It's high time personal attributes such as skin colour, gender, creed, race, political orientation etc. etc. etc. be put aside and substitute only ONE consideration, the person most qualified and competent TO DO THE JOB.
Quit picking on Obama……
- Thread starter DaSleeper
- Start date
It's high time personal attributes such as skin colour, gender, creed, race, political orientation etc. etc. etc. be put aside and substitute only ONE consideration, the person most qualified and competent TO DO THE JOB.
JLM, when Obama became the candidate, there were plenty of doubts as to whether Americans would vote for a black candidate. And there is no denying the fact that racism exists in USA (as it does everywhere, to some extent). There was a fear that Hillary voters may be driven to McCain, because Obama is black.
Complicating the picture was the Bradley factor, where people tell the pollsters that they will vote for a black candidate, but in fact vote for the white candidate. There have been several example in US history, where the black candidate had a comfortable double digit lead in the polls, and either lost (Bradley for California Governor) or barely won, in a very tight race (Wilder, for Virginia Governor).
So that fear was ever present with Obama. However, towards the end of the campaign, economy became so bad; conditions were so terrible (even for a conservative administration) that in the end nothing mattered, people simply wanted conservatives out of power.
So it is quite possible that race has been eliminated as a factor in US election from now on (with Obama, there was absolutely n Bradley effect, the opinion polls were very accurate). Gender is a different thing, unless and until there is a credible female candidate, we won’t know.
There is a lot of talk that perhaps the economy was managed perfectly and many managed to pocket fortunes on top of fortunes. That decline could be seen as precipitous I guess but I believe it will be forgotten in the comeing months as it is eclipsed by worse and then much worse.
Your post demonstrates perfectly what I've been talking about re the names of political parties meaning absolutely nothing. People who blow money and borrow and waste are NOT conservatives (small "c") although they may be Conservatives (big "C"). Conservatives (small c) are frugal people. Conserve means to save as opposed to waste. Trudeau was a true Liberal, so was Mulroney, they threw money around like there was no tomorrow. Martin is a conservative. All these political names prove is that the bastards can lie. Anyone who is faithful to ANY party is a sucker. Rhinocerus Party looks good to me.
JLM, conservatives may be frugal people on an individual level (and even that I would dispute, I am very frugal, but no way would i call myself a conservative). However, conservatism by no means represents frugality.
And I disregard what the conservatives say. Sure, they talk of frugality, sound economic management, balanced budget, smaller government etc. That is what they talk.
However, actions speak louder than words. If you want to judge a person, don’t see what he says, see what he does. And what conservatives do when they are in power is quite clear. Huge borrowing, giving tax cuts (mostly benefiting the rich) at the expense of skyrocketing deficits, huge additions to debt, total deregulation leading to subprime fiasco (or similar).
If it was one conservative politician who behaved this way, one could consider that an aberration. However, when one after another they behave in the same manner (Reagan, Bush, Mulroney, second Bush, Mike Harris, now Harper), then I don’t just blame conservatives, I also blame conservatism.
Anybody can talk a good game; the question is how they play the game.
And I disregard what the conservatives say. Sure, they talk of frugality, sound economic management, balanced budget, smaller government etc. That is what they talk.
However, actions speak louder than words. If you want to judge a person, don’t see what he says, see what he does. And what conservatives do when they are in power is quite clear. Huge borrowing, giving tax cuts (mostly benefiting the rich) at the expense of skyrocketing deficits, huge additions to debt, total deregulation leading to subprime fiasco (or similar).
If it was one conservative politician who behaved this way, one could consider that an aberration. However, when one after another they behave in the same manner (Reagan, Bush, Mulroney, second Bush, Mike Harris, now Harper), then I don’t just blame conservatives, I also blame conservatism.
Anybody can talk a good game; the question is how they play the game.
There seems to be a teleprompter built into the podium....watch when Gibbs comes back....
YouTube - Obama Makes Souter Retirement Official in Impromptu Briefing
YouTube - Obama Makes Souter Retirement Official in Impromptu Briefing
You've got it backwards, it's not their talk of what they are going to do that is suspect, it's their talk of being conservative.
White House Denies Charge By Attorney that Administration Threatened to Destroy Investment Firm's Reputation*
May 02, 2009 3:17 PM
A leading bankruptcy attorney representing hedge funds and money managers told ABC News Saturday that Steve Rattner, the leader of the Obama administration's Auto Industry Task Force, threatened one of the firms, an investment bank, that if it continued to oppose the administration's Chrysler bankruptcy plan, the White House would use the White House press corps to destroy its reputation.
