The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I've seen many employers moan about being costs of employees being forced upon them - however I'd argue that its fairer they pay that then force those costs to be paid by the rest of society just so they can reap a profit.

So, when you employ a person, you assume complete responsibility for that person?

It's a nice thought. It used to work in Japan, but at a high cost. Loyalty works both ways.

But in a society based on individualism and freedom, it's not really fair to ask businesses to assume those costs for people who aren't required (or even expected, these days) to lift a finger once the work day ends. Or stick around once they're trained, at your expense. Or even not to say nasty things about you on Facebook.

Ask what you can do for your company, not for what your company can do for you.

Originally Posted by sterlingice

How is this anything other than an illustration of "I'm hiring part timers because I want more profit and using the government as an excuse as to why I'm doing it"?

Or, in many cases, hiring part-timers because margins are tight and it can make the difference between solvency and depending on government programs yourself.

The government has made a material decision to reward companies for job-sharing. It's cynical, but it will lower unemployment if the number of businesses remains constant. And those who only work half-time will become more dependent on government programs, meaning more votes for Big Government.

There's fallout when you try and eliminate your manufacturing sector, as the government has done. We're experiencing it now, and it will become worse. Blaming corporations for acting on the behalf of their stockholders is a rather strange exercise.

We could place corporations under more and more government control, but then people wouldn't necessarily invest in them. There's the occasional Ben and Jerry out there, but that's the luxury of tapping into certain niche markets - we can't all do that.

There needs to be a balance when enacting regulation. Too much, and your government is running everything (rather unfairly). Merit means nothing and even your best workers have little incentive. Too little, and you get cruise ships and beef that tastes like feet.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Mike D

If it's all one team, then everybody should do with less equally.

Not to sound Clintonian but it depends on what you mean by equally. I think you are saying equally = % wise.

I would theorize the need to establish a baseline fixed living wage for pensioners and its the amount above it that should be equally reduced % wise.

No, I don't know what the amount is.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Whether right or wrong, bigger bang for the buck by targeting the upper end pensioners.

I think the argument is not what is contractually agreed to but who can do with less to lessen the pain that don't have as much.

I don't get this line of thinking at all. Shouldn't those who put more years of their lives into public service have more to show for it afterwards, or at least, face the same proportional reductions as others?

The people who had the smallest pensions aren't necessarily the poorest, so this wouldn't even really make sense if the goal was to line all the debtors up by personal net worth and pay the poorest first. A lot of people have small public pensions just because they only spent a short time working in public service.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't get this line of thinking at all. Shouldn't those who put more years of their lives into public service have more to show for it afterwards, or at least, face the same proportional reductions as others?

The people who had the smallest pensions aren't necessarily the poorest, so this wouldn't even really make sense if the goal was to line all the debtors up by personal net worth and pay the poorest first. A lot of people have small public pensions just because they only spent a short time working in public service.

See above for my response to first paragraph.

Good point on the second if one can get a pension after 5 years of state service. My guess is majority have done their min (20 years?) for be eligible for pension. Let me know if you know this is incorrect assumption.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Edward64

See above for my response to first paragraph.

Good point on the second if one can get a pension after 5 years of state service. My guess is majority have done their min (20 years?) for be eligible for pension. Let me know if you know this is incorrect assumption.

I think it's usually 5 years, I'm not sure what Detroit's system is. But it's an incorrect assumption that someone's employer pension is necessarily their entire retirement income. Many people have public pensions + 401(k)s and Roths that were funded from private employers.

Regardless though, Detroit is just another deadbeat debtor here, do they really have a dual responsibility of wealth re-distribution in this role? Do bankruptcy courts entirely fulfill the smallest debts first and then leave the bigger debtors hanging? Why should things be different here? Edit: Even if bankruptcy courts were taking on a dual wealth-redistribution role, those smaller creditors aren't necessarily poorer individuals.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by molson

I think it's usually 5 years, I'm not sure what Detroit's system is. But it's an incorrect assumption that someone's employer pension is necessarily their entire retirement income. Many people have public pensions + 401(k)s and Roths that were funded from private employers.

