The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

As John Stewart said you can get $700 billion simply by taking HALF of everything that the poor have.

But that's not real money. To get real money ($1.4T), you can take everything they have!

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

The problem with reading economists is you can hire an economist to spout whatever nonsense you want them to. Taking a poll of them is just taking a poll of which side has made more bribes!

I'll be damned, economics IS a science.

[Edward64]

I disagree about Libya and think Syria is yet to be determined.

Obama has done okay in Libya. Regardless of the number of tomahawks, NATO is definitely front and center and this is not a US-NATO war. Its great relief to not see any muslim country protests (that I know of) vilifying US (or NATO) on Libya.

Syria is interesting. I think the intent was to get Libya out of the way first and then focus on Syria ... not sure the number of Arab countries that have condemned Syria already but building consensus is the right way to do it vs go it alone.

Libya, Syria Show Obama In Way Over His Head | FoxNews.com

Developments this week with Libya and Syria show that President Barack Obama is in way over his head on U.S. foreign policy – once again.

In Libya, rebel fighters are closing in on Col. Moammar Qaddafi’s stronghold of Tripoli - though remain locked in a six-month civil war and face a potential bloodbath in taking the city. This is despite Mr. Obama’s headlong rush to lead “kinetic military action” in March to back them up, an effort expected by some optimists in Washington to last weeks. NATO, with U.S. forces at the core, is still at it.

With Syria, Mr. Obama finally called for strongman President Bashar Al-Assad to step down – only now that 2,000 pro-democracy demonstrators have been killed in military assaults with tanks, infantry and naval bombardment. Though certainly the right decision, unfortunately it’s about five months overdue, and too late for those who have already lost their lives.

It’s almost as if Mr. Obama has been operating in fast-forward to support democracy and protect lives in Libya, while going slow motion in Syria.

Why is that?

First, when it comes to entrenched regimes like Qaddafi’s and Al-Assad’s, dictators know that the law of the jungle applies. Weak states like Libya are more vulnerable to foreign military intervention and internal unrest - strong states like Iranian-backed Syria are more secure. Despite Mr. Obama’s lofty statements defying dictators and promoting human rights, he only really tried to deliver in lower-risk environments. Egypt and Tunisia come to mind.

Second, rather than leading from the front as American presidents have traditionally done – save Jimmy Carter, Mr. Obama takes his cues from international organizations like the UN and Arab League. Once they pressed for military action in Libya, it was Tomahawks away – with the U.S. leading the charge.

Third, despite his popularity overseas, Mr. Obama arguably still doesn’t have the experience of a seasoned chief executive to deal with thorny issues like the Arab Spring. This shouldn’t be a surprise, considering his four years in the Senate were known for voting “present.”

[JPhillips]

That's just a guy that is looking to fault Obama no matter what. He trashes him for intervening in Libya and not intervening in Syria. If Obama had done the opposite I'd bet this guy would have the same criticism in reverse.

[Edward64]

Yup, looks as if Libya is done (e.g. hopefully the post mortem will limit killings to only top henchmen and no Iraqi-like lawlessness) and time to start focusing on Syria.

I hope Obama can (or wants/planning to) start organizing the other countries. Unfortunately, with Iran backing, problems Syria can cause in Lebanon vs Israel etc., this one will be a tougher nut for Panetta and CIA. It was before my time and I'm sure there are good reasons why we got rid of the policy, but I'm all for targetted assasinations ...

I'm a little surprised with the last sentence below, didn't realize that.

Syria's Assad warns against military intervention - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com

The Syrian leader has come under mounting criticism over the brutal military offensive that has used tanks, snipers and gunboats to try to crush the uprising. Most recently, the United States and its European allies on Thursday demanded he step down. Late Saturday, former ally Turkey called Syria's situation "unsustainable."

On Sunday, Assad brushed off President Barack Obama's condemnation, saying it has "no value."

"I am not worried about the security situation right now, we can say the security situation is better," he said.

