The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

If you knew where he was to bomb him, you could have rounded him up and brought him back to trial...

Umm, sure. Just dance right in, snatch him, dance right out, no problem at all, easy as pie. Right.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Umm, sure. Just dance right in, snatch him, dance right out, no problem at all, easy as pie. Right.

No one said it is easy. I'm sure it would be difficult, dangerous, and costly. But it is worth it to live up to the ideals of our country.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

No one said it is easy. I'm sure it would be difficult, dangerous, and costly. But it is worth it to live up to the ideals of our country.

Living up to the ideals of this country to what end? With so much unrighteousness, what level of morality are trying to achieve? Rhetorically speaking.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

No one said it is easy. I'm sure it would be difficult, dangerous, and costly. But it is worth it to live up to the ideals of our country.

Is it "legal" for the U.S. to even wander around Yemen without permission and arrest people? (edit: isn't that what extradition treaties are for, and isn't that why we just can't go and grab Roman Polanski?)

Or is this a threshold thing - it's OK to play fast and loose with international law/conduct unauthorized missions if we're talking arrest rather than death? If that's the case, isn't the question a moral one rather than a legal one (if both outcomes are illegal)?

Edit: At least Obama gave him notice last year that we were coming to kill him. I guess, in theory, he could have appealed that "death warrant" in a U.S. court if he was so inclined (not sure if he tried to do that or not). Of course, I'm not sure if death in this manner was a desirable outcome for him or not (it's hard to tell the difference between the real-believer terrorists and the everyone-else-should-die-a-martyr-except-for-me-terrorists)

[molson]

Dola, I guess there was a lawsuit, which was thrown out.....

"Anwar al-Awlaki's father, Nasser, with the help of the ACLU, sued President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and CIA Director Leon Panetta a year ago, when it became clear that the U.S. was targeting the younger al-Awlaki. But U.S. District Judge John Bates threw the case out, ruling that federal courts were in no position to evaluate whether someone was a terrorist whose activities threatened national security and against whom the use of deadly force could be justified.

"This court recognizes the somewhat unsettling nature of its conclusion -- that there are circumstances in which the executive's unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas is 'constitutionally committed to the political branches' and judicially unreviewable," Bates said, quoting an earlier decision on a similar issue."

The family had 60 days to appeal that decision to the D.C. Circuit, but they decided not to.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by molson

Dola, I guess there was a lawsuit, which was thrown out.....

"Anwar al-Awlaki's father, Nasser, with the help of the ACLU, sued President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and CIA Director Leon Panetta a year ago, when it became clear that the U.S. was targeting the younger al-Awlaki. But U.S. District Judge John Bates threw the case out, ruling that federal courts were in no position to evaluate whether someone was a terrorist whose activities threatened national security and against whom the use of deadly force could be justified.
.

I googled on fathers name to see if there were any comments since the killing ... didn't find any.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The whole CEO compensation process is a scam. First the CEOs hire compensation consultants that shockingly say the guy that hired them should be paid a lot of money. Then the board, full of people that need favors from the CEO, decides the CEO really does deserve the crazy compensation suggested by the consultants. The next CEO hires the same consultants who now say that this guy deserves 10% more than the last guy since he's obviously better. The board doesn't want to lose a guy that's better than the competition's guy, so they agree.

Rinse and repeat.

I saw this today from WaPo. If everyone wants to be above average...

It wasn’t until recently, however, that its pervasiveness and impact on executive pay became clear. Companies have long hid the way they set executive pay, but in late 2006, the Securities and Exchange Commission began compelling companies to disclose the specifics of how they use peer groups to determine executive pay.

Since then, researchers have found that about 90 percent of major U.S. companies expressly set their executive pay targets at or above the median of their peer group. This creates just the kinds of circumstances that drive pay upward.

[sterlingice]

Anyone with thoughts on a possible trade war with China?

SI

[gstelmack]

All those multi-millionaire Dems who think they aren't paying enough in taxes now have an easy way to fix the issue:

https://www.pay.gov/paygov/

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

All those multi-millionaire Dems who think they aren't paying enough in taxes now have an easy way to fix the issue:

https://www.pay.gov/paygov/

Lifetime savings sent!

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Anyone with thoughts on a possible trade war with China?
SI

My vote is to crash their economy somehow (give them a Japanese lost decade/generation) before they overtake us. Send them into a depression, create political unrest, foment a revolution where they start to recover in 20+ years.

Still hoping for their real estate market to pop.

Obviously this would hurt us also but think we are better apt to cope with it than them and it will give us another x years of being the only military and economic superpower.