I think we can extrapolate that employer pension is the vast majority of their retirement income. If the pensioners did not have access to 401k and employer matching, would that change your mind?

If these pensioners could have done social security (don't know) but decided on pension then I will concede they were culpable for their situation. I don't know.

Originally Posted by molson

Regardless though, Detroit is just another deadbeat debtor here, do they really have a dual responsibility of wealth re-distribution in this role? Do bankruptcy courts entirely fulfill the smallest debts first and then leave the bigger debtors hanging? Why should things be different here?

Let's level set and state some assumptions so I know where you are coming from
(1) do you agree that likely vast majority of pensioners are not culpable for Detroit going broke?
(2) do you agree with my assumption that these pensioners had to go with Detroit pension system vs social security?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Let's level set and state some assumptions so I know where you are coming from
(1) do you agree that likely vast majority of pensioners are not culpable for Detroit going broke?

Yes, and I definitely don't think school principles, lawyers, and enginneers who put 30 years in are more at fault than 10-year secretaries, so they shouldn't be penalized for their service and enhanced responsibilities.

Originally Posted by Edward64

(2) do you agree with my assumption that these pensioners had to go with Detroit pension system vs social security?

I think that's true of police officers, but not anyone else. (sometimes teachers have to make that deal, but I don't know if they did in Detroit). I don't think city secretaries are forgoing social security to take a job with a city agency. Or at least, I hope they're not. If they did, then yes, it's a different analysis, as it is with police officers. I wouldn't have a problem with the feds "bailing out" Detroit to the extent of making screwed police officers and other employees retroactively eligible for the social security they would have earned. That's be better than than some settlement that involved treating everyone like a low level employee with limited service time, even if they were well educated and gave their whole careers to public service.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Not to sound Clintonian but it depends on what you mean by equally. I think you are saying equally = % wise.

I would theorize the need to establish a baseline fixed living wage for pensioners and its the amount above it that should be equally reduced % wise.

No, I don't know what the amount is.

Equally = %. Definitely.

For example -- Say we need to come up with $11K in savings.

If the pension for *FOUR* workers who did nothing but show up to work for 8 hours a day for 20 years is $20,000 and a pension for *ONE* worker who took out $80,000K in student loans in order to get a better job and worked 8 hours a day for 20 years is $30,000 and we determine that the people who did nothing additional deserves every penny of their $20,000K (0% reduction) and the person who went above and beyond and had debts and a different quality of life should reduce their pension to $20,000K (33% reduction) to come up with $10K of what they need, it's not fair. Especially if the person who loses the most is forced to go back to work or take on a second job to pay off the debts or maintain the quality of life that they earned.

If they ALL accept a 10% reduction, that would be 4*2,000 and 1*3,000 for $11K. The $30K pensioner pays more, just not all of it.

[Edward64]

Alright Kerry, good luck, its your turn ... I think peace with West Bank is doable but think Gaza will be the stickler. Interested in seeing how this evolves.

Mideast peace talks set to begin after Israel agrees to free 104 Palestinian prisoners - The Washington Post

JERUSALEM — The first substantive peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians in years will begin Monday evening in Washington, the Obama administration announced, after Israeli leaders agreed Sunday to release 104 Palestinian prisoners.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the preliminary talks will be led by Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni and chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat. The talks, which will continue Tuesday, are expected to address the framework for full negotiations to follow — the talks about talks that had preceded past attempts at a deal.

The release of Palestinian prisoners was one of the major roadblocks to the peace talks.