He warned against Libya-style military intervention, saying there will be "repercussions" to any country interfering in Syria's affairs. There have been no serious international plans to launch such an operation, in part because the opposition has said it does not want Western countries to interfere.

[Edward64]

Interesting development, probably not coincidental. I speculate there is going to be some bad news coming out on the investigation.
Standard & Poor's President Reportedly Resigns | FoxNews.com

Standard & Poor's President Deven Sharma is leaving the credit-rating firm at the end of the year, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The credit-rating firm plans to announce Mr. Sharma's exit on Tuesday before the markets open, the person said. Douglas Peterson, chief operating officer of Citigroup Inc.'s Citibank unit, will succeed Mr. Sharma on Sept. 12, that person said.

Mr. Sharma will remain at S&P through the end of the year in an advisory capacity, working with McGraw-Hill Cos. Chairman, President and Chief Executive Harold "Terry" McGraw III as the company explores a separation of its education business, the person familiar with the matter said.

[Edward64]

FWIW. I didn't see what the total $ would be. I would prefer to see the money go to some sort of "bailout/relief" of home owners who are underwater.

Parts of Obama jobs package coming into focus - Business - US business - msnbc.com

The details are still being discussed during the president's annual vacation in Martha's Vineyard, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.

But the broad contours of the jobs package are quickly coming into focus.

The president is widely expected to repeat his calls for an extension of a payroll tax cut, push for patent reform and bilateral free trade deals, and suggest an infrastructure bank to upgrade the country's roads, airports and other facilities.

Retrofitting schools with energy efficient technology would allow the government to directly hire for labor-intensive work and also give a boost to the clean energy sector that Obama has said could be an important U.S. economic motor.

Other measures being considered, according to economists who have advised the White House, include tax credits for firms hiring more workers, funds for local governments to hire teachers, and retraining help for the long-term unemployed. Steps to boost the ailing housing market are also under review.

"What's going to be included in this plan are some reasonable ideas that could have a tangible impact on improving our economy and creating jobs ... the kinds of things that Republicans should be able to support," Earnest said. "These are bipartisan ideas that the president is going to offer up."

[RainMaker]

Payroll tax cut makes no sense considering we just had a massive debate over the deficit where we agreed to cut a ton of money. It doesn't feel like a fix for the entitlement problem is to cut what is currently funding it.

I've read through his patent reform ideas and they are shit. Doesn't get anywhere close to solving the problem.

The infrastructure stuff makes sense. Not sure on the school thing, but there are a lot of things that need to be upgraded. This should have been done 2 years ago. His jobs bill should almost be exclusively this. Just find necessary projects where we can enhance our infrastructure for 50+ years and do it. No pet projects, just real enhancements.

[gstelmack]

More tax breaks, even though he just got mad at the Repubs for refusing increases? Hypocritical much?

[SteveMax58]

I'm trying to understand who exactly thinks this is a good argument. This statement just stinks of complete incompetency and being out of touch with the "little people". If we ever slip into despotism or some sort of widespread civil unrest, people will hang wealthy Democrats (save maybe for Matt Damon ) just as quickly as wealthy Republicans.

But economists and advisers familiar with his strategy say Obama will argue next month that the financial crisis was worse than anyone thought at the time and say more stimulus is needed to make any real dent in the unemployment rate.

Hint...when the banking industry needs nearly $1T to stop from collapsing civilization as we know it...the problems are FAR WORSE THAN YOU CAN CALCULATE.

[JPhillips]

I understand what you're saying, but there were recent revisions to the growth rates for 2008/2009 that showed much more contraction than thought at the time of the first stimulus.

But I won't argue the point that the bankers that run the Treasury aren't connected to the millions of unemployed.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I understand what you're saying, but there were recent revisions to the growth rates for 2008/2009 that showed much more contraction than thought at the time of the first stimulus.

But I won't argue the point that the bankers that run the Treasury aren't connected to the millions of unemployed.

