The Republican Thread

[southsider2k5]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...rdon-Brown.html

 

Barack Obama 'too tired' to give proper welcome to Gordon Brown

Barack Obama's offhand approach to Gordon Brown's Washington visit last week came about because the president was facing exhaustion over America's economic crisis and is unable to focus on foreign affairs, the Sunday Telegraph has been told.

 

 

By Tim Shipman in Washington

Last Updated: 10:03PM GMT 07 Mar 2009

Barack Obama and Gordon Brown: Has Gordon Brown's meeting with Barack Obama restored his fortunes

President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown walk down the Colonnade of the White House in Washington, Photo: AP

 

Sources close to the White House say Mr Obama and his staff have been "overwhelmed" by the economic meltdown and have voiced concerns that the new president is not getting enough rest.

 

British officials, meanwhile, admit that the White House and US State Department staff were utterly bemused by complaints that the Prime Minister should have been granted full-blown press conference and a formal dinner, as has been customary. They concede that Obama aides seemed unfamiliar with the expectations that surround a major visit by a British prime minister.

 

But Washington figures with access to Mr Obama's inner circle explained the slight by saying that those high up in the administration have had little time to deal with international matters, let alone the diplomatic niceties of the special relationship.

 

Allies of Mr Obama say his weary appearance in the Oval Office with Mr Brown illustrates the strain he is now under, and the president's surprise at the sheer volume of business that crosses his desk.

 

A well-connected Washington figure, who is close to members of Mr Obama's inner circle, expressed concern that Mr Obama had failed so far to "even fake an interest in foreign policy".

 

A British official conceded that the furore surrounding the apparent snub to Mr Brown had come as a shock to the White House. "I think it's right to say that their focus is elsewhere, on domestic affairs. A number of our US interlocutors said they couldn't quite understand the British concerns and didn't get what that was all about."

 

The American source said: "Obama is overwhelmed. There is a zero sum tension between his ability to attend to the economic issues and his ability to be a proactive sculptor of the national security agenda.

 

"That was the gamble these guys made at the front end of this presidency and I think they're finding it a hard thing to do everything."

 

British diplomats insist the visit was a success, with officials getting the chance to develop closer links with Mr Obama's aides. They point out that the president has agreed to meet the prime minister for further one-to-one talks in London later this month, ahead of the G20 summit on April 2.

 

But they concede that the mood music of the event was at times strained. Mr Brown handed over carefully selected gifts, including a pen holder made from the wood of a warship that helped stamp out the slave trade - a sister ship of the vessel from which timbers were taken to build Mr Obama's Oval Office desk. Mr Obama's gift in return, a collection of Hollywood film DVDs that could have been bought from any high street store, looked like the kind of thing the White House might hand out to the visiting head of a minor African state.

 

Mr Obama rang Mr Brown as he flew home, in what many suspected was an attempt to make amends.

 

The real views of many in Obama administration were laid bare by a State Department official involved in planning the Brown visit, who reacted with fury when questioned by The Sunday Telegraph about why the event was so low-key.

 

The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment." The apparent lack of attention to detail by the Obama administration is indicative of what many believe to be Mr Obama's determination to do too much too quickly.

 

In addition to passing the largest stimulus package and the largest budget in US history, Mr Obama is battling a plummeting stock market, the possible bankruptcy of General Motors, and rising unemployment. He has also begun historic efforts to achieve universal healthcare, overhaul education and begin a green energy revolution all in his first 50 days in office.

 

The Sunday Telegraph understands that one of Mr Obama's most prominent African American backers, whose endorsement he spent two years cultivating, has told friends that he detects a weakness in Mr Obama's character.

 

"The one real serious flaw I see in Barack Obama is that he thinks he can manage all this," the well-known figure told a Washington official, who spoke to this newspaper. "He's underestimating the flood of things that will hit his desk." A Democratic strategist, who is friends with several senior White House aides, revealed that the president has regularly appeared worn out and drawn during evening work sessions with senior staff in the West Wing and has been forced to make decisions more quickly than he is comfortable.

 

He said that on several occasions the president has had to hurry back from eating dinner with his family in the residence and then tucking his daughters in to bed, to conduct urgent government business. Matters are not helped by the pledge to give up smoking.

 

"People say he looks tired more often than they're used to," the strategist said. "He's still calm, but there have been flashes of irritation when he thinks he's being pushed to make a decision sooner than he wants to make it. He looks like he needs a cigarette."

 

Mr Obama was teased by the New York Times on Thursday in a front page story which claimed to have detected a greater prevalence of grey hairs since he entered the White House.

 

The Democratic strategist stressed that Mr Obama's plight was nothing new. "He knew it was going to be tough; he said as much throughout the campaign. But there's a difference between knowing it is going to be tough and facing the sheer relentless pressure of it all."

