![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
Leave a comment
Obama for President
-
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2)
chessdev — Romney vs Real World [+0] - phoenixdown7 — Mitt Romney, as the CEO of Bain Capital, ruined lives [+0]
- plumtreeblossom — A Comm for 2012? [+5]
- chessdev — on Obama's Support of Gay Marriage... [+1]
- chessdev — (no subject) [+3]
- chessdev — Seen on another forum... [+0]
- chessdev — Seen on another forum... [+0]
- girlfmkitty — The geek constituency is a lock [+7]
- cieldumort — PanemCare [+0]
- cieldumort — Mi(tt)sleadership [+3]
- cieldumort — (no subject) [+4]
- dabroots — . . . and remembering "O'Bama" in 2008's St. Patrick's Day Parade in Pittsburgh [+0]
- cieldumort — (no subject) [+0]
- phoenixdown7 — REJOICE [+0]
- cieldumort — Blunt-Rubio [+11]
- cieldumort — Very Important SOTU Tonight [+0]
- chessdev — Seen on a friend's journal... [+6]
- chessdev — Seen in another forum... [+1]
- cieldumort — "the President was just green-washing all along" [+0]
- cieldumort — S&P Director Confirms What We Alerady Knew [+0]
- cieldumort — Jobs Jobs Jobs as Job #1? [+0]
- txvoodoo — A few rebuttals [+2]
- cieldumort — Good Question [+5]
- txvoodoo — Alternative views on the debt ceiling issue [+0]
- cieldumort — My Sentiments, Almost Exactly [+5]
- cieldumort — "It Pays to Trade Alongside President Obama" [+2]
- cieldumort — More Economic Misrepresentation of Obama [+0]
- cieldumort — Cinci City Beat: GOP Ignores Facts on Economy [+0]
- dabroots — Stop voter suppression! [+4]
- dabroots — "Tiny Irish Town Prepares To Welcome Obama Home" [+2]
- dabroots — Keep Joe Biden as Vice-President? A Poll. [+2]
- chessdev — This is how some are trying to spin it [+0]
- plumtreeblossom — Time Has Marched On [+12]
- chessdev — Obama mocks Trump at Dinner [+4]
- chessdev — Trump reminds America why Blacks will never be seen as "Real Americans" in the eyes of the Birthers [+0]
- chessdev — Part II: Hear more of Grady from the Tea Party [+0]
- chessdev — Tea Party explained by one of their own [+10]
- rjade829 — New blog wants your input [+3]
- misterc — Beck Finally Reaps The Whirlwind [+1]
- chessdev — The GOP's selective memory on Ronald Reagan [+1]
17 May 2012 @ 11:31 am
I already knew about Bain Capital because my mom had worked for another of its acquisition companies, Dade Behring, a Biotech company. The same thing happened there.
For this, and many other reasons, I can't trust this guy to be President.
16 May 2012 @ 04:58 pm
Hi to anyone still reading!
I've notice that, as far as I can tell, no one has started a 2012 Obama community on LJ. (Someone has been squatting on the community name obama-2012 for years, but I think they're long gone).
I was a moderator in 2008, but changes in life responsibility prevent me from doing it again. I would certainly join such a community, though. Is anyone up for it?
I've notice that, as far as I can tell, no one has started a 2012 Obama community on LJ. (Someone has been squatting on the community name obama-2012 for years, but I think they're long gone).
I was a moderator in 2008, but changes in life responsibility prevent me from doing it again. I would certainly join such a community, though. Is anyone up for it?
10 May 2012 @ 07:59 am
This is what being a liberal-progressive means: Standing up for what is right regardless of the bigotry and intolerance of others.
Conservatives were wrong about slavery...
They were wrong about women's suffrage...
They were wrong about child labor...
They were wrong about segregation...
They were wrong about interracial marriage...
They were wrong about birth control...
And just as they've been on the wrong side of every major social issue of the past two centuries, conservatives are wrong, dead wrong, about gay marriage. I'm glad to see our leader leading from the front
Conservatives were wrong about slavery...
They were wrong about women's suffrage...
They were wrong about child labor...
They were wrong about segregation...
They were wrong about interracial marriage...
They were wrong about birth control...
And just as they've been on the wrong side of every major social issue of the past two centuries, conservatives are wrong, dead wrong, about gay marriage. I'm glad to see our leader leading from the front
04 April 2012 @ 07:29 am
( Read more )
Oh, Mr. President... you're so one of us (*is a massive geek*)
ETA: Now with MOAR INFO. He used to crush on Uhura!!