The White House and a spokesperson for the investment bank in question challenged the accuracy of the story.
"The charge is completely untrue," said White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton, "and there's obviously no evidence to suggest that this happened in any way."
Thomas Lauria, Global Practice Head of the Financial Restructuring and Insolvency Group at White & Case, told ABC News that Rattner suggested to an official of the boutique investment bank Perella Weinberg Partners that officials of the Obama White House would embarrass the firm for opposing the Obama administration plan, which President Obama announced Thursday, and which requires creditors to accept roughly 29 cents on the dollar for an estimated $6.8 billion owed by Chrysler.
Lauria first told the story, without naming Rattner, to Frank Beckmann on Detroit's WJR-AM radio.
Perella Weinberg Partners, Lauria said, "was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That’s how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence."
A Perella Weinberg Partners spokesperson told ABC News on Sunday that “The firm denies Mr. Lauria’s account of events.”* The spokesperson would not elaborate.
Perella Weinberg Partners, which owned Chrysler debt through its Xerion Fund, was one of Lauria's clients in this bankruptcy, but no longer is. The firm is led by Joseph Perella. On Thursday afternoon -- after the Wedneday deadline -- the portfolio manager for the Xerion fund decided to join the larger four creditors who are owed roughly 70% of Chrysler's debt and had already agreed to participate with the administration's plan.
Those four financial institutions - JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs -- are recipients of up to $100 billion in federal government bailout funds, though the Obama administration insists the matters were kept completely separate.
Someone familiar with the Perella Weinberg Partners' portfolio manager's thinking told ABC News that the decision to go along with the government plan "was based on an assessment of investment risk and reward and nothing else."
Lauria said his clients "are mainly fiduciaries for pension plans, college endowments, retirement plans and credit unions who invested in low yield supposedly very secure first lien debt" with Chrysler.
President Obama singled out Lauria's clients for criticism when he announced the Chrysler plan on Thursday.
"While many stakeholders made sacrifices and worked constructively, I have to tell you some did not," the president said. "In particular, a group of investment firms and hedge funds decided to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout. They were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices, and they would have to make none."
Lauria said the president's assertion that his clients weren't willing to make any sacrifice is false. The clients were willing to take 50 cents on the dollar from Chrysler for their debt, he said.
President Obama also said of Lauria's clients, "I don't stand with them. I stand with Chrysler's employees and their families and communities. I stand with Chrysler's management, its dealers, and its suppliers. I stand with the millions of Americans who own and want to buy Chrysler cars. I don't stand with those who held out when everybody else is making sacrifices."
"He stands my clients up as basically the reason Chrysler is going into bankruptcy," Lauria said. "He wrongly says they're not willing to make any sacrifice. And then he says he does not stand with us."
Lauria said the president saying he doesn't stand with his clients "kind of sounds like 'You're fair game.' In whatever sense. People are scared. They have gotten death treats. Some have been told people are going to come to their houses. God forbid if some nut did something, I'm just wondering how the president would feel."
The Miami area-based attorney describes himself as an independent, and says after waiting in line for six hours last November he ended up not voting in the presidential election. He donated $10,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 2008 and $1,000 to then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, in 2006.
-- jpt
May 02, 2009 3:17 PM
A leading bankruptcy attorney representing hedge funds and money managers told ABC News Saturday that Steve Rattner, the leader of the Obama administration's Auto Industry Task Force, threatened one of the firms, an investment bank, that if it continued to oppose the administration's Chrysler bankruptcy plan, the White House would use the White House press corps to destroy its reputation.
The White House and a spokesperson for the investment bank in question challenged the accuracy of the story.
"The charge is completely untrue," said White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton, "and there's obviously no evidence to suggest that this happened in any way."
Thomas Lauria, Global Practice Head of the Financial Restructuring and Insolvency Group at White & Case, told ABC News that Rattner suggested to an official of the boutique investment bank Perella Weinberg Partners that officials of the Obama White House would embarrass the firm for opposing the Obama administration plan, which President Obama announced Thursday, and which requires creditors to accept roughly 29 cents on the dollar for an estimated $6.8 billion owed by Chrysler.
Lauria first told the story, without naming Rattner, to Frank Beckmann on Detroit's WJR-AM radio.
Perella Weinberg Partners, Lauria said, "was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That’s how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence."
