Isnt that the bush doctrine. If theirs a crisis blindly attack a country then spend like there's no tomorrow?

I though Obama was supposed to bring change to washington...

Bush brought the change Obama gets to fix it.

Its a shame that the highest office in the land is turned into a janitors office.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Isnt that the bush doctrine. If theirs a crisis blindly attack a country then spend like there's no tomorrow?

I though Obama was supposed to bring change to washington...

Bush brought the change Obama gets to fix it.

Its a shame that the highest office in the land is turned into a janitors office.

When I posted that I meant that Obama is continuing to use old bush admin. ideas. Sure, bush had a hand in this mess but I do not see Obama making meaningfull policy distinctions from that of his predecessor.

On a side note, I have noticed increased business to business activity here in Ohio. Some of our suppliers have seen this as well. Have any of you seens positive signs yet? I sure hope things are turning around.

Isnt that the bush doctrine. If theirs a crisis blindly attack a country then spend like there's no tomorrow?

I though Obama was supposed to bring change to washington...

Bush brought the change Obama gets to fix it.

Its a shame that the highest office in the land is turned into a janitors office.

When I posted that I meant that Obama is continuing to use old bush admin. ideas. Sure, bush had a hand in this mess but I do not see Obama making meaningfull policy distinctions from that of his predecessor.

On a side note, I have noticed increased business to business activity here in Ohio. Some of our suppliers have seen this as well. Have any of you seens positive signs yet? I sure hope things are turning around.

That last is indeed a good sign.

---

BOINC WIKI

Obama triggers Mexican trade retaliation

March 18, 2009

As the American economy continues to deteriorate and U.S. exports decline sharply, the rumblings of a self-inflicted trade war are starting to be heard.

This is an ominous turn for President Barack Obama, who started the trade dispute by signing a bill to prohibit Mexican trucks on U.S. highways outside of a 20-mile zone along the border – in glaring violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement. In retaliation, Mexico has announced it will impose stiff tariffs on about 90 U.S. products from 40 different states, an action that will further reduce U.S. exports just as the economy is reeling from a deepening recession. Mexico's economic retaliation is expressly permitted under NAFTA in response to the U.S. breach of the treaty.

Obama and the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate caved in to pressure from the powerful Teamsters union, which has long sought to prohibit Mexican truckers from competing in the U.S. market. As part of a mega-spending bill approved last week, a pilot program allowing Mexican trucks partial access to U.S. highways was summarily scrapped.

Scrambling to contain the gathering trade war, Obama promptly announced he would seek legislation to reinstate a pilot program for Mexican trucks – the very thing he killed with his signature on the spending bill. The president's credibility is perilously thin, however. Never mind that this is yet another example of the president's saying one thing and doing just the opposite. His pandering to organized labor during the presidential campaign also included an ill-advised call to renegotiate NAFTA.

Under such circumstances, Mexico can hardly be blamed for exercising its legitimate rights under the trade treaty.

---

me@rescam.org

The White House is Open for Questions
Online Town Hall

The President is holding a new kind of online town hall where he will answer the questions you submitted and voted on for him. The event begins here at 11:30am ET. You can read the most popular questions submitted on the economy below.

Simply great move!--->Your Questions on the Economy

---

The White House is Open for Questions
Online Town Hall

The President is holding a new kind of online town hall where he will answer the questions you submitted and voted on for him. The event begins here at 11:30am ET. You can read the most popular questions submitted on the economy below.

Simply great move!--->Your Questions on the Economy

I watched the online forum. I feel he did answer some very important questions and I love the way he is opening up the white house to the GENERAL public not just the rich and famous.

---

Obama not forthright on vast debt he seeks

---

me@rescam.org

The media hunt for scapegoats is on. In its never-ending-quest to serve the public good, the media has focused the blame from itself to blue-eyed blondes for the consequences of Wall Street's rampant corruption. Yes, it's a leap, but bear with me here.

In mid January of 2008, Faux News suggested that Al-Qaeda is likely to recruit from blue-eyed, Caucasian westerners with no criminal record (other than possibly voting democratic) as the next likely crop of terrorists. Ownership of this concept accrues to Brian Kilmeade and "Ex-CIA spook Mike Baker, whose company, Diligence LLC, apparently specializes in a steady supply of global unrest and terror hype," according to GlobalResearch.Ca. "The original story was based on a comment by a single MI5 source that was subsequently picked up in a Scotsman article claiming that Al-Qaeda have recruited 1,500 white Britons to carry out attacks in the UK."