 

"I think he can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training."

 

-Joe Biden

[lostfan]

E-mail I got today:

Some of you will recall that on July 8, 1947, a little over 60 years ago, witnesses claim that an unidentified flying object (UFO) with five aliens aboard crashed onto a sheep and cattle ranch just outside Roswell, New Mexico. This is a well known incident that many say has long been covered up by the U.S. Air Force and other federal agencies and organizations.

 

However, what you may NOT know is that in the month of April 1948, nine months after that historic day, the following people were born:

 

Albert A. Gore, Jr.

Hillary Rodham

John F.. Kerry

William J. Clinton

Howard Dean

Nancy Pelosi

Dianne Feinstein

Charles E. Schumer

Barbara Boxer

 

See what happens when aliens breed with sheep?

 

I certainly hope this bit of information clears up a lot of things for you.

 

It did for me.

 

No wonder they support the bill to help illegal aliens!

 

Now You Know

[mr_genius]

you need to be more selective to whom you give your email address to

 

 

 

[southsider2k5]

E-mail I got today:

 

Holy s***, now we know why Bush and Reagan wanted star wars so badly... It's not the Russian, but the aliens he wants to blow to smithereens! These bastards must be stopped!!!

 

[kapkomet]

Holy s***, now we know why Bush and Reagan wanted star wars so badly... It's not the Russian, but the aliens he wants to blow to smithereens! These bastards must be stopped!!!

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

E-mail I got today:

Very weird... and completely inaccurate:

Albert A. Gore, Jr. - March 31, 1948

Hillary Rodham - October 26, 1947

John F.. Kerry - December 11, 1943

William J. Clinton - August 19, 1946

Howard Dean - November 17, 1948

Nancy Pelosi - March 26, 1940

Dianne Feinstein - June 22, 1933

Charles E. Schumer - November 23, 1950

Barbara Boxer - November 11, 1940

Edited March 9, 2009 by Athomeboy_2000

[southsider2k5]

Vary weird... and completely inaccurate:

Albert A. Gore, Jr. - March 31, 1948

Hillary Rodham - October 26, 1947

John F.. Kerry - December 11, 1943

William J. Clinton - August 19, 1946

Howard Dean - November 17, 1948

Nancy Pelosi - March 26, 1940

Dianne Feinstein - June 22, 1933

Charles E. Schumer - November 23, 1950

Barbara Boxer - November 11, 1940

 

Damn that's more strikeouts than Nolan Ryan

[HuskyCaucasian]

I love Snoops.

[mr_genius]

damn, if you can't trust random emails from the interwebs what can you trust? the world has gone mad

[lostfan]

Very weird... and completely inaccurate:

Albert A. Gore, Jr. - March 31, 1948

Hillary Rodham - October 26, 1947

John F.. Kerry - December 11, 1943

William J. Clinton - August 19, 1946

Howard Dean - November 17, 1948

Nancy Pelosi - March 26, 1940

Dianne Feinstein - June 22, 1933

Charles E. Schumer - November 23, 1950

Barbara Boxer - November 11, 1940

It was supposed to induce chuckling, you totally killed it.

[southsider2k5]

It was supposed to induce chuckling, you totally killed it.

 

^^^

[HuskyCaucasian]

It was supposed to induce chuckling, you totally killed it.

[mr_genius]

 

"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

 

 

 

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

I believe financial "experts" on CNBC said the same thing:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

CNBC Gives Financial Advice

Daily Show Full Episodes

Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor

Joke of the Day

Edited March 9, 2009 by Athomeboy_2000

[southsider2k5]

I believe financial "experts" on CNBC said the same thing:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

CNBC Gives Financial Advice

Daily Show Full Episodes

Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor

Joke of the Day

 

Then again one of those is actually in Congress with the ability to influence policy.

[mr_genius]

I believe financial "experts" on CNBC said the same thing

 

it's all Rush Limbaugh's fault

[Cknolls]

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/...,6379102.column

 

 

Just another reason for the Ethics Committee to investigate Dodd.

[kapkomet]

CKnolls,

 

Do you agree we see 10%+ bounce if we get rid of mark-to-market? Huge upside, IMO.

[southsider2k5]

CKnolls,

 

Do you agree we see 10%+ bounce if we get rid of mark-to-market? Huge upside, IMO.

 

I don't know about Dr J's bet of the doubling of the financials, but I would bet on a 25% bounce from that sector. I don't know how many SP/Dow points that translates into, but it will be one hell of a rally. It may well put in the bottom of this market.

[kapkomet]

I am waiting to cash my 201K, hoping it might go into a 301K before I get out...

 

[EvilMonkey]

I am waiting to cash my 201K, hoping it might go into a 301K before I get out...