A Perella Weinberg Partners spokesperson told ABC News on Sunday that “The firm denies Mr. Lauria’s account of events.”* The spokesperson would not elaborate.
Perella Weinberg Partners, which owned Chrysler debt through its Xerion Fund, was one of Lauria's clients in this bankruptcy, but no longer is. The firm is led by Joseph Perella. On Thursday afternoon -- after the Wedneday deadline -- the portfolio manager for the Xerion fund decided to join the larger four creditors who are owed roughly 70% of Chrysler's debt and had already agreed to participate with the administration's plan.
Those four financial institutions - JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs -- are recipients of up to $100 billion in federal government bailout funds, though the Obama administration insists the matters were kept completely separate.
Someone familiar with the Perella Weinberg Partners' portfolio manager's thinking told ABC News that the decision to go along with the government plan "was based on an assessment of investment risk and reward and nothing else."
Lauria said his clients "are mainly fiduciaries for pension plans, college endowments, retirement plans and credit unions who invested in low yield supposedly very secure first lien debt" with Chrysler.
President Obama singled out Lauria's clients for criticism when he announced the Chrysler plan on Thursday.
"While many stakeholders made sacrifices and worked constructively, I have to tell you some did not," the president said. "In particular, a group of investment firms and hedge funds decided to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout. They were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices, and they would have to make none."
Lauria said the president's assertion that his clients weren't willing to make any sacrifice is false. The clients were willing to take 50 cents on the dollar from Chrysler for their debt, he said.
President Obama also said of Lauria's clients, "I don't stand with them. I stand with Chrysler's employees and their families and communities. I stand with Chrysler's management, its dealers, and its suppliers. I stand with the millions of Americans who own and want to buy Chrysler cars. I don't stand with those who held out when everybody else is making sacrifices."
"He stands my clients up as basically the reason Chrysler is going into bankruptcy," Lauria said. "He wrongly says they're not willing to make any sacrifice. And then he says he does not stand with us."
Lauria said the president saying he doesn't stand with his clients "kind of sounds like 'You're fair game.' In whatever sense. People are scared. They have gotten death treats. Some have been told people are going to come to their houses. God forbid if some nut did something, I'm just wondering how the president would feel."
The Miami area-based attorney describes himself as an independent, and says after waiting in line for six hours last November he ended up not voting in the presidential election. He donated $10,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 2008 and $1,000 to then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, in 2006.
-- jpt
It is like this, JLM. If somebody says he is a conservative, I take him at his word (same as if somebody says he is a Christian, I take him at his word). Then I see how conservatives behave and judge conservatism based upon that.
Indeed, that is the only way to judge any philosophy, whether conservatism or Christianity. That is how Marxism was judged. When USSR failed, Communist sympathizers argued that they didn’t really practice Communism in USSR, that it is unfair to judge Communism by the failure of USSR.
Nothing of the sort. It is quite fair and proper to judge Communism by how it works in practice, how Communists behave in practice. Same way, it is quite right and proper to judge conservatism by seeing how the self proclaimed conservatives behave in practice.
O.K. I do it the opposite way, if he says he's conservative, I watch him and compare him to the criteria of a conservative and when that is complete there's no doubt what he is.
People call themselves whatever they need to call themselves in order to attain what they wish to attain. A person could call himself a Christian just to fit in with a community or because it is expected of them (family pressures). In the case of Ralph Klein, he never would have gotten anywhere calling himself a Liberal. The Liberal brand doesn't sell here although liberal ideas do.
Reply to #152 by gopher.
You forgot to mention: Your God, Roosevelt created 40 years of Cold War by being slavish admirer of Uncle Joe Stalin. Ronald Reagan fixed that.
The Peanut Farmer, Jimminy Cricket Carter created the Modern Terrorism by being a wuss, Ronald Reagan fixed that - Clinton allowed it to flourish, GW Bush stopped it.
You forgot to mention: Your God, Roosevelt created 40 years of Cold War by being slavish admirer of Uncle Joe Stalin. Ronald Reagan fixed that.
The Peanut Farmer, Jimminy Cricket Carter created the Modern Terrorism by being a wuss, Ronald Reagan fixed that - Clinton allowed it to flourish, GW Bush stopped it.
U.S. Eyes Bank Pay Overhaul
Administration in Early Talks on Ways to Curb Compensation Across Finance
By DEBORAH SOLOMON and DAMIAN PALETTA
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has begun serious talks about how it can change compensation practices across the financial-services industry, including at companies that did not receive federal bailout money, according to people familiar with the matter.