The concept seems infectious. Only a couple of days ago President (of Brazil) Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva now blames "white people with blue eyes" for the world economic crisis and said it was wrong that developing countries should pay for mistakes made in richer countries, [thus] sparking accusations of racism. Problem is . . . where did the whole concept start? If we begin with an examination of the biggest players thus far exposed in the developing financial fraud stories, the only blonde fingered so far is Ruth Madoff whose light hair comes from a bottle - and she's still free to roam. In Bernard Madoff's youthful years, not a one was spent as a blonde and the same is probably true for Hank Greenberg - AIG's former CEO with hazel/green eyes. Then, looking at Arthur Anderson's lobbyist appointed to head the SEC, Harvey Pitt, we have no blonde there either. Christopher Cox, the next in command of the deaf and dumb SEC, may have had blonde highlights in his youth, but never had anything other than brown eyes. No doubt, as the stories of banking fraud, media cover-ups, naked shorting, phantom share trading, and derivatives piled atop derivatives unfolds, the statistical incidence of blue-eyed-blondes will likely remain no higher than their count in the world population at large.

Further, just to head off the thought that this might be tending toward blaming one group over another (as in money changers vs. Aryans - who's first to the blame game this time around), this essay will remain as racially unbiased as Madoff in that his quarry also included Israeli charities: no one was safe. Fie on you Madoff. Remember that Ken lay (grey hair - brown eyes) and Andrew Fastow (once blonde, but brown eyes), were first to be tried and hanged by the media for Enron. They were not really guilty of masterminding a conspiracy - ahhh the achievements of investigative journalism. Enron's collapse was later exposed as a failure of management to protect Enron from a financial conspiracy orchestrated by CitiBank, J P Morgan, S&P, and UBS Warberg. Citi later paid nearly $2 billion in fines for its complicity in bringing Enron down. Didn't hear about Citi's settlement? It's called conflict of interest when banks own media. They stopped in-depth reporting on financial crimes about 12 years ago.

The point is this, the media once again demonstrates that even compounded wrongs don't make a right. They failed to report on the whistle blowers who were repeatedly complaining to the SEC of blatant fraud, they failed to investigate the mysterious resignation of Harvey Pitt from the SEC on the eve of the Bush II, Term II election when it was revealed that Pitt's No. 2 man at the SEC was under investigation for securities fraud. The media again failed to report on the mere $100 million dollar fine levied against Merrill Lynch (by Harvey Pitt) for nearly $2 trillion in bogus dotcom IPO's they brought to market in late 1998 thru 2000. The records were also sealed to protect Merrill from civil action by investors - part of the Bush Administration's desire to block "frivolous lawsuits". Only the government may run an approved restitution industry. Bear in mind that the SEC remains populated by former CEO's and denizens of Wall Street, and that the judicial system has been packed with "Street" friendly judges who regularly defend Wall Street's right to go unpunished. Further, the FCC's Kevin Martin has guaranteed the media will remain the lag dog of Wall Street - free to choose whether stories of financial fraud reach the front page or whether investigative journalism has come down to promoting racial profiling of blue-eyed blondes.

To hang the 'New Hope on Obama' is to do what the media has done: ignore all the other parts of the system that have been deliberately broken in order to allow unregulated access not merely to corporate and investor liquidity, but to the next 50 and beyond years of taxpayer revenues siphoned into the pockets of those still laughing at the naiveté of the public who believe it to be the fault of partisan politics. The media continues to revel at the success of Divide-and-Conquer psychology at keeping the nation busy at political faction infighting rather than demanding the hanging of the guilty through a relentless expression of rage and demands for real law enforcement.

The dam is broken - one man can't push the water back up the river. A mere token of goodwill toward Obama is a chant not yet picked up by a media who remains fully absorbed by its own "first 100 day report card". Only when we listen to rather than crucify the whistle blowers, can we begin prosecuting the guilty and only then will any Whitehouse occupant inclined to resurrect the great American experiment have the functional branches of government necessary to do so.

---

Obama in my opinion is for the Globalisation point of view.

---

LETS BEGIN IN 2010

Why is it that the people who own GM had no control over this? I'm just glad I do not own GM stock... I think GM would prefer bankruptcy over government intervention.

Obama 'saves' GM

Well, at least now we know who's running General Motors. The Obama White House, in an extraordinary expansion of the government's reach, Sunday demanded and got the head of Rick Wagoner, the automaker's embattled chief executive. In doing so, the president brushed aside GM's board of directors, selected by shareholders and entrusted with the power to hire and fire executives, and assumed that role for himself. ... Shareholders can read the handwriting on the wall -- this isn't their company anymore. That's the risk you take when you go hat in hand to Washington. It ought to be a red flag for other companies and industries that might be thinking a federal bailout is the answer for surviving the recession. President Barack Obama is using the $13.4 billion in federal loans as leverage to re-create GM in the image of a Washington with little apparent affinity for manufacturers. ... The president also needs a scalp to wave before both a Congress growing queasy about federal bailouts and the automaker's bondholders, who aren't happy about granting a huge discount on their GM debt. The trick now is to find someone to run the automaker. Good luck with the headhunting. How many top-notch corporate executives will jump at the chance to lead a company that is sinking like a rock? Who will be willing to share the corporate suite with federal bureaucrats? And by the way, the job pays a buck a year, and if you need to fly, it better be coach. Running a tobacco company has to have more appeal." --The Detroit News

Why is it that the people who own GM had no control over this? I'm just glad I do not own GM stock... I think GM would prefer bankruptcy over government intervention.