Right, but there are 2 fundamental disconnects from the President & his administration/advisers...and it has little to do with bankers (though they are certainly living in a different world and by different rules than the rest of us).

Was it really not obvious the country was in massive contraction mode? Did it not appear obvious that the jobs being contracted were the construction & tradesmen sectors? This is on the President & the crap his party wanted to work on instead of getting these people to work. If unemployment were at 8% or 7.5% right now with rising inflation, we'd have different issues to debate but people would be working and focused on increasing their personal wealth (to the extent they can) rather than just surviving. We'd be talking about how to reduce the cost of essentials instead of how f'd everything is.

[JPhillips]

I disagree. The stimulus and auto bailout were the first things done. Now there was plenty of talk at the time that it wasn't enough, but then again at that point the GOP blocked any idea of a bigger package with the filibuster.

I also don't think you can say that the lost jobs were mainly in construction and tradesmen. If you look at labor charts unemployment has been rather equally spread over all sectors. There are certainly plenty of people in construction and trades that need work, but there are also plenty of teachers, retail workers, etc. that need jobs.

I'm not sure there was anything legislatively that the Dems could have gotten passed due to their moderates and the GOP in the Senate. However, the big failure, IMO, is not having an agenda to fight for. I have no idea what the Dems would do if they could. Maybe if they had a plan they could convince the public that it's the right thing to do.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I disagree. The stimulus and auto bailout were the first things done. Now there was plenty of talk at the time that it wasn't enough, but then again at that point the GOP blocked any idea of a bigger package with the filibuster.

I do agree with this. If I recall correctly Obama wanted a larger stimulus package and had to negotiate down. Its disengenious for the GOP now to say it didn't work ... not to say Obama's original would have worked in the first place. I think the rootcause is the housing mess.

[Warhammer]

Complete anecdotal evidence, the building sector is WAY down. That is affecting everyone associated with it (architects, engineers, contractors, etc).

[digamma]

MONEY IS FREE! SPEND MONEY!

How hard is that concept?

Sure, we can find ways to spend it better, eliminate waste and all of that, but seriously if someone was offering you what is essentially free money, what would you do?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by digamma

MONEY IS FREE! SPEND MONEY!

How hard is that concept?

Sure, we can find ways to spend it better, eliminate waste and all of that, but seriously if someone was offering you what is essentially free money, what would you do?

Give me some, and lets see. Call it an experiment.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I disagree. The stimulus and auto bailout were the first things done. Now there was plenty of talk at the time that it wasn't enough, but then again at that point the GOP blocked any idea of a bigger package with the filibuster.

So when the Dems sponsor & pass bad spending bills, that the Repubs vote object to & vote against anyway, then it is the Repubs fault because they didn't go along with it or agree to do more. I don't really follow how public talking points espoused by some/certain members of a party really has any bearing on the bill the Dems can & should be pushing.

The problem I see is that its always more convenient to point to how crazy the Repubs are & not blame the party that actually passed the bill...or blame them for not submitting a bill to vote because it might get filibustered. If that is of concern then let them try it & be held accountable to the voters for it as opposed to a platform of "we wanted to do more but the other guys are meanies who will vote it down so we won't even try & get an official record of it". That's lame & lightweight.

The real problem as I see it though, is that the Dems had (have) no idea how bad the economy really is, nor how to actually correct it. The Repubs don't either but they will have nobody to blame for that but themselves in 2012...for the bills passed (or not passed) since 2010. Rest assured...the Dems will get another shot at it.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by digamma

MONEY IS FREE! SPEND MONEY!

How hard is that concept?

Sure, we can find ways to spend it better, eliminate waste and all of that, but seriously if someone was offering you what is essentially free money, what would you do?

