 and we can talk!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know what the answer is but I want us to start by decoupling the conversation from implicit assumptions that somehow the US economy reflects the only choice there is outside of Soviet-style socialism.

Hmm, I never actually thought it was an either or situation. My personal feeling is we are about 30 years behind the Brit social democracy model and it saddens me because we can learn from their mistakes (and successes) - we need to be able to honestly and critically evaluate the roles of govt and the private sector without it being a rich vs poor argument.

I believe that a role of govt is to provide opportunity - good and safe schools where poor performing teachers and administrators are given the boot, not just an office in the administrative building, access to low cost student loans and grants for economically disadvantaged but educationally achieving students to purse higher education, etc. I am saddened to hear the schools completely blamed for poor student performance. What happened to parents? Reading to children? Helping with or supervising homework? Making sure your child goes to bed on time, is ready for the school day, shows up to school, respect for teachers and other staff (bus drivers)?

I believe that government is necessary for our common defense, and for the facilitation of commerce. This includes interstate highways, rail systems, and air travel. It also includes standards for food and drug safety, and the necessary safeguards for energy availability and distribution. That's pretty much it. I personally do not believe the role of government is to guarantee everyone's success or happiness. A safety net should be in place for temporary setbacks, but should not become an entitlement. I am not sure what that makes me in the "labeling" of political opinion, but there it is.

Who do yo THINK you are interjecting common sense, idealogues ONLY.

[Anonymous]

Common sense lovers, help me interpret this video interview about how hedge funds work. "We did it, the SEC didn't understand it" -- why is this "none of my business", again, exactly?

http://www.thestreet.com/_tscnav/video/marketupdates/index.html?clipId=1373_10329438&channel=Cramer+On+Demand&puc=&ts=1174686551750&bt=NS&bp=WIN&bst=FF&biec=true&format=flash&bitrate=300

[Anonymous]

And if you're playing with fire in the rowhouse attached to mine and you burn your house down and mine as well, I think your pyromaniac inclinations are my business.

[Anonymous]

OP here...I was really busy at work and forgot to check back on my posting! I have not had the time to read through, but I see there has been a lot of back and forth about pay inequality. Admittedly this is true, but I don't see the problem with it provided that those earning the higher wage take a hit when appropriate (ie, hedge funds that go bust or those working at citi who needs TARP funding shoudl get a dramatic - almost 100% - cut in pay this year). I certainly am not from a wealthy background, but I'm managed okay and actually did a stretch on wall street. I know that if someone is interested in the financial field and not from a wealthy background, they can get good grades in high school, get into an ivy or comparable, take out student loans. apply for jobs on wall street, pay back student loans and make tons of money. To me, as long as the high salaries commanded (up until now at least) by wall street are achievable by those who decide they want to go into that profession (regardless of background) it is fair as long as we (taxpayers) do not them out when times get tough. Again, from my own wall street experience, the smart thing for these people to have done was to live on their base salaries (usually around 200K) and tucked away their bonuses for a rainy day b/c they chose a high risk field.....which brings me back to one of many reasons why I'm upset/disappointed in Obama... why does he continue to allow bailouts for these folks? Yes, he has not been on the job too long and some decisions were made last year, but at this point he has had plenty of time to get a good economic team in place and as we saw from the papers this weekend the Treasury team is very light (non-existent) at this point. Who is working on these issues and how in the world is/was Obama so unprepared?

[Anonymous]

OP here again - just skimmed through the postings and I also wanted to point out the back and forth seems to indicate that this is a republic versus democrat issue. Although that would certainly tie in, I just want to mention I have never voted republican, was raised by liberal (ie almost socialist) parents, and have left wing credentials. My point was I had high hopes for Obama (and thus admittedly high expectations) and am so disappointed that he keeps dashing them... I was wondering if any of the Obama advocate/supporters out there were feeling the same. In addition to his lack of foresight about Treasury issues (TARP, staffing etc) there is a off the waste in the fiscal stimulas package, and more...

[Anonymous]

I have a lot to be thankful for as a liberal.