With that said, no I don't think we'll win a clean fight/trade war.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

So tired of these specialized taxes that politicians keep proposing.

Sources Say Sen. Reid Wants Millionaire Surtax To Pay For Jobs Bill | Fox News

Either raise the taxes overall, start removing existing deductions/credits, or don't do anything at all. These extra tack-on taxes only make the tax code a bigger mess. Use this opportunity to simplify it rather than make it worse.

FWIW......I'm opposed to the jobs bill anyway, but if you do believe in it, this is the wrong way to go about it.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Any chance Obama repeats as Nobel Peace Prize winner? Maybe he needs another call to action?

[panerd]

So where you at conservatives? States rights or nannying adults?

Where are you at liberals? Personal freedom or pandering for votes?

Hard to see the sense in this... my only hope is that usually the mass media has alternative motives so maybe this story is the beginning of the deserved backlash on the pointless drug war.

Calif. pot dispensaries told to shut down - US news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com

[SteveMax58]

I think its fine to have some things be universally enforced by the fed.

This doesn't happen to be one of them, in my opinion, unless you can somehow tie this into national security. So this is a case where states rights should be respected so long as it doesn't impede the federal government's ability to protect people from foreign threats. If pot were legal, I would think it would actually slow down the threat and spillover of illegal trafficking, so not sure that case has a ton of merit.

It may (or may not) make California a less desirable place to live for the majority of people...but that is what elections are for.

[Edward64]

A Cain vs Obama would be fascinating but don't think Obama has to worry about this scenario. I don't really see Cain winning the GOP nomination regardless of where he is right now in the polls ... and yes, the GOP as a whole just isn't ready for it yet.

Herman Cain’s surprising rise to GOP front-runner - The Washington Post

For months, Herman Cain languished on the margins of the Republican presidential campaign. But in the past few weeks, something happened that even Cain did not see coming. He became a front-runner for the nomination.

The Atlanta businessman has shot up in the polls and become a ubiquitous presence on national television. His “9-9-9” plan to reform the tax code has become a household term. His sense of humor and upbeat style have injected a bit of light into a campaign that has centered on the gloom of the economy.

Cain, who brought to the race no obvious constituency to back him, has benefited as other conservative favorites took turns in the spotlight and then fell away, bowing out — or flaming out. But he also has used a series of televised debates to raise his profile and establish himself as a powerful communicator with a simple plan to restart the economy.

“My message of common-sense solutions is resonating with people,” Cain said in an interview. “People around the country are starting to know who I am and starting to identify me with solutions, not rhetoric"

[Edward64]

Good to see that he is more combative, the GOP will obviously resist. The rhetoric will start heating up thru election day. Wish he had done this earlier on the budget/downgrade.

Obama: Jobs bill could prevent second downturn - politics - White House - msnbc.com

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama directly challenged Republicans Thursday to explain their opposition to his new jobs bill, arguing the $447 billion package could prevent a double-dip recession.

The newlegislation, introduced last month by the president, "could guard against another downturn," Obama said, warning that "the problems Europe is having today could have a very real effect on our economy when it's already fragile."

The jobs bill is due for a vote in the Senate next week; the president challenged GOP senators to explain why they would vote against the measure when, Obama reasoned, it contains a number of proposals that Republicans had previously supported.

"Any senator out there who's thinking about voting against this jobs bill when it comes up for a vote needs to explain exactly why they would oppose something we know would improve our economic situation at such an urgent time," Obama said.

The event was Obama's first news conference since announcing his $447 billion jobs bill in early September.

[sterlingice]

Cain, really? Well, he's up to 8% on Intrade...

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

"Any senator out there who's thinking about voting against this jobs bill when it comes up for a vote needs to explain exactly why they would oppose something we know would improve our economic situation at such an urgent time," Obama said.

I'm guessing this is just like the stimulus projection graph. Sounds like we know all this in advance so there's no reason to oppose it.

[Buccaneer]

"Any senator out there who's thinking about voting against this jobs bill when it comes up for a vote needs to explain exactly why they would oppose something we know would improve our economic situation at such an urgent time," Obama said.

Is he certain that this will "improve our economic situation"? Or will this be like a lot of other legislation of high costs and low benefits?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Is he certain that this will "improve our economic situation"? Or will this be like a lot of other legislation of high costs and low benefits?

Is there an echo in here? in here?

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Is he certain that this will "improve our economic situation"? Or will this be like a lot of other legislation of high costs and low benefits?

Thats what is great about spending money you can print. If you don't fully grasp the severity of the economic situation (which is what he claims was the case when he took office in 2009)...then at least no harm can be done by printing more, right?

