Grade the executive

[dude1394]

You go barry... We'll let every tin-pot dictator into the UN, except the one who's dissed barry.

Next week the Obama Administration will allow Ahmadinejad, Castro, Chavez, Gaddafi and several other international thugs into New York City to speak in front of the United Nations General Assembly. However, one country's president will not be allowed into the United States.

President Roberto Micheletti from Honduras will not be allowed to enter into America. The Obama Administration revoked his visa back in July.

For the first time in our nation's history, the Obama administration is siding with Marxist leaders Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, Raul Castro and Evo Morales in condemning our democratic ally Honduras.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

You go barry... We'll let every tin-pot dictator into the UN, except the one who's dissed barry.

total bs. micheletti is not recognized as a head of state by the us or the un, therefore he is not covered under the rule that ALL heads of state are granted a visa if they are going to the UN.

to characterize the denial of micheletti's visa while granting the other requests as "siding with marxist leaders" ignores the facts. granting a visa to the others while not granting a visa to micheletti is simply adhering to the rules.

[dalmations202]

Just for grins-- from an email I received. Not necessarily my beliefs, but comical to me.

--------------------------------------------------

If George Bush was an idiot......

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?


If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?


If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?


If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?


If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?


If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?


If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?


If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?


If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?


If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?


If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?


If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?


If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?


If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?


If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?


If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?


If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?


So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 6 months -- so you'll have plenty of time to come up with an answer.

[dude1394]

Heh...
http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...I0NDE4NGVkY2M=

Obama and the Sunday Talkies [Benjamin Zycher]

I see that President Obama is going to be featured on four or five (!) of the Sunday talk shows this weekend. It is simply unbelievable to me that none of the political experts in the White House has told or convinced the president that more yakking on his part on health care or anything else would be counterproductive, and that this is the time for him to sit back and be presidential, while the crass politicians in Congress fight things out.

But . . . no. Birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim, ACORN's gotta engage in fraud, and Obama's gotta talk. It's really that simple; and it is amazing, given how little this guy actually knows about economics, about foreign affairs, about, well, just about anything. This reminds me of a footnote, minor but revealing, from the 2004 Democratic National Convention, at which Obama was the keynote speaker. His rhetoric, as usual, was as empty as a dry well, even as it drew the crowd to its feet time and again. Obama was reported, after the speech and the thunderous reception that it received, to have said to someone, "You know, I can play in this league."

And so there we have it: Obama really believes at his core that empty rhetoric is the same as substance and judgement. I have to believe that it was then that he began to view himself as presidential timber. A small bit of vanity for a man; a giant looming danger for America and the cause of liberty.
— Benjamin Zycher is a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute.

[Mavdog]

obviously ben zycher is unaware of the term "bully pulpit" and is vastly uninformed on presidential history, among other things.

[aquaadverse]

Exactly how many times can you continue to give basically the same speech in a bunch of different venues while approval ratings keep dropping before it sinks in the strategy has failed?

People tune in expecting to hear different rebuttals with new material and when they don't get it, it becomes a negative.

He is pitching material that isn't satisfying questions moderates and independents want answered. We know the state of the economy when he took office. The death panels and illegal alien issues are only a big issue for people he won't persuade no matter what he says.

It's not because people want him to fail. Millions aren't being paid off by "Special Interests" looking to keep the status quo.We know other countries have universal health care. We aren't scared of change. It's not because people are racists. Yeah, I know he isn't mentioning race but it's everywhere else. He can keep hammering on these same points in front of Congress, on the stump and on TV and the same people will continue to feel he either misunderstands or is ignoring their concerns. It's a blunder for him to go on every network's Sunday show except Fox. He should either just go on one or all of them. Bad decision. This will really reinforce the perception he doesn't take the concerns of a large number of Americans seriously and is pretty arrogant on his part. He needs to stop treating this like a campaign.

One of Acorn's executives will be on Fox News Sunday this week. Think of the possibilities.

His continual hammering on these points doesn't answer two major concerns. The first one is a lack of confidence in Congress successfully carrying this out. It's pretty self explanatory and the current dust up on a reform everyone agrees is needed just amplifies it.

The second is driving private insurance from the market. There may be nothing in the six bills specifically booting them. But if you remove caps and blowup underwriting the companies will leave the market. Employers might feel the penalty for not offering insurance will cost them less than having it.