Your's is a 201k? mine is more like K-Mart.

[kapkomet]

I was down 44% when I went to get the total today.

 

[BearSox]

I love it. We have a president who's been lying out his ears, and a treasury secretary who doesn't pay his own taxes but wants to go after the rich who don't pay taxes. Well, the later isn't bad except for the fact he's a hypocrite and wants to raise taxes on the rich so they can "spread the wealth."

 

Also, does the later mean he'll go after Rahm Emanuel for all the property taxes he has not paid? Oh wait, his home is the center of his charitable organization where he and his wife donate 25 thousand a year to some school where their children go for free, where ironically the tuition would be 25 thousand anyway.

 

I hate politicians with a passion, all of them are garbage, democrats and republicans alike.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/09/budget-de...l?feed=rss_news

 

Who's Obama Kidding?

Brian S. Wesbury and Robert Stein, 03.10.09, 06:00 AM EDT

A big spender's 'rosy' delusions on GDP growth.

 

In 2007, the federal budget deficit was $162 billion (1.2% of gross domestic product). For 2009, the budget deficit is projected to be 11 times larger: $1.752 trillion.

 

This World War II-like deficit (12.3% of GDP) is not all on President Obama. Much of it is due to policies put in place by President Bush, Hank Paulson and last year's Congress. President Obama's "stimulus" bill will certainly raise the deficit, but, to be fair, it is not the predominant digger of this year's large fiscal hole.

 

Nonetheless, contrary to the spin of big-government types, these deficits are not just temporary. In fact, the Obama administration uses every trick in the book to convert an understandable and potentially temporary budget lapse this year into a structural lack of fiscal responsibility.

 

Despite the rosiest economic projections we have possibly ever seen, as well as one of the largest tax hikes in history, President Obama's budget fails to achieve balance at any time in the next decade. The smallest deficit (at least as far as the eye can see) will be $533 billion in 2013. This is amazing, especially when the economic growth forecast is considered. Team Obama suggests that real GDP will grow significantly faster in the years ahead than it has in the past.

 

To top it off, that $533 billion deficit in 2013 assumes we have largely withdrawn our military from Iraq. In other words, if we look at just domestic spending, the budget deficit is growing even more rapidly.

 

It is impossible to blame tax cuts for this situation. By 2013, the Bush tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 would no longer be in place. In the Obama budget, tax revenue is expected to be 19% of GDP in 2013--a higher share of GDP than in 2007. It doesn't take a rocket scientist at this point to understand that every dime of the increase in the deficit between 2007 and 2013 is due to higher spending, not excessively low taxes on the rich.

 

One thing to remember about all of these numbers is that they are based on a very "rosy" economic scenario. If the economy falls short of the optimistic assumptions, the deficit will be substantially larger than projected.

 

The forecast is rosy from the get-go. The budget forecasters assumed that the economy would grow at a 3% annual rate starting in April and that real GDP would fall just 1.2% in 2009 from 2008. Then, from 2010 through 2013, the administration assumes that real GDP will grow at a 4% annual rate. To put this in perspective, that is twice as fast as the economy's 2% annual rate of growth between 2004 and 2008. This is not impossible, but the only other periods that came close to this 4% growth rate for such a prolonged period of time were in the late-1990s and mid-1980s. Forgive us for pointing this out, but both of these periods followed major shifts toward freer markets and tax cuts, not bigger government and tax hikes.

 

There is no period in U.S. history where tax rates and the size of government both increased, and yet real GDP growth accelerated as sharply as the Obama team forecasts.

 

If real GDP grows 1% slower on an annual basis, federal spending would be 23% of GDP in 2013, not 22%. The last time government spending was anywhere near this level, was in 1982-1983, in the wake of the worst recession in post-war history, with unemployment at 9.7%. But by 2013, according to the Obama forecast, the U.S. will be in the fourth year of recovery, with an unemployment rate at 5.2%.

 

In other words, it is the Obama team's shift to an expanded government role in the economy and society that is boosting spending, not just spending to stimulate the economy. Deficits will remain extremely large because spending is so much above any historical ability of the economy to pay for it. And the more taxes are lifted to pay for it, the slower the economy will grow, and the less likely any economic data even remotely resembling the Obama Administration's rosy scenario will come to pass.

 

Brian S. Wesbury is chief economist and Robert Stein senior economist at First Trust Advisors in Wheaton, Ill. They write a weekly column for Forbes.com.

[Cknolls]

CKnolls,

 

Do you agree we see 10%+ bounce if we get rid of mark-to-market? Huge upside, IMO.

 

 

I do see a bounce coming, be it from MTM or just bear mkt bounce. Cycles are indicating a move is coming, MAR.11, be it a huge rally, or a new low.