1. Signed order to close Gitmo
2. Signed order to prohibit torture
3. Established timetable for withdrawal from Iraq
4. Signed SCHIP bill to extend health care to 4 million more children
5. Reversed ban on stem cell research
6. Reversed the Bush Administration's extension of the Conscience Clause to include contraception
7. Directed the EPA to develop stricter emissions laws
8. Allowed states to develop even tougher state level emissions laws
9. Reversed global gag rule, which prohibited funding foreign organizations that provided abortion services
10.Put together a stimulus package, bank rescure plan, mortgage bailout plan, and a budget
11.Issued an executive memorandum to ensure openness about scientific research and giving whistleblower protection to scientists

Add to that, I am more pleased with our stance toward Russia and Iran, which could pay off a lot in the next few years, although progress here is not as definitive as the above.

And that's just what I can come up with right now. Yes, I think he's been dropping bombs just by flexing his executive authority, and no one seems to write much about it because everyone is so busy with the economic recovery. And that one is a tough haul, no matter what policy you choose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I just want to mention I have never voted republican, was raised by liberal (ie almost socialist) parents, and have left wing credentials. My point was I had high hopes for Obama (and thus admittedly high expectations) and am so disappointed that he keeps dashing them... I was wondering if any of the Obama advocate/supporters out there were feeling the same. In addition to his lack of foresight about Treasury issues (TARP, staffing etc) there is a off the waste in the fiscal stimulas package, and more...

So OP -- what are the issues Obama has disappointed you in, specifically? Aside from the stimulus? I'm not personally seeing waste in the stimulus package, but aside from that?

I echo the PP -- I have been very happy with Obama's accomplishments in the past few weeks. They bear repeating:

1. Signed order to close Gitmo
2. Signed order to prohibit torture
3. Established timetable for withdrawal from Iraq
4. Signed SCHIP bill to extend health care to 4 million more children
5. Reversed ban on stem cell research
6. Reversed the Bush Administration's extension of the Conscience Clause to include contraception
7. Directed the EPA to develop stricter emissions laws
8. Allowed states to develop even tougher state level emissions laws
9. Reversed global gag rule, which prohibited funding foreign organizations that provided abortion services
10.Put together a stimulus package, bank rescure plan, mortgage bailout plan, and a budget
11.Issued an executive memorandum to ensure openness about scientific research and giving whistleblower protection to scientists.

[Anonymous]

This board reminds me of an old story about a French princess, which goes like this

a servant was telling the princess that the whole country were hungry and most families did not have bread, when the princess interrupted him: " why don't they eat cakes? "

[Anonymous]

Agree with 2159. As a liberal, I'm actually pretty pleased. And, I'm willing to give him some slack on the economy. He's been in office 2 mos. And, had quite a task in front of him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a lot to be thankful for as a liberal.

1. Signed order to close Gitmo
2. Signed order to prohibit torture
3. Established timetable for withdrawal from Iraq
4. Signed SCHIP bill to extend health care to 4 million more children
5. Reversed ban on stem cell research
6. Reversed the Bush Administration's extension of the Conscience Clause to include contraception
7. Directed the EPA to develop stricter emissions laws
8. Allowed states to develop even tougher state level emissions laws
9. Reversed global gag rule, which prohibited funding foreign organizations that provided abortion services
10.Put together a stimulus package, bank rescure plan, mortgage bailout plan, and a budget
11.Issued an executive memorandum to ensure openness about scientific research and giving whistleblower protection to scientists

Add to that, I am more pleased with our stance toward Russia and Iran, which could pay off a lot in the next few years, although progress here is not as definitive as the above.

And that's just what I can come up with right now. Yes, I think he's been dropping bombs just by flexing his executive authority, and no one seems to write much about it because everyone is so busy with the economic recovery. And that one is a tough haul, no matter what policy you choose.