People feel there is too little cost control and too much emphasis on coverage and aren't buying the "it's this or nothing" and "Party of No" nonsense.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

obviously ben zycher is unaware of the term "bully pulpit" and is vastly uninformed on presidential history, among other things.

Oh he's heard of it I'm sure. It's just that the more he talks the more the polls drop. Ben is just giving barry some good advice.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Oh he's heard of it I'm sure. It's just that the more he talks the more the polls drop. Ben is just giving barry some good advice.

au contrare, as ben says "this is the time for him to sit back and be presidential". talking to the american public IS being presidential, sitting back and being quiet is NOT being presidential.

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

au contrare, as ben says "this is the time for him to sit back and be presidential". talking to the american public IS being presidential, sitting back and being quiet is NOT being presidential.

Unless he's got something new to say it's counterproductive. essentially saying the same thing in two prime time addresses hurt more than helped. He's given over twenty speeches and has been pumping it nonstop.

He's gone from a sure public option to saying it's not essential, pissing off some and confusing others. It's fragmented the Party. There is no bill he can sign into law. He can't discuss details because there aren't any official ones. People on both sides are picking selective items that support their position.

The theory that people can't possibly be against the type of reform he wants if they understood it is flawed.

There are two basic schools of thought of how to proceed. One is to reform the things that are contributing to the high costs so people can afford it, the other is extend coverage and dictate payment and the system will adjust itself.

I got an email from my Senator, Bill Nelson, yesterday. He's on the Senate Finance Committee. First he says:

"This legislation will let folks who are happy with their insurance keep what they’ve got, including veterans and seniors on Medicare."

And then:

"The bill will hold insurers' feet to the fire, requiring them to cover everyone and preventing them from dropping someone who gets sick."

I'm no Warren Buffett , but raising liability while refusing to take action to lower their costs has the distinct possibility of them taking their ball and going home. And businesses will certainly dump employee coverage if the penalty is less than what they're paying now.

Unless he gets serious about tort reform and true national competition for the insurance companies it's hard to see much changing. Moderates aren't fleeing because of Death Panels or because they're racists or they want him to fail. They know other countries have universal care. They are aware that the economy sucked when he took over.

They're not buying it'll be deficit neutral and it won't cost them the coverage they currently have. They don't agree doing anything is better than doing nothing. And they're irritated at being treated like an enemy or short bus lifer by him.

He's shot his wad on this, he isn't very good at off the cuff give and take. He'll say something on one of those shows to make it worse. The issue has driven everything else off the front page for the last six weeks. His time would be better spent with Congressional Republicans which would actually be Presidential instead of this Presidential Candidate stuff.

[Mavdog]

On the contrary, it is critical for obama to get out in front of the issue to explain the ins and outs.

according to this recent gallup poll, there are many who do not have a good understanding of the plans and are looking to be better informed:

Notably, a rather substantial 14% cite a lack of specific information or details about the proposals as the reason for their opposition. It's possible that some of these Americans could switch sides and favor reform if the details were to their liking.

the public is pretty evenly divided on the issue, with many who indicate they would support the reform initiative if they have a better understanding. that is why these appearances by obama may be critical to gaining their support.

gallup poll of sept 16

[Flacolaco]

Instead of all the talking without saying anything, someone should just give him fiddle lessons.

[Mavdog]

didn't read the gallup poll, did you?

it pretty much contradicts just about everything you said. apparently the "they" you speak about have very different ideas than what you think "they" have.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

didn't read the gallup poll, did you?

it pretty much contradicts just about everything you said. apparently the "they" you speak about have very different ideas than what you think "they" have.

What gallup poll...I wonder why you didn't provide a link. Here's one.

[aquaadverse]

Like polls, eh?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/122969/Ma...re-Reform.aspx

Look. They doubt it's deficit neutral.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...th_care_reform

Look, they disapprove.

Here's more:

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Po...8536886&page=2

He isn't addressing the objections of moderates. The wacko wing of each side aren't going to change their opinions. He can keep hammering on the misinformation, profit from the status quo, want him to fail politically, and failure to act is not an option 25 or 30 more times. But the message is out there and continues to lose support. The drop in six weeks has been dramatic.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

Like polls, eh?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/122969/Ma...re-Reform.aspx

Look. They doubt it's deficit neutral.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...th_care_reform

Look, they disapprove.