Large businesses all over the US have been banking that cash, and not spending it on expansion, workers or company infrastructure. So, the money has been made available, the onus was given to spend, but the end result was that rainy day funds were filled and execs took huge bonuses.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

So when the Dems sponsor & pass bad spending bills, that the Repubs vote object to & vote against anyway, then it is the Repubs fault because they didn't go along with it or agree to do more. I don't really follow how public talking points espoused by some/certain members of a party really has any bearing on the bill the Dems can & should be pushing.

The problem I see is that its always more convenient to point to how crazy the Repubs are & not blame the party that actually passed the bill...or blame them for not submitting a bill to vote because it might get filibustered. If that is of concern then let them try it & be held accountable to the voters for it as opposed to a platform of "we wanted to do more but the other guys are meanies who will vote it down so we won't even try & get an official record of it". That's lame & lightweight.

The real problem as I see it though, is that the Dems had (have) no idea how bad the economy really is, nor how to actually correct it. The Repubs don't either but they will have nobody to blame for that but themselves in 2012...for the bills passed (or not passed) since 2010. Rest assured...the Dems will get another shot at it.

I wholeheartedly agree the Dems need to stand for something, but your initial post was that the Dems should have passed different legislation. That wasn't going to happen. The agreed to stimulus was watered down from 1 trillion to 800 billion with @40% of that being inefficient tax cuts due to GOP and moderate Dem intransigence. It's not about blaming anyone, but that's what really happened.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I wholeheartedly agree the Dems need to stand for something, but your initial post was that the Dems should have passed different legislation. That wasn't going to happen. The agreed to stimulus was watered down from 1 trillion to 800 billion with @40% of that being inefficient tax cuts due to GOP and moderate Dem intransigence. It's not about blaming anyone, but that's what really happened.

And my point only point about the stimulus is that bad legislation is worse than no legislation which is why the Dems were voted out in large part, at least in my opinion.

But I guess the nuance I'm speaking to (in the first post you mentioned) is more about leadership. Its intangible in a sense...but its clear to me that we don't have it in the right positions. I actually think Hillary has it but I don't think Obama has it at all. And that is why the Repubs believe they can get away with being detractors, rather than working with him.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I wholeheartedly agree the Dems need to stand for something, but your initial post was that the Dems should have passed different legislation. That wasn't going to happen. The agreed to stimulus was watered down from 1 trillion to 800 billion with @40% of that being inefficient tax cuts due to GOP and moderate Dem intransigence. It's not about blaming anyone, but that's what really happened.

They had large advantages in both the House and Senate. They had a new President riding a populist surge. That's on them if they couldn't get something passed. Can't blame the Republicans for that.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I understand what you're saying, but there were recent revisions to the growth rates for 2008/2009 that showed much more contraction than thought at the time of the first stimulus.

The problem is that Obama told us it would work. He showed us charts on what it would do for unemployment. None of this happened the way he said. So he has no trust on the issue. He can't come out and say "this will help" when it was shown his previous estimates were complete shit.

I agree with spending, but I don't think he has anyone's trust on it, including mine.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Large businesses all over the US have been banking that cash, and not spending it on expansion, workers or company infrastructure. So, the money has been made available, the onus was given to spend, but the end result was that rainy day funds were filled and execs took huge bonuses.

BUT IT WILL TRICKLE DOWN!!!!!111

You're right. Money needed to be pumped into the country and instead the people who were given it cheap just sat on it. Lot of people saw this coming a mile away.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

BUT IT WILL TRICKLE DOWN!!!!!111

You're right. Money needed to be pumped into the country and instead the people who were given it cheap just sat on it. Lot of people saw this coming a mile away.

Yeah, including many random pop-economists on message boards I believe. I'm not sure how an administration could possibly have been more out of touch with what needed to be done. Which is why I both, was glad to see the Dems get kicked to curb in 2010, but saddened to see the Repubs come in as I know they won't solve anything either.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They had large advantages in both the House and Senate. They had a new President riding a populist surge. That's on them if they couldn't get something passed. Can't blame the Republicans for that.