1. Only no one can agree about what to do or where to put the detainees…
2. Have we defined torture?
3. Were we not alreadly withdrawing from Iraq?
4. Not so much part of a balanced budget though was it?
5. We never banned stem cell research, just federal funding on new stem cell lines.
6. A conscience is only important if it agrees with liberal causes I suppose?
7. Yawn
8. What a disaster. Let’s see what the California plan does while the entire auto industry, domestic and foreign, is on its knees
9. See # 6
10. Wait, wasn’t the budget “Old Business?”
11. So long as Science serves the liberal POV

And finally, wasn't "Executive Authority" an expletive before January 20, 2009?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a lot to be thankful for as a liberal.

1. Signed order to close Gitmo
2. Signed order to prohibit torture
3. Established timetable for withdrawal from Iraq
4. Signed SCHIP bill to extend health care to 4 million more children
5. Reversed ban on stem cell research
6. Reversed the Bush Administration's extension of the Conscience Clause to include contraception
7. Directed the EPA to develop stricter emissions laws
8. Allowed states to develop even tougher state level emissions laws
9. Reversed global gag rule, which prohibited funding foreign organizations that provided abortion services
10.Put together a stimulus package, bank rescure plan, mortgage bailout plan, and a budget
11.Issued an executive memorandum to ensure openness about scientific research and giving whistleblower protection to scientists

Add to that, I am more pleased with our stance toward Russia and Iran, which could pay off a lot in the next few years, although progress here is not as definitive as the above.

And that's just what I can come up with right now. Yes, I think he's been dropping bombs just by flexing his executive authority, and no one seems to write much about it because everyone is so busy with the economic recovery. And that one is a tough haul, no matter what policy you choose.

1. Only no one can agree about what to do or where to put the detainees…
2. Have we defined torture?
3. Were we not alreadly withdrawing from Iraq?
4. Not so much part of a balanced budget though was it?
5. We never banned stem cell research, just federal funding on new stem cell lines.
6. A conscience is only important if it agrees with liberal causes I suppose?
7. Yawn
8. What a disaster. Let’s see what the California plan does while the entire auto industry, domestic and foreign, is on its knees
9. See # 6
10. Wait, wasn’t the budget “Old Business?”
11. So long as Science serves the liberal POV

And finally, wasn't "Executive Authority" an expletive before January 20, 2009?

OK, I was going to rebut your points one by one, but then I hit #11. This is where you really go off the rails.

The Bush Administration had non-scientists editing articles, suppressing research results, and modifying research conclusions made by scientists working for or funded by the government, simply because they didn't like the conclusions. Do you understand how wrong it is to rewrite scientists work, to put words in their mouths that they don't say, to suppress findings for political gain? Do you not see how this is a non-partisan issue of scientific integrity? Do you somehow think that science itself is liberal? If your comment was a silly attempt at humor, just say so. If you are serious. you need to defend that point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:2. Have we defined torture?

How about as defined by the Geneva Convention?

Are you really proud of this, as an American?



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/15/AR2009031502724.html?hpid=topnews

Red Cross Described 'Torture' at CIA Jails
Secret Report Implies That U.S. Violated International Law

The International Committee of the Red Cross concluded in a secret report that the Bush administration's treatment of al-Qaeda captives "constituted torture," a finding that strongly implied that CIA interrogation methods violated international law, according to newly published excerpts from the long-concealed 2007 document.

The report, an account alleging physical and psychological brutality inside CIA "black site" prisons, also states that some U.S. practices amounted to "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment." Such maltreatment of detainees is expressly prohibited by the Geneva Conventions.

The findings were based on an investigation by ICRC officials, who were granted exclusive access to the CIA's "high-value" detainees after they were transferred in 2006 to the U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The 14 detainees, who had been kept in isolation in CIA prisons overseas, gave remarkably uniform accounts of abuse that included beatings, sleep deprivation, extreme temperatures and, in some cases, waterboarding, or simulating drowning.

Seriously. Is your argument, really, "Naw, this wasn't really torture?" Simulated drowning? No, it was simulated DEATH. It was real drowning, but then they reversed the drowning so it didn't cause DEATH. Except in the cases where they were too late.