Here's more:

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Po...8536886&page=2

yeah, the polling numbers are close and with additional discussion there could easily be a positive swing, just like the gallup polls show.

so yes, obama's efforts to communicate the plan, how it is going to be paid for, and the fact that an individual will still have their choices available to them is critical to its eventual success.

therefore his appearances are a good decision.

He isn't addressing the objections of moderates. The wacko wing of each side aren't going to change their opinions. He can keep hammering on the misinformation, profit from the status quo, want him to fail politically, and failure to act is not an option 25 or 30 more times. But the message is out there and continues to lose support. The drop in six weeks has been dramatic.

uh, you haven't heard what he is saying on these shows you so quickly criticise him for being on, so how can you say "he isn't addressing the objections of moderates"???

seems that your conclusion can only be made AFTER he speaks on these shows.

[Mavdog]

look at post 56 in this thread.

[dude1394]

Heh...CarterII!!!!

Barack Obama will at least triple the US federal budget deficit in his first year.

Mitt Romney compared Barack Obama to the failed Carter Administration this weekend.
MYWay reported:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney reflects conservatives' growing confidence when he taunts Democrats, saying "I'll bet you never dreamed you'd look back at Jimmy Carter as the good old days."

Republicans at the Values Voter Summit Saturday talked of a growing political rebellion in the country, even as they acknowledged Democrats currently have the upper hand.

Romney recalled the euphoria among Democrats at the time President Barack Obama was elected.

"A year ago, there were quite a few people who were ready to write off this movement. They were enthralled by Barack Obama's promise of near-Biblical transformations," Romney said in comments prepared for Saturday's meeting. "Well, he can still spin a speech, but he can't spin his record."

Romney said Obama's spending and borrowing have weakened the nation, noting that Obama's plans will greatly increase the deficit. The deficits combined with coming problems for the country's entitlement programs will cause more severe economic problems, he said. Romney's reference to Carter recalled the economic and international troubles at the time Carter lost his bid for re-election to Ronald Reagan.

Glenn Reynolds adds, "A Carter-rerun is now looking like a best-case scenario."
Agreed.

[dude1394]

Those joker products...
http://michaelgraham.com/archives/no...ell-us-091909/

From that Right-Wing, Anti-Obama media source, the Boston Globe-Democrat:

It has been nearly a month since the car-buying frenzy of the Cash for Clunkers program ended, and many area auto dealers are longing for the good old days of July and August.
Like consumers nationwide, Massachusetts residents rushed to take advantage of the federal voucher program, which offered them up to $4,500 on old gas-guzzlers to be put toward the purchase of new, more fuel-efficient vehicles. About $65 million worth of vouchers were handed out statewide during the monthlong program that ended Aug. 24.
But once the federal money dried up, so did the sales rally. Now, customers at dealerships like Silko Honda in Raynham are few and far between, and inventory is once again accumulating...
Nationwide, customers snatched up 700,000 new cars, most of them foreign-made, and the government ended up paying out nearly $3 billion toward the purchases. But from the start, analysts predicted that Cash for Clunkers would not boost sales for the year. September’s sales swoon seems to be making their case. Car sales are usually slow after Labor Day, but because of the recession consumers this year are especially reluctant to say yes to major purchases. To make matters worse for dealers, most are still waiting for voucher reimbursements.
“It was probably, in the end, a complete waste of taxpayer money,’’ said John Wolkonowicz, a senior auto analyst at IHS Global Insight, Lexington forecasting firm. “The dealers, who were supposed to be the primary beneficiaries, many were forced into cash flow problems because the government didn’t pay them in a timely fashion.’’

One more time: If you like "Cash for Clunkers," you are gonna LOVE government-run health care.

[Mavdog]

I suppose the data that shows a very positive affect on retail sales, due to the cash for clunkers program, was just ficticous....retail sales for august driven higher

and btw dealers aren't "waiting for voucher reinbursements"...the dealers are getting paid about as fast as their typical payment from lenders would be.
money flowing to dealers

really, it's just complaining 24/7 these days, even about successful programs.

[dude1394]

yeah that partisan boston-globe democrat obviously are just lying about it. As well as that senior auto analyst.

I think you can read...they noted the increase sales and the subsequent slump. I also expect that getting their dollars is much quicker than they would get it from a bank.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

yeah that partisan boston-globe democrat obviously are just lying about it. As well as that senior auto analyst.