Yes and no. I wish they had pushed harder, but the GOP voted in a block to stop anything greater than the stimulus that was passed. The decision to filibuster everything really has made it nearly impossible to pass legislation. I don't see a failure in legislation so much as a failure of political will to push for something knowing the GOP would oppose. The Dems are far too willing to cave because of GOP opposition.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I also don't think you can say that the lost jobs were mainly in construction and tradesmen. If you look at labor charts unemployment has been rather equally spread over all sectors. There are certainly plenty of people in construction and trades that need work, but there are also plenty of teachers, retail workers, etc. that need jobs.

I had actually recalled seeing labor statistics showing near 20% unemployment for construction a little while back (maybe a year ago?). Given the massive drawback in housing construction, it also would seem to coincide with that. The rest of the sectors such as teachers, retail workers, etc. can be a chicken/egg problem as if 20% of a workforce are unemployed, then certainly nobody is buying retail to furnish the houses, paying taxes (and typically a higher rate for new construction) on the property to keep teachers employed, etc.

[sterlingice]

If you're the government, How do you boost the construction sector other than, say, infrastructure projects.

SI

[Buccaneer]

Quote from Waters and NYT about attempts to spend a great deal of taxpayer's monies to create so few jobs. Another example of Stimulus of Good Intentions that reality did next to nothing real:

Silly 'green jobs' fad dying on the vine
Government cannot plan our economy
August 26, 2011 5:25 PM
ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

The faddish obsession with “green jobs” is being revealed as a massive waste of taxpayer money.

Pipe dreams eventually are revealed for what they are — unrealistic, wishful thinking. It didn’t take long for Spain’s touted green-job revolution to be revealed as a financial disaster, siphoning taxpayer subsidies and destroying 2.2 real jobs for every green job created.
It’s truly a bad sign for the green-job revolution when failure becomes obvious even to acolytes.

“All this talk about the green jobs never materialized,” liberal Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters of Los Angeles recently complained.

The New York Times rubbed salt in the wound when it reported in July that the nonpartisan Brookings Institution found clean-technology jobs accounted for only 2 percent of jobs nationwide. “Federal and state efforts to stimulate creation of green jobs have largely failed, government records show,” according to a Times article from a San Francisco news outlet.

Considering the president’s pledge to create 5 million green jobs in 10 years and Gov. Jerry Brown’s promised 500,000 clean-technology jobs by the end of the decade, it’s worth noting the New York Times’ conclusion: “[T]he results so far suggest such numbers are a pipe dream.”

Lowlights of the saga include the recent bankruptcy of Evergreen Solar Inc. of Massachusetts, recipient of $58 million in direct subsidies and tax breaks, including federal “stimulus” funding, but which cut 800 jobs and is now $485 million in debt, with more job losses to come with the closure of a Michigan plant. Green Vehicles of Salinas received $500,000 in city subsidies, but closed last month without having produced anything of significance, Human Events magazine reported. The company had promised to create 70 jobs and pay back local taxpayers $700,000 a year in taxes.

Seattle got a $20 million federal grant to weatherize 2,000 homes and create 2,000 jobs. After a year, three homes had been retrofitted and 14 new jobs created, many of them administrative. That’s a return on investment of about one job per $1.4 million. In Michigan, Fisher Coachworks is out of business two years after being touted as part of the state’s green future, and despite millions in-state subsidies to sell buses bought with federal tax money.

The U.S. Forest Service awarded $490,000 in stimulus funding to Urban Forestry Revitalization Project in Clark County, Nev., to plant trees and other greenery in urban neighborhoods. It created 1.7 jobs, one of them a full-time temporary job, and 11 short-term and temporary.

Overall, estimates the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Chris Horner, $30 billion in green handouts in the stimulus bill cost taxpayers about $475,000 per job.