Right? None...no fundamental problems from it. It will evenly disburse and not create further wealth disparity at all.

[molson]

My favorite part of the jobs bill is the part that discourages employers from hiring (unemployed people would be able to sue for discrimination if they felt their unemployed status had kept them from getting a job.)

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

My favorite part of the jobs bill is the part that discourages employers from hiring (unemployed people would be able to sue for discrimination if they felt their unemployed status had kept them from getting a job.)

You can't seriously think that will affect hiring, right? That's like the rationale behind "Here's a $5000 tax credit to hire someone who you pay $50,000"- all that means is that you pushed those companies willing to hire at $45K but not $50K into hiring, which is a really small number.

If there's demand, you hire. If you get a good enough incentive, you'll hire. If there's no demand, you don't hire. If there are products to be made and services to be sold, you'll do it.
"Well, we have an order for $3M in product and need 10 people to build it!" "Nah, we won't do it because the guys we won't hire might sue"

That said, the more interesting question is when did employment status become a protected class for the purposes of hiring. Not really saying it's right or wrong, but wondering aloud whether it should be.

SI

[JPhillips]

But...I thought it was all about the confidence fairy!

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

You can't seriously think that will affect hiring, right? That's like the rationale behind "Here's a $5000 tax credit to hire someone who you pay $50,000"- all that means is that you pushed those companies willing to hire at $45K but not $50K into hiring, which is a really small number.

If there's demand, you hire. If you get a good enough incentive, you'll hire. If there's no demand, you don't hire. If there are products to be made and services to be sold, you'll do it.
"Well, we have an order for $3M in product and need 10 people to build it!" "Nah, we won't do it because the guys we won't hire might sue"

That said, the more interesting question is when did employment status become a protected class for the purposes of hiring. Not really saying it's right or wrong, but wondering aloud whether it should be.

SI

I don't think it will effect hiring from an economic perspective in the way you describe no (and I don't think tax credits do either), but I'm concerned about adding additional liability exposure to the hiring process now. It's pretty easy and correct to isolate out factors like race, religion, and gender in the hiring process - but experience and employment status? And it seems ass backwards to include that in the "if you oppose this bill you must just hate jobs" bill. Maybe we should focus on the jobs and not pander to the unemployed for votes.

[sterlingice]

But I don't think it's as simple as that. If you're going to make it an issue, this is the bill to do it with (not that it will ever see the light of day).

I think it's a real and legitimate problem but I think one of those that falls into the category of "Yes, it's morally wrong. But should it be illegal?". There have been quite a few news stories over the past couple of years about people who are unemployed not applying. I know myself that I'm currently employed due in large part to luck: I had a lot of being in the right place at the right time with where I am now. I know I was prepared enough and good enough to get the job when it was offered but, at the same time, there were some better people who didn't have that opportunity. Should they be discriminated against when looking for their next job?

SI

[Edward64]

Its better for Romney to have this now than later. I think it'll be interesting to hear the Southern Baptists vs Mormon debate the theology, philosophy etc.

Wouldn't be surprised if the Perry camp suggested it to the Pastor.

First Read - Pastor backing Perry: Romney not a Christian

The Texas pastor who introduced Gov. Rick Perry at Friday's Values Voters Summit in Washington told reporters that he does not believe that former Massachusetts Mitt Romney is a Christian, and called Romney's Mormon faith a "cult."

"Well, Rick Perry's a Christian. He's an evangelical Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ," Dr. Robert Jeffress told NBC News. "Mitt Romney's a good moral person but he's not a Christian. Mormonism is not Christianity. It has always been considered a cult by the mainstream of Christianity. So it's the difference between a Christian and a non-Christian."

Perry's campaign quickly distanced itself from the words of the pastor. The Texas governor, according to campaign spokesman Mark Miner, does not believe Mormonism is a cult.

[Edward64]

I get wanting to tell the story and wanting to provide context but why lie. The employed or not could be simple mistake, timing issue but "met" is just not right.

President Obama's Teachers Tale Embellished? - Fox News

Obama said he had met a young man named Robert Baroz who has two decades of teaching experience, a master's degree and and excellent track record of teaching. "He's an English teacher in Boston who came to the White House a few weeks ago," the president explained to reporters. "In the last few years, he's received three pink slips because of budget cuts. Why wouldn't we want to pass a bill that puts somebody like Robert back in the classroom teaching our kids?"

But there are two elements of Mr. Obama's story that are being questioned. According to the Boston Herald, Robert Baroz never met the president when he was at the White House. And Robert Baroz is currently employed.