I think you can read...they noted the increase sales and the subsequent slump. I also expect that getting their dollars is much quicker than they would get it from a bank.

wow, what a fact filled response to the information provided...

the positive upswing in retail sales during the last quarter? yes.

the clearing out of inventory sitting on dealers lots? yes.

the need for manufacturers to get the factories going to replenish the sold inventory? yes.

those are all positive results. how anyone could dispute that is a mystery.

interesting to read about a "subsequent slump". it shows a pretty short memory of what was happening before the program, which was no traffic in the dealerships, little sales hapopening, and the dealers bleeding cash due to their costs of holding non-selling inventory.

see the dealers don't actually own all those cars sitting on their lots, they finance the inventory either thru the manufacturers or thru banks. idle inventory means high costs to pay off the loans.

the program acheived its desired results and did so in a very meaningful way.

[dude1394]

You know you are right and they are wrong.

[alexamenos]

on the past executive....GWB's on the ticket... Quothe the previous mentally inadequate executive on the central tenet of his world view:

"Freedom is universal, people want to be free"

Uhh...George, no it isn't and many people don't. Slavery has been a constant throughout human history and vast swathes of people want someone to tell them what to do, when to do it, etc., etc.... People gladly trade liberty for security.

[dude1394]

Telegraph starting to grade Barry...and the grading...well looks about right. "F".

Admittedly, the presidential to-do list is terrifying. The economy requires his full-time attention. So does health-care reform. And climate change. Indeed, he deserves praise for spending so much time on thankless foreign policy issues. He is tackling all the big problems: restarting Middle East peace talks, defanging Iran and North Korea and a "reset" of relations with Russia. But none of them are working.
Regimes in Moscow, Pyongyang and Tehran simply pocket his concessions and carry on as before. The picture emerging from the White House is a disturbing one, of timidity, clumsiness and short-term calculation. Some say he is the weakest president since Jimmy Carter.
The grizzled veterans of the Democratic leadership in Congress have found Mr Obama and his team of bright young advisers a pushover. That has gravely weakened his flagship domestic campaign, for health-care reform, which fails to address the greatest weakness of the American system: its inflated costs. His free trade credentials are increasingly tarnished too. His latest blunder is imposing tariffs on tyre imports from China, in the hope of gaining a little more union support for health care. But at a time when America's leadership in global economic matters has never been more vital, that is a dreadful move, hugely undermining its ability to stop other countries engaging in a ruinous spiral of protectionism.
Even good moves are ruined by bad presentation. Changing Mr Bush's costly and untried missile-defence scheme for something workable was sensible. But offensively casual treatment of east European allies such as Poland made it easy for his critics to portray it as naïve appeasement of the regime in Moscow.
.....
The President's domestic critics who accuse him of being the sinister wielder of a socialist master-plan are wide of the mark. The man who has run nothing more demanding than the Harvard Law Review is beginning to look out of his depth in the world's top job. His credibility is seeping away, and it will require concrete achievements rather than more soaring oratory to recover it.

[dude1394]

Can you get a lower grade than failure?

We have noted Obama's gestures intended to insult Great Britain and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown on several occasions. Now Telegraph leader writer David Hughes plaintively notes:

The juxtaposition on our front page this morning is striking. We carry a photograph of Acting Sgt Michael Lockett - who was killed in Helmand on Monday - receiving the Military Cross from the Queen in June, 2008. He was the 217th British soldier to die in the Afghan conflict. Alongside the picture, we read that the Prime Minister was forced to dash through the kitchens of the UN in New York to secure a few minutes "face time" with President Obama after five requests for a sit-down meeting were rejected by the White House.
What are we to make of this? This country has proved, through the bravery of men like Acting Sgt Lockett, America's staunchest ally in Afghanistan. In return, the American President treats the British Prime Minister with casual contempt. The President's graceless behaviour is unforgivable. As most members of the Cabinet would confirm, it's not a barrel of laughs having to sit down for a chat with Gordon Brown. But that's not the point. Mr Obama owes this country a great deal for its unflinching commitment to the American-led war in Afghanistan but seems incapable of acknowledging the fact. You might have thought that after the shambles of Mr Brown's first visit to the Obama White House - when there was no joint press conference and the President's "gift" to the Prime Minister was a boxed DVD set - lessons would have been learned. Apparently not. Admittedly, part of the problem was Downing Street's over-anxiety to secure a face-to-face meeting for domestic political purposes but the White House should still have been more obliging. Mr Obama's churlishness is fresh evidence that the US/UK special relationship is a one-way street.