Calling the prisoner decision “painful for the entire nation,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu won the approval of his divided cabinet earlier Sunday to release the Palestinian inmates, many convicted of killing Israelis, to help restart peace talks brokered by U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Concord: Half of Affordable Care Act call center jobs will be part-time - ContraCostaTimes.com

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Concord: Half of Affordable Care Act call center jobs will be part-time - ContraCostaTimes.com

WTF? What's that supposed to prove? Were all the jobs supposed to be full time? OMG! Stop the presses! The government is saving money and using business acumen to staff correctly and cut waste. Isn't that what you are always running on about?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

WTF? What's that supposed to prove? Were all the jobs supposed to be full time? OMG! Stop the presses! The government is saving money and using business acumen to staff correctly and cut waste. Isn't that what you are always running on about?

Did I said it proved anything? Did I say indicate it was anything other than a minor aside?

I actually found it interesting mostly because it was amusing to see the blowback aimed in the fencepost turtle's general direction. Not everything is meant to be decisive political commentary, sometimes shit is just worth two seconds of amusement.

Although if paying f'n phone bankers over $15/hr seems like "cutting waste" to you, well, there might be an issue there.

[PilotMan]

I thought you always paid what the market would bear? Certainly doesn't seem like that great a wage for boring, no skill work with little to nothing in benefits. I would imagine that you would need to pay a decent wage to keep turnover fairly low, otherwise you are spending more time and resources on training instead of the phone skills and knowledge that is required to make someone a solid phone worker. I don't think your everyday burger flipper would be cut out for that type of work.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I would imagine that you would need to pay a decent wage to keep turnover fairly low, otherwise you are spending more time and resources on training instead of the phone skills and knowledge that is required to make someone a solid phone worker.

One of the larger (non-governmental) employers here in Athens is a call bank. Low-end boiler room kind of deal.

Min wage, with small bumps for longevity. Their waiting list of employees is long, it's dull but non-demanding & the college students beg for the jobs to avoid waiting tables.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I thought you always paid what the market would bear? Certainly doesn't seem like that great a wage for boring, no skill work with little to nothing in benefits. I would imagine that you would need to pay a decent wage to keep turnover fairly low, otherwise you are spending more time and resources on training instead of the phone skills and knowledge that is required to make someone a solid phone worker. I don't think your everyday burger flipper would be cut out for that type of work.

$15/hr. is WAY too much for that position. Hell, for that amount, they could have paid them $10/hr. and given them health benefits.

[PilotMan]

According to this website:

http://www1.salary.com/Call-Center-R...nd-Salary.html

Median Pay for a Call Center Rep is $29,178/yr.

There are 2080 (40*52) hrs in a work year. That's no days off, short weeks, or breaks. Even with that high number the average pay works out to $14.03/hr.

So it sounds pretty much right in the middle to me.

[sterlingice]

And the call center is in Cali so there's probably a bit of a COLA there.

I always thought midwest college towns were great places to put call centers for high quality, lower wage labor. Even with the higher turnover, you should be able to train people up quicker.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

$15/hr. is WAY too much for that position. Hell, for that amount, they could have paid them $10/hr. and given them health benefits.

Aren't you going to get a different caliber of worker when you cut wages by 33%? Even with benefits?

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Aren't you going to get a different caliber of worker when you cut wages by 33%? Even with benefits?

SI

Not at all. Higher salary doesn't get a better caliber of worker, especially in this economy. Quality workers will come out for less pay in this climate because they're so desperate to find work.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Not at all. Higher salary doesn't get a better caliber of worker, especially in this economy. Quality workers will come out for less pay in this climate because they're so desperate to find work.

Right. But doesn't that hurt your argument that companies would pay more if there weren't so many regulations?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Right. But doesn't that hurt your argument that companies would pay more if there weren't so many regulations?

Pay is relative to two things: the market and how you'd like to be paid. The market is a supply vs. demand depending on the economy.

How you'd like to be paid is a different situation. For example, I can pay you:

$15/hour

or

$13/hour + health benefits

You'd be shocked how many people take the $15/hour even though the one with included benefits is often the better deal for them. I'm paying extra costs in that second scenario that they don't have to pay, but there's a lot of people that take that $15/hour and then don't budget for something like health insurance. It's usually better for me in the first scenario as a business owner.