Oh, Mr. President... you're so one of us (*is a massive geek*)
ETA: Now with MOAR INFO. He used to crush on Uhura!!
Current Location: United States, Illinois, Chicago
Current Mood: 
geeky
geeky03 April 2012 @ 12:46 am
Wendell Potter
Hope the Supremes Strike Down ObamaCare? Get Ready for PanemCare
Since Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia clearly isn't going to take the time to actually read the health care reform law before he decides whether or not it's constitutional, maybe he and a couple of his buddies on the High Court can catch a screening of The Hunger Games, the movie about children battling each other to the death in a futuristic America, renamed Panem.
"You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?" Scalia asked during arguments on the constitutionality of the law last week. "Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?"
He joked that spending time to read the Affordable Care Act before the Court decides its fate would put him in danger of violating the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. LOL, Judge.
Cruel and unusual punishment is crucial to the Hunger Games, but it only lasts 142 minutes and no one in the audience gets hurt, mitigating anybody's risk of violating the Constitution. The movie portrays a government completely disconnected from the people who struggle every day for the most basic elements of survival, including medical care. Only the wealthy residents of the Capitol have access to hospitals and modern medicine, which, fortunately for them, seems to have a cure for everything.
This society-gone-bad scenario of denying basic care to citizens based on their income or social status seems on the big screen not only cruel and unusual but even incomprehensible. I can just hear Justice Scalia asking, again, "Is this not totally unrealistic?"
Guess what, Judge, it's not. In fact, it's occurring every day in what is still called the United States. And if you and your colleagues decide to scuttle ObamaCare, it won't be long before we have PanemCare. For many Americans, we already do...
15 March 2012 @ 03:18 pm
Another personal story that is a strong example of why my own thinking came around on the Affordable Care Act. What say you?
At first, Spike was a critic of the Affordable Care Act. Then it saved her life.
At first, Spike was a critic of the Affordable Care Act. Then it saved her life.
11 March 2012 @ 02:04 pm
Nearly four years ago in 2008, I handed out "O'Bama" shamrock stickers to hundreds of people along the route of the St. Patrick's Day parade in Pittsburgh. Our president-to-be wasn't there, but Hillary made it. This time, Vice-President Biden will be representing the administration. I don't know if I'll be able to even attend this parade, but if your'e in or around Pittsburgh and want to be one of the first to do some work for the re-election, here's a link to some information for you from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Biden to Attend St. Patrick's Day parade.
05 March 2012 @ 07:34 pm
Obama just 'Vetoed' Indefinite Military Detention in NDAA
On the 29th of February, 2012, President Obama used a waiver to extract the nation out of the nastier part of last December's controversial National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) bill: the enshrining of Bush era policy of indefinite military detention for terrorism suspects in law.
OK. This was not legally a "veto" - presidents do not have the line item veto that this would have taken. It was a policy directive as required under Section 1022.
But legal experts agree that the waiver rules that President Obama has just issued will effectively end military detentions for non-citizen terrorism suspects...
What Obama has done is to return terrorism cases to civil courts as the default - reversing the Cheney era practice of indefinite military detentions.
So can all those low-info voters threatening to give up their vote, because NDAA!!! come home again?
...For the first two days after the Obama waiver of the NDAA, the top google hit, in a crowd of rightwing blogs screeching against the decision was a Huffpost piece that managed to mangle the headline (and the story) to make it seem that what Obama waived was merely that American citizens would now no longer be subject to indefinite military detention!
But U.S. citizens were already excluded under Section 1022 by the time he signed the bill.
Yet judging by the comments, many Democrats and Independents incorrectly believe that the NDAA actually still applied to American citizens, and that all he did in the waiver was waive NDAA's threat to U.S. citizens' civil rights.
Considering that Obama's signing of NDAA led to a hysterical exodus of low-info Democratic and Independent support that probably measurably lowered his approval ratings, and could threaten his re-election - for not somehow magically line-item vetoing the Cheney-esque provision in the annual military funding bill - it is very disturbing that the media has played down what amounts to a very clever legal “3,450-word line-item veto” that he has achieved.
Full article
On the 29th of February, 2012, President Obama used a waiver to extract the nation out of the nastier part of last December's controversial National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) bill: the enshrining of Bush era policy of indefinite military detention for terrorism suspects in law.