Almost no amount of tax subsidy can make consumers purchase something they don’t want. When they don’t, the enterprise is doomed to fail. Rather than prop up such failures with tax money, governments at all levels should allow taxpayers to find productive uses for their money. — From the Orange County Register, a Freedom Communications newspaper

[SportsDino]

I am actually pro-green jobs (as I have ranted before), but those statistics hold for 'jobs' created across all categories of the stimulus... not just the supposed green sector. I believe ages ago someone even put up a news article in a chart in one of these threads about wasted money (in Delaware or something, been a couple years). At the time the numbers were shockingly bad across the bad even then, I would not be surprised if they are downright terrifying by now.

The stimulus did not work and would not work at any level of funding because it was used as a tool for politcal corruption, funneling millions into the hands of well linked people who did not even make an effort to turn it into jobs (it would have cut into the amount of the pie they would be able to steal outright).

This is why you have to have extremely clear and hard to game scenarios for federal spending for it to have an effect on the economy. You can't just create some massive subsidy that is 80-90% stolen to get 10% effect. You need to find one thing with clear goals and obvious transparency (build X number of oil pipelines or high capacity power transmission stations to shore up infrastructure) and watch it like a damn hawk to see it actually gets done. Instead we gave out billions to the corrupt segment of the construction industry (not to badmouth the good construction companies out there, but when no bid contracts start flying around you see a high number land in the hands of cousin Earl who doesn't even have workers, he just hires out a subcontract...).

Take all the vast amount of money and throw it into a tax incentive directly linked to domestic employment, it might look like a drop in the bucket (say 1-5 thousand per worker after you average it 150+ million ways) but those numbers would be big money for small and large businesses that hire a lot of workers. Even better, cut the loopholes and take the revenue from obvious political corruption (say trillion dollar tax holidays, the multi-billion dollar loopholes around executive compensation, or the ludicrious corp pork) and you can actually give out reasonably large sized per worker incentives.

Good news, you make up a portion of the incentive on the backend as those workers pay their individual income taxes. Even better, you cut the bleed on unemployment costs which will save further money. Even better you have actual employment figures so you get a nice stock rally (okay I have to point out where I get my cut somewhere along here).

[SportsDino]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

If you're the government, How do you boost the construction sector other than, say, infrastructure projects.

SI

For housing construction the best thing right now would be a massive rally in employment figures, because competition for workers will at least stabilize and probably grow wages, give people more certainty on future incomes, and let them buy houses. There is simply too much excess housing inventory, if you look at the numbers it is truly insane, even if we had high paying jobs at like 1-2% unemployment, some places have more inventory than even an ideal world could occupy.

Over capacity leads to price softness, the housing boom in construction was based on making insane returns over expenditures to actually building a house, it should be no surprise that the number of people involved in the industry grew dramatically, the inventory grew dramatically, and that the percentage numbers after a crash will be huge.

We do not want to restore the housing industry to its boom size, it actually needs to be a few degrees smaller, but all the pundits don't understand such mathematics. Sure you may have big double digit percentage declines, it actually should be expected, the sector is just overexpanded, no amount of subsidy (short of a bubble, yuck) will get it back to those numbers. And the efficiency on such spending would be really bad as well (it is possible to spend 2 dollars and only get 1 dollar of value... traditional microeconomics can show that at some point returns are marginal and those numbers conform to reality, not historical employment numbers).

We do need infrastructure spending, simply because we want to be competitive with other countries and in my opinion good infrastructure has a multiplier effect on economies (see Interstate system and the growth of the automobile, one of the bigger positive sum economic phenonmenons of the last century). Boost it by directly building that infrastructure, not shovel ready bullshit that is really just shoveling a pile of money to mobster Mel.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

If you're the government, How do you boost the construction sector other than, say, infrastructure projects.

SI

Thats exactly it...but as SportsDino said...not just digging holes to fill them back in projects, high speed rails to connect 2 cities that nobody wants to commute between (not that some HS rail isn't needed....just sayin its not always viable), or building more city halls. Projects that actually accomplish something.