Obama 'saves' GM

Well, at least now we know who's running General Motors. The Obama White House, in an extraordinary expansion of the government's reach, Sunday demanded and got the head of Rick Wagoner, the automaker's embattled chief executive. In doing so, the president brushed aside GM's board of directors, selected by shareholders and entrusted with the power to hire and fire executives, and assumed that role for himself. ... Shareholders can read the handwriting on the wall -- this isn't their company anymore. That's the risk you take when you go hat in hand to Washington. It ought to be a red flag for other companies and industries that might be thinking a federal bailout is the answer for surviving the recession. President Barack Obama is using the $13.4 billion in federal loans as leverage to re-create GM in the image of a Washington with little apparent affinity for manufacturers. ... The president also needs a scalp to wave before both a Congress growing queasy about federal bailouts and the automaker's bondholders, who aren't happy about granting a huge discount on their GM debt. The trick now is to find someone to run the automaker. Good luck with the headhunting. How many top-notch corporate executives will jump at the chance to lead a company that is sinking like a rock? Who will be willing to share the corporate suite with federal bureaucrats? And by the way, the job pays a buck a year, and if you need to fly, it better be coach. Running a tobacco company has to have more appeal." --The Detroit News

The board of directors does not run the company, but it can fire the CEO, who does run the company.

After putting in as much money as the US Government has, it almost certainy has "a seat on the board". I do not expect that the government will attempt to run the business day to day. What got Wagoner in trouble was his insistence on no possibility of bankruptcy.

---

BOINC WIKI

waggoner was willing to sink the ship with all hands on board. I assume that the Prez let him know that his current course will get him nothing and if he weren't willing to do something extraordinary then he needed to step aside and let someone more courageous than him to get er done

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

waggoner was willing to sink the ship with all hands on board. I assume that the Prez let him know that his current course will get him nothing and if he weren't willing to do something extraordinary then he needed to step aside and let someone more courageous than him to get er done

Which is up to the board of directors.

waggoner was willing to sink the ship with all hands on board. I assume that the Prez let him know that his current course will get him nothing and if he weren't willing to do something extraordinary then he needed to step aside and let someone more courageous than him to get er done

Which is up to the board of directors.

Yes, and with the amount of money we have sunk into GM at the moment, I am certian the US Government has a seat on the board (or maybe even controls the board).

---

BOINC WIKI

waggoner was willing to sink the ship with all hands on board. I assume that the Prez let him know that his current course will get him nothing and if he weren't willing to do something extraordinary then he needed to step aside and let someone more courageous than him to get er done

Which is up to the board of directors.

Yes, and with the amount of money we have sunk into GM at the moment, I am certian the US Government has a seat on the board (or maybe even controls the board).

You have to be voted onto the board of directors by the stockholders.

Waggoner needed to go, I just wish the board of directors fired him before Obama could use him to score political points. (which is why he fired him in the first place)

waggoner was willing to sink the ship with all hands on board. I assume that the Prez let him know that his current course will get him nothing and if he weren't willing to do something extraordinary then he needed to step aside and let someone more courageous than him to get er done

Which is up to the board of directors.

Yes, and with the amount of money we have sunk into GM at the moment, I am certian the US Government has a seat on the board (or maybe even controls the board).

You have to be voted onto the board of directors by the stockholders.

Waggoner needed to go, I just wish the board of directors fired him before Obama could use him to score political points. (which is why he fired him in the first place)

I suppose you have proof that the Auto Task Force Fired Waggoner just so
Obama would score some political points, even though you agree he should
have been fired, or are you just putting this nonsense out there hoping
people will believe your "Right Wing Propaganda".

Is believing in limited government outlined in the constitution nonsense or "right wing propaganda" ? The powers of the federal government do not include the ability to fire CEOs.

I don't see the secret service or homeland security either but we still run with it dont we.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I don't see the secret service or homeland security either but we still run with it don't we.

You also don't see the security guards at DisneyLand but they are there.

---

me@rescam.org

I don't see the secret service or homeland security either but we still run with it don't we.

You also don't see the security guards at DisneyLand but they are there.

no need for security guards. The tickets give the location of every visitor... OK not really. I assume they have a camera system to beat all

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Obama is not any better than the last couple of Leaders1

---

LETS BEGIN IN 2010