OK. This was not legally a "veto" - presidents do not have the line item veto that this would have taken. It was a policy directive as required under Section 1022.
But legal experts agree that the waiver rules that President Obama has just issued will effectively end military detentions for non-citizen terrorism suspects...
What Obama has done is to return terrorism cases to civil courts as the default - reversing the Cheney era practice of indefinite military detentions.
So can all those low-info voters threatening to give up their vote, because NDAA!!! come home again?
...For the first two days after the Obama waiver of the NDAA, the top google hit, in a crowd of rightwing blogs screeching against the decision was a Huffpost piece that managed to mangle the headline (and the story) to make it seem that what Obama waived was merely that American citizens would now no longer be subject to indefinite military detention!
But U.S. citizens were already excluded under Section 1022 by the time he signed the bill.
Yet judging by the comments, many Democrats and Independents incorrectly believe that the NDAA actually still applied to American citizens, and that all he did in the waiver was waive NDAA's threat to U.S. citizens' civil rights.
Considering that Obama's signing of NDAA led to a hysterical exodus of low-info Democratic and Independent support that probably measurably lowered his approval ratings, and could threaten his re-election - for not somehow magically line-item vetoing the Cheney-esque provision in the annual military funding bill - it is very disturbing that the media has played down what amounts to a very clever legal “3,450-word line-item veto” that he has achieved.
Full article
01 March 2012 @ 08:56 pm
Miami.CBSLocal.com
Rubio Co-Sponsored Bill Allowing Denial Of Contraception Coverage Fails
WASHINGTON (CBSMiami) – Republican and Democratic leaders saw their opponents’ blood in the water over the issue of contraception as they voted in the Senate Thursday over a controversial amendment co-sponsored by Florida Republican Marco Rubio.
The amendment, put forth by Republican Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, would have allowed employers to deny their employees contraceptive care and other services if it conflicts with the employers religious or moral convictions.
The vote failed 51-48 with four conservative Democrats crossing party lines to vote with Republicans.
Senator Rubio has (also) sponsored a separate bill that would only impact faith-based institutions and the issue of contraceptives...
24 January 2012 @ 05:49 pm
(As if others weren't, but tonight's is during the 2012 campaign year).
Tonight's SOTU:
Huffington Post
CNN.com
Which presidential candidate paid the most in taxes? Who is the most charitable? CNNMoney has an inside look at the top candidates' 2010 income tax returns. FULL STORY | GINGRICH PAID AT 31% | ROMNEY'S RATE 14%
Tonight's SOTU:
Warren Buffett's Secretary To Attend Speech
Huffington Post
Warren Buffett's longtime secretary, Debbie Bosanek, will join First Lady Michelle Obama in her box during Tuesday night's State Of The Union address, according to a tweet by White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer. "Tonight President Obama will offer more details on the Buffett Rule," he adds.
Obama unveiled the "Buffett Rule" last September as part of his deficit-reduction plan, proposing a minimum tax rate for millionaires, who often pay a lower effective tax rate than middle-class workers. Buffett, the billionaire chairman and chief executive of Omaha-based Berkshire Hathaway, called on Congress in August to raise taxes for those earning $1 million or more, and even more on those earning $10 million or more... Read more...
CNN.com
Which presidential candidate paid the most in taxes? Who is the most charitable? CNNMoney has an inside look at the top candidates' 2010 income tax returns. FULL STORY | GINGRICH PAID AT 31% | ROMNEY'S RATE 14%
02 September 2011 @ 03:55 am
From Climate Science Watch
Jim Hansen arrest at White House tar sands pipeline protest: “We had a dream”
Posted on September 2, 2011 by Climate Science Watch
Climate Science Watch director Rick Piltz joined climate scientist James Hansen and 141 other individuals on August 29 in getting arrested at a sit-in demonstration at the White House, calling on President Obama to block construction the proposed Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline.
We sang “Hear our voices...stop the pipeline...not in our name...keep your promise” and “Which side are you on Obama, which side are you on?” As of September 1, 843 people have been arrested in this series of civil disobedience protests. Stopping the pipeline, which would carry the tar sands carbon bomb from Canada to the Texas Gulf Coast, can be viewed as a litmus test of Obama’s character and integrity on climate change.