That "something" in my mind is (and has been) energy infrastructure to facilitate energy independence. Not burying power lines for aesthetics or some crap...I'm talking about instituting new standards for energy which, I believe, will require a lot of retro-fitting of "fueling" stations (not necessarily gas), regional & national energy grid construction for increased load sharing/redundancy/supply from anywhere in the country, new energy source facility construction, or even the ability to fuel (or charge) our vehicles from this grid in the comfort of our home. And let's not get hung up on what the energy source is for now...so long as it isn't oil-based.

We have a society that loves powered things. We love our suburban homes with yards, we love our computers & home entertainment systems, we love our AC in the summer & heat in the winter, we love vehicles that can tell us where to go (if not bring us there). In short, we love the the entertainment & convenience that comes with having powered devices so why don't we make this cheaper, cleaner, & more sustainable for the future.

[Buccaneer]

In order grow green energy sources, we are going to need an awful lot more high-voltage transmission lines, and square miles of wind generators and solar farms. But there are significant environmental opposition (as well as nimby) to all three such proposals. The reasons for the failures in reaching a critical mass is that everyone expects reliable energy and that means still being connected to the grid. Right now, solar is a niche market for the well-to-do (and even they are still rely on traditional sources).

[SteveMax58]

Thats my understanding as well Bucc. Aren't you in the industry? Or did I have you confused with somebody else?

I know there is a lot of environmetal & nimby concerns but my thinking is that if you have the national & regional grids in place which can support high capacities of power sourcing, you can essentially source energy from anywhere, to anybody. Then you can allow the states/municipalities that are more welcoming to being a national/regional energy source to be the home for the best possible combination of cost, sustainability, environmental impact, etc. But the key is getting the over the top greenies out of the policy driver's seat, which is something the Dems won't do (i.e. the Tea Party of the left). Simply using today's technology (from what I understand of it) is better than doing nothing & continuing the coal/oil based power sourcing just due to the multiplicative effect it would have on the economy.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Somewhere amidst all this talk of housing & construction this note fits somewhere: Habitat for Humanity is now the 6th largest homebuilder in the U.S. As they continue to climb up the list, I have to think that the pressure on them to stop building from scratch & put more efforts toward rehabbing existing properties is going to increase.

Habitat builds more houses, moves into top 10 in U.S. *| ajc.com

[Edward64]

Pretty good news.

Al-Qaeda's No. 2 Leader Killed In Pakistan. U.S. Official Says | FoxNews.com

Al Qaeda's No. 2 leader, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, has been killed in Pakistan, a U.S. official tells Fox News.

Al-Rahman was a Libyan national who was considered Al Qaeda's operational leader before rising to the No. 2 spot following Usama bin Laden's death in May.

Al-Rahman's death is a big blow to the terrorist group and comes as U.S. officials have said in the aftermath of bin Laden's killing that a few more high-profile deaths could break Al Qaeda's back.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, says al-Rahman was killed Aug. 22 in the Pakistani tribal region of Waziristan. That's the same day a US drone strike in Waziristan.

[JPhillips]

I swear there are 100 hundred #2 and #3 leaders in Al Quaeda.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I swear there are 100 hundred #2 and #3 leaders in Al Quaeda.

I won't complain if they're bogged down by excessive upper middle-management

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I swear there are 100 hundred #2 and #3 leaders in Al Quaeda.

I guess you can't ever get rid of the #2 guy unless the main guy just goes streaking all by himself.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Somewhere amidst all this talk of housing & construction this note fits somewhere: Habitat for Humanity is now the 6th largest homebuilder in the U.S. As they continue to climb up the list, I have to think that the pressure on them to stop building from scratch & put more efforts toward rehabbing existing properties is going to increase.

Habitat builds more houses, moves into top 10 in U.S. *| ajc.com

I used to help with that project back in Shreveport. The rebuilds I was apart of were always for elderly who had no desire to move. Not sure if that was a trend or not.