[Mavdog]

lmao. "failure" due to obama not wishing to meet with\avoiding brown?

get a clue.

don't I recall people (and the obama administration) screaming about the release of the lockerbie bomber, a release orchestrated by brown?

and you wonder why obama doesn't want to give brown a photo op?

too funny.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

lmao. "failure" due to obama not wishing to meet with\avoiding brown?

get a clue.

don't I recall people (and the obama administration) screaming about the release of the lockerbie bomber, a release orchestrated by brown?

and you wonder why obama doesn't want to give brown a photo op?

too funny.

I'm so happy to see Barry treating our British ally like Ahmadinejad.

After months of talking about the need for engagement, Mr. Obama appears to have made a leap toward viewing tough new sanctions against Iran as an inevitability. He avoided Mr. Ahmadinejad at the United Nations this week, despite his having said repeatedly that he would seek dialogue with Iranian leaders.

[dude1394]

Yea...that's how I like my leader to be, dis our one true ally multiple times. He's a windbag full of nothing.

[Mavdog]

no, a "windbag full of nothing" meets with a person who defied logic and let loose a convicted terrorist for the right to get to libya's oil. brown acts like a cheap whore.

a man of substance on the other hand doesn't lower himself and meet with the aforementioned.

bravo obama.

[dude1394]

Sarkozy gives Barry a grade of "N"...for Naive...
http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/25/...llo-big-media/

For reasons yet to be determined, the National Post appears to have de-linked their own front page story on their website. Mr. Spillius reported a similar (albeit watered-down) version in the UK’s Telegraph.

Obama: “We must never stop until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of the earth.”

Sarkozy: “We live in the real world, not the virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions.”

The rest of Sarkozy’s remarks were, well, remarkable:

“President Obama dreams of a world without weapons … but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite.
“Iran since 2005 has flouted five security council resolutions. North Korea has been defying council resolutions since 1993.
“I support the extended hand of the Americans, but what good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community? More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe a UN member state off the map,” he continued, referring to Israel.
The sharp-tongued French leader even implied that Mr Obama’s resolution 1887 had used up valuable diplomatic energy.
“If we have courage to impose sanctions together it will lend viability to our commitment to reduce our own weapons and to making a world without nuke weapons,” he said.
Mr Sarkozy has previously called the US president’s disarmament crusade “naive.”

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Sarkozy gives Barry a grade of "N"...for Naive...
http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/25/...llo-big-media/

[/INDENT]

it's apparent you don't read what you post. or do you not understand what you post? it is surely one or the other.

“If we have courage to impose sanctions together it will lend viability to our commitment to reduce our own weapons and to making a world without nuke weapons,” he [sarkozy] said.

that is support for the obama position. thanks for supplying the very comments that deride the point you attempt to make.

[92bDad]

Being a French-American, I must laugh when I see a French President who is a stronger leader and a tougher individual than our own American President. Then after I'm done laughing, I realize how sad it is.

[dude1394]

It's tough to have a frenchman having to worry about America going wobbly. But when we elect an inexperienced left-wing community organizer as our prez...that's what we get.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...for_obama.html

Nicolas Sarkozy was furious with Barack Obama for his adolescent warbling about a world without nuclear weapons at a meeting Mr. Obama chaired of the United Nations Security Council last Thursday (9/24).

"We must never stop until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of the earth," President Obama said.

What infuriated President Sarkozy was that at the time Mr. Obama said those words, Mr. Obama knew the mullahs in Iran had a secret nuclear weapons development site, and he didn't call them on it.

‘President Obama dreams of a world without weapons...but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite," Mr. Sarkozy said.

"Iran since 2005 has flouted five Security Council resolutions," Mr. Sarkozy said. "North Korea has been defying Council resolutions since 1993."

"What good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community?" he asked rhetorically. "More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe out a UN member state off the map."

[Mavdog]

rather than rely on the interpertation's of sarkozy's speech ("furious"? "infuriated"?), read the speech itself. sure doesn't read like how the above is depicting it, especially when sarkozy says he is "in complete support" of obama.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
64th United Nations General Assembly – United Nations Security Council Summit on Nuclear Non-Proliferation – Speech by Nicolas Sarkozy, President of the Republic, to the United Nations Security Council
New York, 24 September 2009

France fully supports your initiative to organize this meeting and the efforts you undertook with Russia to reduce nuclear arsenals. But let us speak frankly – we are here to guarantee peace.