Aug 29 Press Release: Largest Day of Arrests Yet at White House Pipeline Protest
Amid Cheers, NASA Chief [climate scientist] Is Arrested at Oil Sands Pipeline Protests
Nation's Leading Environmental NGOs Unified Against Tar Sands Pipeline
Green Organizing in Red States: The Fight Against Big Oil's Next Pipeline (Good
panel discussion at Netroots Nation 2011 conference,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, June 18, 2011, with grassroots opponents of the
Keystone XL pipeline, chaired by Kate Sheppard, reporter at Mother
Jones.)
14 August 2011 @ 01:24 am
Calculated Risk Blog is left underwhelmed:
If I arrived on the scene today - with a 9.1% unemployment rate and about 4.6 million homes with seriously delinquent mortgages or REO - I'd be arguing for an aggressive policy response.
This is depressing ...from the NY Times: White House Debates Fight on Economy
Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Plouffe, and his chief of staff, William M. Daley, want him to maintain a pragmatic strategy of appealing to independent voters by advocating ideas that can pass Congress, even if they may not have much economic impact. These include free trade agreements and improved patent protections for inventors.Tax incentives are the "bigger idea"? It sounds like the debate is between doing nothing and doing very little.
But others, including Gene Sperling, Mr. Obama’s chief economic adviser [argue] for bigger ideas like tax incentives for businesses that hire more workers ...
If I arrived on the scene today - with a 9.1% unemployment rate and about 4.6 million homes with seriously delinquent mortgages or REO - I'd be arguing for an aggressive policy response.
14 August 2011 @ 12:38 am
In response to the post which linked to "What Happened to Obama?" I offer these links:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-ch
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2
http://www.thenation.com/article/16
In my view, what mostly happened to Obama is the Tea Party, and their helping to win the House for the GOP in 2010. It's a stereotypical gridlock Congress now, except that it has the highest proportion of fringe elements I've ever seen.
And anyone who thinks that just using the bully pulpit or being forceful would have changed things is, frankly, naive.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-ch
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2
http://www.thenation.com/article/16
In my view, what mostly happened to Obama is the Tea Party, and their helping to win the House for the GOP in 2010. It's a stereotypical gridlock Congress now, except that it has the highest proportion of fringe elements I've ever seen.
And anyone who thinks that just using the bully pulpit or being forceful would have changed things is, frankly, naive.
13 August 2011 @ 11:48 am
02 August 2011 @ 04:36 pm
Source: TPM
Another Take
From TPM Reader RW ...
Let me get this straight. The President kept revenues on the table, did not touch the sunset provisions in the Bush tax cuts, ensured that military cuts keep the GOP honest, protected Medicare by adding in only provider cuts in the trigger, made the reduction apparently enough to stave off a debt downgrade, got the debt ceiling raised, wounded Boehner by demonstrating to the world that he is controlled by the Tea Party caucus, took out the requirement that a BBA be passed and sent to the states and got the extension through 2012? What exactly is wrong with this deal?
The fact that there are cuts? If people don't like that, why in God's name didn't they turn out to vote and bring back our Congressional majority? Once these nut jobs were in there, it was inevitable that this crap was going to happen. Whether or not it is advisable to cut spending, what exactly was going to stop this from happening? My experience is that the primary factor in all negotiations are the facts on the ground. The complaints center on a ridiculous notion that if the President had only said "no" harder, that these guys would have caved in. This isn't negotiating over who gets the side of the bed near the A/C. This is a complex matter involving 3,000 members and staffers. Negotiations in these situations don't work like this. That's why I'm irked by the constant parade of people comparing the negotiations to movies and card games. These comparisons obscure more than they reveal.
The GOP came out of this looking unreasonable--I've been getting E-mail messages from friends saying they are back with the Democrats because the Tea Party is "destroying this country." Nate Silver tweeted last week that local conservative talk radio in Kansas was filled with callers attacking the Tea Party! The Wall Street Journal ran two editorials which called the GOP delusional and "childish." The vaunted GOP message discipline broke down--I read stories all over the "inside baseball" papers here in DC where GOP House members went on the record after the Friday vote wondering out loud if the party had been damaged! I don't know if you noticed, but John Boehner spent last week negotiating with himself. No new proposals came out from the Dem side, but he produced two proposals, one of which he had to pull after he didn't have votes. A congressional Dem staffer told me his dad, an urban Catholic who voted for Nixon over Kennedy and has always voted Republican suddenly thinks the GOP is out to lunch and supports the President.