[Julio Riddols]

I made 15 an hour at an inbound call center in Tempe. If they would have offered me 12 plus benefits, I'd have preferred that, especially if those benefits included a 401(k) or shares of stock.

[JPhillips]

The Christie/Paul fight sure is fun.

Christie's latest:

“I find it interesting that Senator Paul is accusing us of having a gimme, gimme, gimme attitude toward federal spending when in fact New Jersey is a donor state, we get 61 cents back on every dollar we send to Washington,” Christie said. “And interestingly Kentucky gets $1.51 on every dollar they sent to Washington.”

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The Christie/Paul fight sure is fun.

Christie's latest:

Same article...

Paul brushed off that suggestion during his interview with Blitzer, pointing to military bases on Kentucky soil as the primary recipient of federal funds.

It was one line down in the article I read so I could see how you might have missed the explanation.

EDIT: Not saying Rand Paul is the answer, he's not, but Christie is about as fiscally conservative as the Democrats so I will gladly take Paul over him in this fight.

[molson]

Ya, I've never understood that point. The fed isn't allowed to pick and choose states to fund, the people, businesses, and federal government agencies in each state are going to have different fed spending/fed taxing ratios because of the wealth of the people, type and number of business, and presence of military and other agencies. On this board (and I'm sure elsewhere), the point of the argument is that if you live in one of these loser states, you're not allowed to have an opinion about federal efficiency or corruption, even if you personally have absolutely nothing to do with any spending and taxing discrepancy. (And even if you personally pay enough taxes to where you're a "fed donor" under that formula). I mean, under that logic, if I make more money than you, my opinion about government matters more, because I pay more taxes. Maybe Kentucky should lose some electoral votes if their tax payers aren't contributing enough?

[panerd]

Agree completely Molson. And thanks to JPhillips for getting me started on this whole Christie/Paul "feud" but here is my understanding of the debate and I would love to hear somebody (maybe JiMGa) defend the Christie side.

So Rand Paul feels like the NSA/Patriot Act/etc is a violation of the 4th amendment of the constitution. There is a reasonable argument to be had on the other side which is made by people like President Obama who say there is a security threat not understood back when the constitution was written. The gray area (IMO) is where does the security threat end and panerd's privacy begin.

Christie's reaction: Called Paul and people with similar beliefs esoteric. Have a debate over the founding principles of this country apparently is not something worth his time or that anyone cares about. USA! USA! USA! America!

I have been involved in debates on FOFC about the 4th amendment and privacy and agree with a lot of the other side of the issue and have had some members agree with me. Christie just says its a non issue that isn't worthy of his time.

[JPhillips]

Uhh, you guys are too hung up on substance here. I don't really care about who wins as either of them would implement policies I disagree with. I just find the feud fun. If I posted yesterday I would have used Paul's "King of Bacon" remark, clearly jabbing at Christie's weight.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Uhh, you guys are too hung up on substance here. I don't really care about who wins as either of them would implement policies I disagree with. I just find the feud fun. If I posted yesterday I would have used Paul's "King of Bacon" remark, clearly jabbing at Christie's weight.

I know you're not digging into the substance of this in the context you brought it up, but Christie was, and it comes up all the time here. It's just a weird role-reversal, when a liberal, or in this case a moderate Republican, basically just brags about how rich he is and insults someone else for being poor. And the thing is, a lot of the conservatives who are the target of this line of argument probably wouldn't mind too much if the fed cut healthcare and welfare and social security spending to their state, it certainly wouldn't effect them. Military spending, of course, many would love to spend more on, though not all. And that's pretty much the big 4 fed spending categories that fit into ratio against fed income (which is based entirely on how many rich people you have in a state, and New Jersey has a lot.)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by panerd

Same article...

Paul brushed off that suggestion during his interview with Blitzer, pointing to military bases on Kentucky soil as the primary recipient of federal funds

As if New Jersey doesn't have military bases . Really, you can't put bases in New York City, so Jersey has a number of them.