We are right to speak of the future, but before the future there is the present, and at present we have two nuclear crises.

The people of the entire world are listening to what we’re saying, to our promises, our commitments and our speeches, but we live in a real world, not a virtual world.

We say: reductions must be made. And President Obama has even said, “I dream of a world without [nuclear weapons].” Yet before our very eyes, two countries are currently doing the exact opposite. Since 2005, Iran has violated five Security Council resolutions. Since 2005, Secretary-General, the international community has called on Iran to engage in dialogue. An offer of dialogue was made in 2005, an offer of dialogue was made in 2006, an offer of dialogue was made in 2007, an offer of dialogue was made in 2008, and another one was made in 2009. President Obama, I support the Americans’ outstretched hand. But what did the international community gain from these offers of dialogue? Nothing. More enriched uranium, more centrifuges, and on top of that, a statement by Iranian leaders proposing to wipe a UN member State off the map.

What are we doing? What conclusions are we drawing? There comes a time when facts are stubborn and decisions must be made.

If we want in the end to have a world without nuclear weapons, let us not accept the violation of international rules.

I understand perfectly well the various positions of the different parties, but all of us may one day be threatened by a neighbour who has obtained a nuclear weapon.

Second, North Korea. It gets even better: they have violated all Security Council deliberations since 1993, and they disregard everything that the international community says, everything. What’s more, they are continuing their ballistic tests.

How can we accept this? What conclusions can we draw from it? I say that at some point, all of us – regardless of our positions in other respects – will have to work together to adopt sanctions and to ensure that the UN Security Council’s decisions are effective.

Finally, I share the opinion expressed by the President of Uganda and the Chinese President with respect to access to civil nuclear energy. We, the nuclear powers, must agree to technology transfers so that everyone can have access to this clean energy. I would add that this will make it possible to avoid deliberate confusion on the part of those who claim to be carrying out nuclear research for civilian purposes while they’re doing it for military purposes.

So, ladies and gentlemen, my dear colleagues, this is what I believe, in full support of what was decided in the resolution and in full support of President Obama’s initiative. What I believe is that by having the courage to strengthen sanctions, together, against countries that violate Security Council resolutions, we will give credibility to our commitment to a world whose future holds fewer nuclear weapons and perhaps, one day, no nuclear weapons.

[dude1394]

Barry had better get his game one...another "opportunity" as in crisis is quickly coming.
http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2...01/solvency-2/

I'm thinking of going all-in on international investments, this country is starting to look screwed.

(1) Monthly cash flow of the US Social Security Administration
Month Cash in Outgo Surplus/Deficit YoY $ YoY %
Jan-09 $71,854 $55,290 $16,564 -$2,906 -15%
Feb-09 $54,413 $55,760 -$1,347 -$3,863 -154%
Mar-09 $58,669 $56,135 $2,534 -$4,935 -66%
Apr-09 $77,081 $56,596 $20,485 -$3,827 -16%
May-09 $54,408 $56,330 -$1,922 -$5,068 -161%
Jun-09 $61,156 $61,383 -$227 -$6,553 -104%
Jul-09 $56,345 $56,890 -$545 -$4,207 -115%
Aug-09 $50,657 $56,490 -$5,833 -$5,642 -2954%
Notes:

• In millions of dollars. Big money — aprox 5% of US GDP.
• YoY means Year-over-Year (e.g, August vs. August).
• This does not include the Medicare Trust Fund, for which I see only annual data. It contributions probably show the same trend.
• Quarterly contributions arrive in March, June, etc. April, of course, is a big month for contributions.
• Does not include “interest” paid by the government to itself, which is just another journal on the the government’s books.
• For more information see the source.

See the trend! The year-over-year change in the surplus was -$15.3B in the first four months of 2009, and -$21.5B in the second four months. Cash in was down 15%; cash out was up 3%. The latest forecasts were for the system to go cash-flow negative in 2016 (Medicare went into the red in 2004). August looks esp ugly, as Bruce Krasting warned us at his blog on 8 September 2009.


This does not mean that social security will go broke. Social security contributions are just taxes. Social security benefits are promises by the US government, and can be changed at will. Instead this marks an inflection point for the government’s solvency. For decades the taxes for Medicare and social security exceeded expenditures on those programs. The government spent this money.