Hey, we all hate the pain, but this is an ongoing process. They are going to try this again with a government shutdown. When that happens, I'm pretty sure that the country will be resoundingly against a repeat of these types of hijinks.
On a better note, we know that Boehner has the votes if Mitt Romney "sticks his neck out" opposing the deal.
------------------
This isn't great, but could have been FAR worse. President Obama was shown to be the "only adult in the room."
Some more links:
From The Reid Report - a really long read, but high on actual facts.
Paul Krugman is a Political Rookie. Or How Barack Obama Left John Boehner Holding the Teabag, Again.
Upon Further Examination
And, from here:
Why It's a NOUGAT-FILLED Satan Sandwich
Yes, the Deal is clumsy and unsatisfying, kicks the can down the road, and is an embarrassment to a supposedly functional democracy -- a "sugar-coated Satan sandwich." But it's still a Democratic win, because it leaves the probability of Republicans, suicidally, at election time, either agreeing to tax hikes (in the Joint Committee) or allowing tax hikes to happen (by letting the Joint Committee deadlock, causing all Americans' taxes to increase automatically).
That is, it's a Democratic win IF progressives can keep their sh*t together, stop the idiotic and nonproductive internecine warfare between so-called Firebaggers and Obamabots, and pull together to demand that the Joint Committee include true Democrats who'll hold firm rather than Blue Dogs and Vichies who'll surrender on the electorally all-important new revenues issue.
Here, in a highly sophisticated graphical format developed after over one minute of communications-strategy research and diligent labor, is why the Satan Sandwich contains a nummy, pro-Democrat nougat center:
(click for full-res)
Another Take
From TPM Reader RW ...
Let me get this straight. The President kept revenues on the table, did not touch the sunset provisions in the Bush tax cuts, ensured that military cuts keep the GOP honest, protected Medicare by adding in only provider cuts in the trigger, made the reduction apparently enough to stave off a debt downgrade, got the debt ceiling raised, wounded Boehner by demonstrating to the world that he is controlled by the Tea Party caucus, took out the requirement that a BBA be passed and sent to the states and got the extension through 2012? What exactly is wrong with this deal?
The fact that there are cuts? If people don't like that, why in God's name didn't they turn out to vote and bring back our Congressional majority? Once these nut jobs were in there, it was inevitable that this crap was going to happen. Whether or not it is advisable to cut spending, what exactly was going to stop this from happening? My experience is that the primary factor in all negotiations are the facts on the ground. The complaints center on a ridiculous notion that if the President had only said "no" harder, that these guys would have caved in. This isn't negotiating over who gets the side of the bed near the A/C. This is a complex matter involving 3,000 members and staffers. Negotiations in these situations don't work like this. That's why I'm irked by the constant parade of people comparing the negotiations to movies and card games. These comparisons obscure more than they reveal.
The GOP came out of this looking unreasonable--I've been getting E-mail messages from friends saying they are back with the Democrats because the Tea Party is "destroying this country." Nate Silver tweeted last week that local conservative talk radio in Kansas was filled with callers attacking the Tea Party! The Wall Street Journal ran two editorials which called the GOP delusional and "childish." The vaunted GOP message discipline broke down--I read stories all over the "inside baseball" papers here in DC where GOP House members went on the record after the Friday vote wondering out loud if the party had been damaged! I don't know if you noticed, but John Boehner spent last week negotiating with himself. No new proposals came out from the Dem side, but he produced two proposals, one of which he had to pull after he didn't have votes. A congressional Dem staffer told me his dad, an urban Catholic who voted for Nixon over Kennedy and has always voted Republican suddenly thinks the GOP is out to lunch and supports the President.
Hey, we all hate the pain, but this is an ongoing process. They are going to try this again with a government shutdown. When that happens, I'm pretty sure that the country will be resoundingly against a repeat of these types of hijinks.
On a better note, we know that Boehner has the votes if Mitt Romney "sticks his neck out" opposing the deal.
------------------
This isn't great, but could have been FAR worse. President Obama was shown to be the "only adult in the room."
Some more links:
From The Reid Report - a really long read, but high on actual facts.
Paul Krugman is a Political Rookie. Or How Barack Obama Left John Boehner Holding the Teabag, Again.