Here is the fun part:
List of United States Army installations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of United States Marine Corps installations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of United States Navy installations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._installations

New Jersey has 2 Army bases (Fort Dix & Picatinny Arsenal). Kentucky has 3 Army bases (Blue Grass Army Depot, Fort Campbell, Fort Knox)

New Jersey has 2 Naval Bases: NWS Earle, NAES Lakehurst; and 1 Air Force Base: McGwire Air Force Base and 1 National Guard Air Base: Atlantic City Air National Guard Base. Kentucky has no Naval but has a Marine attachment at Fort Knox, and an Air National Guard base as Lousiville (but no Air Force Bases).

So basically, Paul is full of shit. Also wouldn't a Libertarian arguing for lesser government also want less military as well?

[SirFozzie]

Man, the GOP House side folks are really frayed right now, looks like they can't get anything through.

THUD bill is pulled as GOP budget frays - David Rogers - POLITICO.com

[panerd]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So basically, Paul is full of shit. Also wouldn't a Libertarian arguing for lesser government also want less military as well?

Yes he does. It may not make the Paul's very popular but I would think that is both Rand and Ron's either #1 or #2 campaign issues. I am pretty sure he isn't going to be allowed to shut down all of Kentucky's bases based on ideology though.

There is plenty that the Paul's (especially Rand) can be called out on but I wouldn't go with the standard "For smaller government but not a smaller military" line used against the GOP because both of the Paul's are right there with the most liberal democrats on our foreign policy.

[ISiddiqui]

Therefore I'd argue Christie's dig was right on the money.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Not at all. Higher salary doesn't get a better caliber of worker, especially in this economy. Quality workers will come out for less pay in this climate because they're so desperate to find work.

I can see where this is true in some industries but in other industries, higher salary will get you better caliber of worker even in this economy.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Therefore I'd argue Christie's dig was right on the money.

No doubt. I think the term "Bread and circus" was originally from the Romans but to hear a politician admit openly that people who care about issues like the Constitution are basically such a small segment of the voters that he doesn't need to be bothered with them just proves why the GOP will probably not control the presidency for any time in the foreseeable future. Paul appeals to a segment of the party that a frontrunner like Christie would just rather ignore. (A segment of the party that could grow from disgruntled Democrats IMO) Statements like his coming from a Democrat seem like a good rip but from a Republican just another nail in the coffin of the dying Republican party.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Man, the GOP House side folks are really frayed right now, looks like they can't get anything through.

THUD bill is pulled as GOP budget frays - David Rogers - POLITICO.com

So the THUD bill went... thud?

SI

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

Yes he does. It may not make the Paul's very popular but I would think that is both Rand and Ron's either #1 or #2 campaign issues. I am pretty sure he isn't going to be allowed to shut down all of Kentucky's bases based on ideology though.

There is plenty that the Paul's (especially Rand) can be called out on but I wouldn't go with the standard "For smaller government but not a smaller military" line used against the GOP because both of the Paul's are right there with the most liberal democrats on our foreign policy.

I'll give you Ron, but Rand surely doesn't sound like he wants to cut the military.

"They're precisely the same people who are unwilling to cut the spending, and their 'Gimme, gimme, gimme, give me all my Sandy money now,'" Paul told reporters Sunday in Kentucky. "Those are the people who are bankrupting the government and not letting enough money be left over for national defense."

[ISiddiqui]

I'd argue Rand Paul's calling people who are asking for money for rebuilding from Hurricane Sandy as "gimme, gimme, gimme" folks will have a MUCH bigger negative effect than a politician not caring about privacy concerns (when's the last President that we've had who did?). Paul just sounds fucking heartless.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'd argue Rand Paul's calling people who are asking for money for rebuilding from Hurricane Sandy as "gimme, gimme, gimme" folks will have a MUCH bigger negative effect than a politician not caring about privacy concerns (when's the last President that we've had who did?). Paul just sounds fucking heartless.