The initiative, which is in its early stages, is part of an ambitious and likely controversial effort to broadly address the way financial companies pay employees and executives, including an attempt to more closely align pay with long-term performance.
Administration and regulatory officials are looking at various options, including using the Federal Reserve's supervisory powers, the power of the Securities and Exchange Commission and moral suasion. Officials are also looking at what could be done legislatively.
If the Irishman does this he really is a Marxist.
Administration in Early Talks on Ways to Curb Compensation Across Finance
By DEBORAH SOLOMON and DAMIAN PALETTA
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has begun serious talks about how it can change compensation practices across the financial-services industry, including at companies that did not receive federal bailout money, according to people familiar with the matter.
The initiative, which is in its early stages, is part of an ambitious and likely controversial effort to broadly address the way financial companies pay employees and executives, including an attempt to more closely align pay with long-term performance.
Administration and regulatory officials are looking at various options, including using the Federal Reserve's supervisory powers, the power of the Securities and Exchange Commission and moral suasion. Officials are also looking at what could be done legislatively.
If the Irishman does this he really is a Marxist.
Yup, just how much of a break do we give him.
American capitalism gone with a whimper
And some of you said "what is so wrong with Socialism?" Well it looks like you can blame what is happening on the root of all our evils.
"It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people."
American capitalism gone with a whimper - Pravda.Ru
Chavez: Next gift for Obama authored by Lenin
Chavez: Next gift for Obama authored by Lenin - Venezuela - MiamiHerald.com
American capitalism gone with a whimper
And some of you said "what is so wrong with Socialism?" Well it looks like you can blame what is happening on the root of all our evils.
"It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people."
American capitalism gone with a whimper - Pravda.Ru
Chavez: Next gift for Obama authored by Lenin
Chavez: Next gift for Obama authored by Lenin - Venezuela - MiamiHerald.com
Yup, just how much of a break do we give him.
American capitalism gone with a whimper
Hardly gone, ironsides. Even if Obama succeeds in implementing all of his agenda (and that is a big if, I am sure Congress will have something to say about it), it would hardly convert USA to Socialism. It will convert USA to a Social Democracy, similar to Canada Australia, New Zealand or Europe.
And Canada etc. are doing just fine. In fact economically if anything, Canada is doing better than USA. We didn’t have the sub prime crises, our banking system is very solid, our banks continue to make healthy profits (if down from before), they keep paying hefty dividends (7 to 9 % as of latest figures).
So Social Democracy does not mean end of the world. It is a very viable, fair and robust system, which is doing at least as well as (if not better than) the unbridled capitalism of USA.
American capitalism gone with a whimper
Hardly gone, ironsides. Even if Obama succeeds in implementing all of his agenda (and that is a big if, I am sure Congress will have something to say about it), it would hardly convert USA to Socialism. It will convert USA to a Social Democracy, similar to Canada Australia, New Zealand or Europe.
And Canada etc. are doing just fine. In fact economically if anything, Canada is doing better than USA. We didn’t have the sub prime crises, our banking system is very solid, our banks continue to make healthy profits (if down from before), they keep paying hefty dividends (7 to 9 % as of latest figures).
So Social Democracy does not mean end of the world. It is a very viable, fair and robust system, which is doing at least as well as (if not better than) the unbridled capitalism of USA.
7 to 9% is only a memory here. What concerns me is that everything we can compare ourselves to are relatively small population countries. The unbridled capitalism you refer to worked perfectly fine until people took advantage of loopholes in the law. All we have to do is plug those loopholes and let the economy go without major goverment controls. That of course will not happen in our life time now that the socialists have gotten their foot in the door. I never have been happy with so called social democracy's, we do not have to go far to see one that has failed, I'm referring to the California constitution. Before the politicians made things easy for big business to take advantage of us, the people of the U.S. were doing just fine, in fact the envy of the world.
"So Social Democracy does not mean end of the world. It is a very viable, fair and robust system, which is doing at least as well as (if not better than) the unbridled capitalism of USA."
I won't argue the point that It is a fair and viable system for relatively small populations, but in 300+ million population I just don't feel comfortable with it. Much easier to play around with small population groups.
"So Social Democracy does not mean end of the world. It is a very viable, fair and robust system, which is doing at least as well as (if not better than) the unbridled capitalism of USA."
I won't argue the point that It is a fair and viable system for relatively small populations, but in 300+ million population I just don't feel comfortable with it. Much easier to play around with small population groups.