Upon Further Examination
And, from here:
Why It's a NOUGAT-FILLED Satan Sandwich
Yes, the Deal is clumsy and unsatisfying, kicks the can down the road, and is an embarrassment to a supposedly functional democracy -- a "sugar-coated Satan sandwich." But it's still a Democratic win, because it leaves the probability of Republicans, suicidally, at election time, either agreeing to tax hikes (in the Joint Committee) or allowing tax hikes to happen (by letting the Joint Committee deadlock, causing all Americans' taxes to increase automatically).
That is, it's a Democratic win IF progressives can keep their sh*t together, stop the idiotic and nonproductive internecine warfare between so-called Firebaggers and Obamabots, and pull together to demand that the Joint Committee include true Democrats who'll hold firm rather than Blue Dogs and Vichies who'll surrender on the electorally all-important new revenues issue.
Here, in a highly sophisticated graphical format developed after over one minute of communications-strategy research and diligent labor, is why the Satan Sandwich contains a nummy, pro-Democrat nougat center:
(click for full-res)
01 August 2011 @ 09:25 pm
Economist Jonah B. Gelbach writes
Monday, August 1, 2011
Yuck.
That's what I have to say about President Obama's capitulation to the hostage-taking ways of congressional Republicans.I suppose I might change my mind, but after watching the President give in to the Boehner-McConnell blackmail axis, I don't imagine I'll be spending much of my time advocating his re-election. Assuming he's the Democratic nominee, which I do, I'll vote for Obama, because the alternative will still--somehow--be worse. But I really can't see how, in good conscience, I could defend the economic policies of a guy who has signed on to fiscal contraction in the midst of a major downturn. And that's leaving aside the President's apparent lack of understanding of the importance of bargaining from strength. So much for all that poker expertise he's supposed to have.What a shame.Email this • Digg This! • Share on Facebook • Stumble It! • Add to del.icio.us
Posted by Jonah B. Gelbach
23 June 2011 @ 11:01 pm
President Obama & the International Energy Agency tapped the strategic petroleum reserves today.
CNBC Fast Money
Oil Traders: Tapping Reserve Was 'Genius' Move by Obama
With US crude prices already down 16 percent from their April high, pundits and politicians everywhere were asking Thursday: "Why would President Obama tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when oil prices were already falling?”
CNBC Fast Money
Oil Traders: Tapping Reserve Was 'Genius' Move by Obama
With US crude prices already down 16 percent from their April high, pundits and politicians everywhere were asking Thursday: "Why would President Obama tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when oil prices were already falling?”
 |
The answer is simple: Obama knew this would have the maximum impact, hitting speculators on the chin, according to traders.
“Arguably the timing of the release is genius,” said Stephen Weiss of Short Hills Capital. “If the SPR had been released as crude worked higher, the effect would have been relatively momentary, but releasing it now, with the momentum on crude prices turning down, will add to the price decline as speculators hit their stops and margin limits more quickly forcing them to sell.”
Prices for WTI oil [CLCV1 91.99 
0.97 (+1.07%) 
], the benchmark for the U.S., plunged as much as five percent on Thursday after the Department of Energy and the International Energy Agency announced a coordinated release of 60 million barrels from so-called emergency stockpiles.
“This is analogous to shorting a momentum stock,” added Weiss, a veteran trader who at one time co-managed Steve Cohen’s legendary SAC Capital. “Astute investors don’t short momentum stocks as they climb purely on valuation because the market can stay irrational longer than an investor can stay solvent. However, once the momentum breaks and fundamental reality sets in, the shorts go after the equity like bees to honey.”
Even though the IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka said in the official release that the move was in response to a supply disruption because of Libya, traders speculated that President Obama was ultimately behind this decision because of hints that he has given earlier this year.White House spokesman Jay Carney said on June 8 that the president may tap the SPR if necessary. Obama first hinted at using this option in March just before oil hit its high for the year...
If there’s any lesson here, it pays to trade alongside President Obama. Back in March 2009, Obama made an unusual remark for a sitting President, saying that equities were a good deal based on earnings valuation. The bull market would begin that month.
16 June 2011 @ 03:22 am
The New Republic
Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Continues Not To Understand Economics
The Wall Street Journal opinion page accuses President Obama of flip-flopping on tax cuts:
This holiday from committing liberal history began in December with the White House-GOP deal that extended the Bush tax rates through the 2012 election and added a payroll tax cut on employees to 4.2% from 6.2%. These proposals came from the same Democrats who only months earlier had increased payroll taxes to finance their health-care bill and routinely claim that tax rates don't matter to the private economy. But then, 9.1% joblessness and 1.8% growth have a way of concentrating the political mind.