[JediKooter]

Mormons are christians by default since they believe in jesus. A cult? I don't find that description too far off the mark. Christian cult would be more accurate in my opinion.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I get wanting to tell the story and wanting to provide context but why lie. The employed or not could be simple mistake, timing issue but "met" is just not right.

President Obama's Teachers Tale Embellished? - Fox News

That's actually really funny (the mixup part).

All presidents embellish quite a bit. My guess is he meets 100 people on a given day and his aides likely "just figured" he must have met him when they read his story. Obama likely deferred to them as to whether he met him before.

[sterlingice]

Yay. Presidential fact checker fail. They're pretty bad about that in this administration

It's the Information age. It takes an extra minute to fact check. Do the damn job because if you don't, someone else will check for you and the upside is not worth the downside.

I'm sure Obama has met some teacher who was pink slipped- you can't throw a rock without hitting one but you gotta get the name and situation right.

SI

[Edward64]

Started doing some research to figure this out.

Mormonism and Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comparison Chart of Mormonism vs. Mainstream Christianity - ReligionFacts

The following chart provides a quick-reference guide to the major similarities and differences between the beliefs and practices of Mormonism and mainstream Protestant Christianity. As is always the case with charts, the information is simplified for brevity and should be used alongside more complete explanations. The beliefs listed for both Mormons and Protestant Christians represent those of most, but not all, churches or individuals within each tradition.

[Edward64]

I don't know this for sure but suspect the large number of medical marijuana operations indicates an abuse of what truly should be prescribed for medical reasons only. DOJ seems to be going to the extreme in the other direction ... why can't medical pot just be dispensed in a hospital pharmacy?

Pot advocates livid over feds’ Calif. crackdown - US news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com

Marijuana dispensaries that have large operations or are close to areas with children will be the focus of a federal crackdown in California, U.S. prosecutors said Friday in explaining a campaign that some activists said goes far beyond the Bush administration's policies.

Not all of the thousands of storefront marijuana dispensaries operating in the state are being targeted, U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner said at a press conference.

Instead officials initially are going after shops close to schools and other places with lots of children, as well as what Wagner called "significant commercial operations." He said that includes farmland where marijuana is grown.

Melinda Haag, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California, said Friday that the 2009 memo was "never intended to shield commercial operations or industrial-size growth," said

"People are using medical marijuana to make tons of money, and sometimes engage in drug trafficking," Haag said.

"The intention regarding medical marijuana under California state law was to allow marijuana to be supplied to seriously ill people on a nonprofit basis," she added. "What we are finding, however, is that California's laws have been hijacked by people who are in this to get rich and don't care at all about sick people."

[sterlingice]

Seems like odd timing and I just don't get why

SI

[Buccaneer]

That's the big question I have about MMJ. I work downtown and live 7 miles away. On the way home, there are 12 MMJ shops just on my route. There is no way that there are that many patients to support 50-60 (?) shops just in my city. Seems like the two big hospitals could handle the relatively few patients that are prescribed.

[molson]

"What we are finding, however, is that California's laws have been hijacked by people who are in this to get rich and don't care at all about sick people."

Ya, it's not really about the marijuana, it's about people making money. Can't have that!!

[SportsDino]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I thought it was common knowledge that it was easier to make money in a down economy than an up economy, if you're "fast money". 401Ks and other institutional investors are in there for the long haul so that's a lot of money to be made shorting in the short term.

SI

That is true, I'm wondering if the finance media is trying to push things into another recession to put another squeeze on people. Wild volatility like we have had recently is very profitable, but a longterm drop beyond say 1100 is a serious factor in the way I approach long portfolios (I don't believe in buy and hold across market declines, better to cash out and load up after the noise, that way you only lose opportunity dollars you might have made and not real frickin money).

I don't want a double-dip recession, we don't need it, the only thing that is truly ugly numbers wise these days is the massive financial industry debt, derivatives are still measured in the trillions and most of this has little to do with individual debt (massive foreclosures, bankruptcies, and debt paydown have done a lot to that area). There are not enough job cuts to cover the amount of gambling rich people can rack up.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

That is true, I'm wondering if the finance media is trying to push things into another recession to put another squeeze on people.

You're giving the media way too much credit for even being able to think of such a plan, much less execute it.

[sterlingice]

It doesn't take the media as a monolith to do it. You just have a couple of key players and all others are just sheep and, what's one of JimGA's more favored phrases: "useful idiots".

SI

[Edward64]

More news on the justification. Don't sweat it Obama, this one the public stands by you.