Since this board often wants to look at the political side of things and not the moral/ethical side of things I can't think of anything that would play better to Kentucky voters than the way Paul is being portrayed on this issue. What you are saying isn't exactly what happened (Paul was critical that Gov Christie saw no need to want any federal spending cuts to replace his request for disaster relief) but it still works in Paul's favor nonetheless.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'll give you Ron, but Rand surely doesn't sound like he wants to cut the military.

Again I don't care about defending Rand as much as I did when Ron was misinterpreted/misquoted and I have serious reservations about Rand the politician playing the "game" by backing Romney etc but he most certainly wants to cut the military significantly. Much like his father he feels like we can still maintain the national defense without the overseas national offense. (Which is the significant part of the budget) In fact his stand on this issue seems to almost match exactly with what Obama the '08 candidate/Nobel Peace prize winner campaigned on.

Foreign Policy and National Defense Rand Paul | United States Senator

This is one area where he seems to be carrying his father's torch. (Though I certainly concede if he were placed in an even higher office I don't see him having quite the integrity of his father in sticking with his plan to scale back the military)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by panerd

Since this board often wants to look at the political side of things and not the moral/ethical side of things I can't think of anything that would play better to Kentucky voters than the way Paul is being portrayed on this issue. What you are saying isn't exactly what happened (Paul was critical that Gov Christie saw no need to want any federal spending cuts to replace his request for disaster relief) but it still works in Paul's favor nonetheless.

I'm talking more in Presidential aspirations if you are looking political. Obviously this back and forth partially is looking forward to 2016.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm talking more in Presidential aspirations if you are looking political. Obviously this back and forth partially is looking forward to 2016.

Well again I don't see him winning New York, California, or New Jersey and don't see him losing Texas, Mississippi, or South Carolina. So IMO whether it will hurt him or not in places like Ohio or Pennsylvania is it will help.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by panerd

Well again I don't see him winning New York, California, or New Jersey and don't see him losing Texas, Mississippi, or South Carolina. So IMO whether it will hurt him or not in places like Ohio or Pennsylvania is it will help.

I don't think its necessarily smart to write off the entire North East in a Republican Primary, but YMMV.

[albionmoonlight]

Nation Just Wants To Be Safe, Happy, Rich, Comfortable, Entertained At All Times | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[Edward64]

Bummer. Sometimes I wonder if we really needed Nixon to open up China. Wouldn't it have been better if China was still stuck in the 19th century?

China’s first lady beats out Michelle Obama for best-dressed list, to cheers on the Chinese Web

When it comes to the love-hate, frenemy-like U.S.-China relationship, there’s been no shortage of competition. You have cyberwars, currency wars, intellectual property wars and, most recently, the tug-of-war over a certain asylum-seeking fugitive leaker.

Now, add to all that a rivalry over who has the best-dressed first lady — a competition in which China was surprisingly anointed the winner this week by Vanity Fair.

For the second consecutive year, Michelle Obama did not make the cut of the magazine’s list of “International Best-Dressed.” But China’s new first lady did. Peng Liyuan “sails onto the list,” as Vanity Fair put it in a photo gallery highlighting Peng’s eye for trendy-yet-stately attire.

The unexpected honor had some Chinese bloggers crowing.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Bummer. Sometimes I wonder if we really needed Nixon to open up China. Wouldn't it have been better if China was still stuck in the 19th century?

China’s first lady beats out Michelle Obama for best-dressed list, to cheers on the Chinese Web

LMAO - tell me you're kidding?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

LMAO - tell me you're kidding?

Somewhat facetious. But do think an argument could be made that (1) if Nixon admin did not open up China (2) they would not be in this upward trajectory and (3) where they seem to have benefited more than the US has.

[Edward64]

I think the right thing directionally.

Snowden revelations force Obama's hand on surveillance program - First Read

Analysis -- NSA leaker Edward Snowden’s revelations have forced President Barack Obama’s hand, leading the president to announce new reforms of the government’s classified surveillance programs.