[JPhillips]

I know the Newburgh group has been doing rebuilds lately.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I swear there are 100 hundred #2 and #3 leaders in Al Quaeda.

#2s are a little more rare, but we have killed at least 100 #3s. For the longest time, it was that any time some middle manager in Al Qaeda was killed that wasn't Bin Laden or al Zawahiri, they were somehow the #3.

SI

[stevew]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I swear there are 100 hundred #2 and #3 leaders in Al Quaeda.

It's hard to win a terrorist championship without at least a couple #1 type leaders. You can't just cobble a staff together full of mid rotation guys.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

#2s are a little more rare, but we have killed at least 100 #3s. For the longest time, it was that any time some middle manager in Al Qaeda was killed that wasn't Bin Laden or al Zawahiri, they were somehow the #3.

Agreed on all those #3's. And don't forget all those country franchisee's #1's.

[stevew]

I'm gonna move to Azerbaijan and get on the leadership depth chart. Hopefully I won't flop and be known as the Shia Tim Tebow.

[Edward64]

You would think there would be more press on this pending vote. Israel is against, US promises to veto etc.

I like Abbas and how he has kept his "part" quiet (for the most part I think). I don't know all details of the "statehood" but my inclination is to support the Abbas part at least.

Should be an interesting Sept 20.

Palestinians to present statehood bid to UN general assembly | World news | The Guardian

Palestinian leaders have said that they will formally request recognition of their state and full membership of the UN next month, despite strong US opposition amid warnings that such a move would jeopardise future peace talks.

Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, will personally present the application to the UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, before the UN general assembly opens on 20 September.
:
:
The Israeli prime minister's office said the Palestinian move was "expected and regrettable". "Binyamin Netanyahu [the Israeli prime minister] still believes that only through direct and honest negotiations - not through unilateral decisions - will it be possible to advance the peace process," the statement said.

The Palestinian decision to adopt the UN approach is borne of frustration over stalled negotiations. Direct talks broke down last September when Israel refused to extend a temporary freeze on settlement expansion. The Palestinians also hope that UN recognition of their state will increase international pressure on Israel to end its 44-year occupation.

Full membership of the UN requires the backing of the 15-member security council before approval by the general assembly. The US has already stated its intention to veto such a move. The UK, also a permanent member of the security council, has not declared its position. If the bid for full membership fails, the Palestinians are expected to request "non-member state" status – a step short of full recognition – at the general assembly, which requires a two-thirds majority of the 193 countries. At the moment, the Palestinians believe they have the support of about 120.

[Edward64]

I'm rated as post-modern - moderate, liberal on social issues.

Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology - Pew Research Center

Post-Moderns

13% of the public

What They Believe
•Generally supportive of government, though more conservative on race policies and the safety net
•Strongly supportive of regulation and environmental protection
•Most (56%) say Wall Street helps the economy more than it hurts
•Very liberal on social issues, including same-sex marriage
•One of the least religious groups: nearly a third are unaffiliated with any religious tradition
•Favor the use of diplomacy rather than force

Who They Are
•The youngest of the typology groups: 32% under age 30
•A majority are non-Hispanic white and have at least some college experience
•Half live in either the Northeast or the West
•A majority (58%) live in the suburbs
•63% use social networking
•One-in-five regularly listen to NPR; 14% regularly watch The Daily Show

[Buccaneer]

Not that good of a test, imo. Changing one answer can jump you two catagories; changing two answers can take you to an extreme. I did a control the first time and then changed 1 and then 2 answers the next two times.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by stevew

I'm gonna move to Azerbaijan and get on the leadership depth chart. Hopefully I won't flop and be known as the Shia Tim Tebow.

This is gold in more than one way.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Not that good of a test, imo. Changing one answer can jump you two catagories; changing two answers can take you to an extreme. I did a control the first time and then changed 1 and then 2 answers the next two times.

And far too black & white on many of the questions/statements.