This is the end of an era. As the boomers retire, expenditures for our social retirement programs begin their inexorable rise. Instead of funding the rest of the government, these programs become burdens. For the next few decades the government will find the deficit growing each year (all other things being equal). For more on this see “The biggest bailout yet“, Fortune, 17 August 2009). The coming wave of deficits are too large for any feasible tax increases to cover it. For more on the effects of various proposals, see these reports by the Chief Actuary.

[dude1394]

Ms. Noonan nails it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...713762884.html

The problem isn't his personality, it's his policies. His problem isn't what George W. Bush left but what he himself has done. It is a problem of political judgment, of putting forward bills that were deeply flawed or off-point. Bailouts, the stimulus package, cap-and-trade; turning to health care at the exact moment in history when his countrymen were turning their concerns to the economy, joblessness, debt and deficits—all of these reflect a misreading of the political terrain. They are matters of political judgment, not personality. (Republicans would best heed this as they gear up for 2010: Don't hit him, hit his policies. That's where the break with the people is occurring.)
The result of all this is flagging public support, a drop in the polls, and independents peeling off.
In this atmosphere, with these dynamics, Mr. Obama's excuse-begging and defensiveness won't work.
Everyone knows he was handed horror. They want him to fix it.
At some point, you own your presidency. At some point it's your rubble. At some point the American people tell you it's yours. The polls now, with the presidential approval numbers going down and the disapproval numbers going up: That's the American people telling him.

[Mavdog]

According to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, Goldman Sachs’ Chief U.S. Economist says that President Obama’s economic stimulus package is beginning to boost U.S. economic performance. ”Many forecasters say stimulus spending is adding two to three percentage points to economic growth in the second and third quarters, when measured at an annual rate. The impact in the second quarter, calculated by analyzing how the extra funds flowing into the economy boost consumption, investment and spending, helped slow the rate of decline and will lay the groundwork for positive growth in the third quarter — something that seemed almost implausible just a few months ago.
And not skipping a beat on the good news, the White House issued statements reinforcing its view when the program went into effect last Spring that it would take several months for the stimulus effects on the economy to kick-in. Meanwhile, Vice President Joe Biden also went on the offensive, saying the administration’s sweeping stimulus effort “is in fact working” despite public skepticism driven largely by steady Republican criticism. The American Recovery & Reinvestment Act was passed in January without a single Republican vote, despite President Obama’s bipartisan efforts. Biden noted, “The recovery act has played a significant role in changing the trajectory of our economy, and changing the conversation in this country. Instead of talking about the beginning of a depression, we are talking about the end of a recession.”

‘The recovery act isin fact working and has played a significant role in changing the trajectory of our economy, and changing the conversation in this country. Instead of talking about the beginning of a depression, we are talking about the end of a recession.’



Nearly 200 days into the effort, Biden delivered an upbeat report card about the $787 billion rescue effort that President Barack Obama pushed through Congress. He quoted estimates by private sector economists and independent analysts that the plan has created or saved 500,000 to 750,000 jobs so far. The White House is eager to promote signs of progress as the economy lumbers out of recession. Many economists warn that the unemployment rate will keep rising until at least 2Q 2010. Unemployent tends to be a lagging economic indicator, yet, it is by that measure — the loss or creation of jobs — by which many Americans decide whether economic life is getting better or not.
Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers on Sept. 10 will report an updated projection of the number of jobs created or saved because of the stimulus plan. Biden said he expected it will back up his predictions of 150,000 jobs in the first 100 days and another 600,000 formed or saved over the second 100 days of the act

Some economists say the 1% contraction in the second quarter would have been far worse, possibly as much as 3.2%, if not for the stimulus. “For the third quarter, economists at Goldman Sachs predict the U.S. economy will grow by 3.3%. ‘Without that extra stimulus, we would be somewhere around zero,’ said Jan Hatzius, chief U.S. economist for Goldman.”

[dude1394]

Well...we've never really judged barry by his mentors and confidants, so this is also non-sequitor I guess.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=511113

Leadership: What are we to make of a White House visitors list that includes 22 swiftly scheduled appointments with a union boss at a time when Gen. Stanley McChrystal can't get face time with the commander in chief?

[fizarrek73]

Princess what does it read on that gazeebo type structure?

Cute cat BTW.

[fizarrek73]

Princess what does it read on that gazeebo type structure?

Cute cat BTW.