After his administration issued repeated defenses of a National Security Agency monitoring program that collects Americans’ phone and Internet data, Obama announced during a press conference Friday afternoon that reforms to the system will make the collection activities more transparent and "give the American people additional confidence that there are additional safeguards against abuse."

Obama said the changes will include changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court system -- which currently greenlights requests for data gathering -- as well as the creation of both an internal NSA position devoted to privacy and an external working group to evaluate transparency in the program. Officials will also launch a new website next week that will serve as “a hub for further transparency” for interested members of the public.

President Obama described his conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin during a Friday press conference, saying their talks are "candid" and "blunt." He also emphasized he will not boycott the Olympics as a result of Russia's anti-gay laws. The best message is for gay and lesbian athletes to come home with the gold, Obama said. In other news, the State Department will reopen some of the U.S. embassies that had been close in response to a terror threat. NBC's Andrea Mitchell reports.

"Given the history of abuse by governments, it’s right to ask questions about surveillance by governments, particularly as technology is reshaping every aspects of our lives," he said.

[Edward64]

I don't know how Reid can draw that conclusion that single payer is inevitable? I assume he means government single payer covering the basics but with options for "premium/additional" insurance like in other countries.

Reid says Obamacare just a step toward eventual single-payer system - Las Vegas Sun News

In just about seven weeks, people will be able to start buying Obamacare-approved insurance plans through the new health care exchanges.

But already, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is predicting those plans, and the whole system of distributing them, will eventually be moot.

Reid said he thinks the country has to “work our way past” insurance-based health care during a Friday night appearance on Vegas PBS’ program “Nevada Week in Review.”

“What we’ve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but we’re far from having something that’s going to work forever,” Reid said.

When then asked by panelist Steve Sebelius whether he meant ultimately the country would have to have a health care system that abandoned insurance as the means of accessing it, Reid said: “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”

[JPhillips]

More principled conservatism in NC:

The Pasquotank County Board of Elections on Tuesday barred an Elizabeth City State University senior from running for city council, ruling his on-campus address couldn’t be used to establish local residency. Following the decision, the head of the county’s Republican Party said he plans to challenge the voter registrations of more students at the historically black university ahead of upcoming elections.

and

In a contentious meeting Monday, the new GOP majority on the Watauga elections board voted over the objection of the board’s lone Democrat to eliminate early voting at the Appalachian State student union.
The Watauga board also voted 2-1 Monday to combine the three Boone voting precincts into one, eliminating an election day polling site on campus. More than 9,300 Boone residents will now be slated to cast ballots at a county building that only has about 35 parking spots.

[Edward64]

The realist in me understand he is constrained. The idealist in me is disappointed in him. The GOP in me says he should have set strong ground rules with the coup leaders. If it wasn't a coup before, it is now by default as the military is unlikely to hold free elections anytime soon.

Obama warns of further steps in Egypt, cancels military exercises - CNN.com

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama announced Thursday that the United States has canceled joint military training exercises with the Egyptian military and alluded to the fact that his administration could take further steps to deal with the violence in Egypt.

"Going forward, I've asked my national security team to assess the implications of the actions taken by the interim government and further steps we may take as necessary with respect to the U.S.-Egyptian relationship," Obama said.

In a statement from his vacation home on Martha's Vineyard, the president, however, refrained from calling the government overthrow a coup, which would have implications for the military and humanitarian aid the United States sends to Egypt.

"The United States strongly condemns the steps that have been taken by Egypt interim government and security forces," Obama said about this week's Egyptian military crackdown against protests in Cairo. "We deplore violence against civilians."

Obama avoided taking sides with any factions in the country, which his administration has done consistently.

"We don't take sides with any particular party or political figure," Obama said. "We want Egypt to succeed. We want a peaceful, democratic, prosperous Egypt. That's our interest."

The president continued: "America cannot determine the future of Egypt. That's a task for the Egyptian people."