NYT: Secret US memo OK'd killing of American cleric - World news - The New York Times - msnbc.com

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s secret legal memorandum that opened the door to the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born radical Muslim cleric hiding in Yemen, found that it would be lawful only if it were not feasible to take him alive, according to people who have read the document.
:
:
The memo, written last year, followed months of extensive interagency deliberations and offers a glimpse into the legal debate that led to one of the most significant decisions made by President Obama — to move ahead with the killing of an American citizen without a trial.

The secret document provided the justification for acting despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the international laws of war, according to people familiar with the analysis. The memo, however, was narrowly drawn to the specifics of Mr. Awlaki’s case and did not establish a broad new legal doctrine to permit the targeted killing of any Americans believed to pose a terrorist threat.
:
:
But the document that laid out the administration’s justification — a roughly 50-page memorandum by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, completed around June 2010 — was described on the condition of anonymity by people who have read it.

The legal analysis, in essence, concluded that Mr. Awlaki could be legally killed, if it was not feasible to capture him, because intelligence agencies said he was taking part in the war between the United States and Al Qaeda and posed a significant threat to Americans, as well as because Yemeni authorities were unable or unwilling to stop him.

[Edward64]

Friedman's article wasn't Obama specific but had the below which made me think some.

Where Have You Gone, Joe DiMaggio? - NYTimes.com

What is John Boehner’s vision? I laugh just thinking about the question. What is President Obama’s vision? I cry just thinking about the question. The Republican Party has been taken over by an antitax cult, and Obama just seems lost. Obama supporters complain that the G.O.P. has tried to block him at every turn. That is true. But why have they gotten away with it? It’s because Obama never persuaded people that he had a Grand Bargain tied to a vision worth fighting for.

[SteveMax58]

The legal analysis, in essence, concluded that Mr. Awlaki could be legally killed, if it was not feasible to capture him, because intelligence agencies said he was taking part in the war between the United States and Al Qaeda and posed a significant threat to Americans, as well as because Yemeni authorities were unable or unwilling to stop him.

Hmm...same conclusions I had arrived myself. Maybe I should have a second thought on that.

[JPhillips]

Interesting interview with Gingrich and Cain this morning. Some highlights:

Both Cain and Gingrich commented on Romney's faith, saying nobody's faith should be questioned. Unfortunately that wasn't followed up with a question on how both of them have questioned whether Muslims can faithfully serve in the government.

Both also used a very interesting phrase along the lines of, "Mormons consider themselves Christian." Neither was willing to say Mormons are Christians. Sounded like very carefully chosen language designed to anger neither Mormons or fundies.

Cain said his 9-9-9 plan would reduce taxes for everyone and be revenue neutral.

Both claimed Occupy Wall Street was organized and controlled by the White House.

[JPhillips]

dola

Does anyone regret their decision more than Huckabee? Certainly seems like he'd have a good shot at being the not-Romney frontrunner.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

dola

Does anyone regret their decision more than Huckabee? Certainly seems like he'd have a good shot at being the not-Romney frontrunner.

Still not too late to get in. It would only be a week after when Clinton announced he was running. I've thought about Huckabee a lot as the guy who really should be running for the Republicans.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by rowech

Still not too late to get in. It would only be a week after when Clinton announced he was running. I've thought about Huckabee a lot as the guy who really should be running for the Republicans.

Yeah, I'm not sure what he is sitting around on the sidelines for. Unless he really just doesn't care to go through the campaigning again or something.

I don't see how he could lose in the primaries & if he is committed (which presumably he would be) could be a real threat to pull in independents in the general.

Apparently doing a show and playing some music is good enough for him now.

[JPhillips]

Given that the start of the GOP primaries is in early Jan, maybe mid-December, it's just too hard to enter now. He doesn't have any of his money folk and no infrastructure. The early primaries take a lot of hard work on the ground and he just can't get that done in the time needed.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Given that the start of the GOP primaries is in early Jan, maybe mid-December, it's just too hard to enter now. He doesn't have any of his money folk and no infrastructure. The early primaries take a lot of hard work on the ground and he just can't get that done in the time needed.

Perhaps if you're a new candidate but people know who he is from last time and have seen him on TV a lot. He's been on not just his show but many others. He could get in right now if he wanted to. He won't -- but he should. The Republicans are going to do everything they can to not run Romney and therefore give Obama four more years.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

That's actually really funny (the mixup part).

All presidents embellish quite a bit. My guess is he meets 100 people on a given day and his aides likely "just figured" he must have met him when they read his story. Obama likely deferred to them as to whether he met him before.

But he shouldnt do this... Just like Bachmann's lady with the HPV story.