The Journal here is conflating two completely different beliefs. One idea is that marginal tax rates are extremely important in determining the incentive of workers, investors and entrepreneurs; raise marginal tax rates too high, and they won't bother to work hard or innovate. The extreme version of this dynamic, called "supply-side economics," deems these incentive dynamics so crucial that they determine the entire course of the economy.
A completely different idea here is Keynesian economics. That idea holds that, when the economy is depressed, it makes sense for the government to encourage people to spend more. The government can do this by cutting taxes temporarily, thus putting more money into the hands of consumers, or by spending the money directly.
The two concepts have nothing to do with each other. The first idea is concerned with the supply of labor, focused on marginal tax rates(the tax rate on your last dollar of income), especially for the rich, and applies to any set of economic circumstances. The second is concerned with the demand for labor, takes no account of marginal tax rates, encourages tax breaks for lower-income workers who are more likely to spend, and applies only to recessions.
The Obama administration, like most economists, has never put much stock in supply-side economics. Most economists believe that marginal tax rates affect supply a bit, but the effect is small, especially at current tax rates. (We might be running into trouble at 50% or higher.) That's what the Journal means when it says Obama thinks "tax rates don't matter to the private economy" -- it's a wild exaggeration, naturally, but an exaggeration of a basic truth. At the same time, Obama has followed orthodox Keynesian response to a severe depression, which is to run high-short term deficits in order to stimulate demand. Obama did include a payroll tax hike in the Affordable Care Act -- on high-income earners, to take effect starting in 2013, by which point the economy was presumed to be in recovery mode.
In the Journal's telling, Obama has flip-flopped -- he opposed the Bush tax cuts, and now he's proposing tax cuts? But of course the 2009 stimulus had tax cuts, too. Obama has favored and continues to favor short-term Keynesian tax cuts, and continues to oppose George W. Bush's permanent supply-side tax cuts. I genuinely couldn't tell you whether the Journal editorial page simply fails to understand the very basic difference in economic doctrines, or is simply pretending not to understand in order to concoct a political narrative to use against Democrats.
16 June 2011 @ 12:44 am
GOP Hopefuls Ignore Facts, Offer Rhetoric on Economy
In some parallel universe, the United States government is enjoying its fifth year of a practically debt-free existence. ( Read more... )
09 June 2011 @ 12:53 pm
Efforts to require official state photo IDs to vote are underway in several states and have already been passed in a few. They suppress voter turnout, and we cannot let that happen in 2012 or in any other year. If you live in Pennsylvania, click on the link at the end of this post.
The Pennsylvania House of Representatives plans to vote early next week on an expensive bill that will make it extremely difficult for many state residents to cast their ballots.
Pennsylvania Republicans are pushing for legislation that will require voters to show a government-approved photo ID in order to obtain their ballot.
According to a New York University study, there are an estimated 4 million people in Pennsylvania who do not have photo identification. Students, the working poor, the elderly, racial minorities, and people with disabilities are twice as likely to not have the approved forms of ID this legislation will require. This bill will create serious obstacles for these voters, many of whom are likely to vote Democratic.
This is another Republican strategy to stall progress and suppress democratic freedoms. If this voter ID bill succeeds, it will keep scores of Democratic voters away from the polls in 2012.
To voice your opposition to this bill that would suppress voter turnout, click Stop Voter Suppression in Pennsylvania.
The Pennsylvania House of Representatives plans to vote early next week on an expensive bill that will make it extremely difficult for many state residents to cast their ballots.
Pennsylvania Republicans are pushing for legislation that will require voters to show a government-approved photo ID in order to obtain their ballot.
According to a New York University study, there are an estimated 4 million people in Pennsylvania who do not have photo identification. Students, the working poor, the elderly, racial minorities, and people with disabilities are twice as likely to not have the approved forms of ID this legislation will require. This bill will create serious obstacles for these voters, many of whom are likely to vote Democratic.
This is another Republican strategy to stall progress and suppress democratic freedoms. If this voter ID bill succeeds, it will keep scores of Democratic voters away from the polls in 2012.
To voice your opposition to this bill that would suppress voter turnout, click Stop Voter Suppression in Pennsylvania.
22 May 2011 @ 01:57 pm
I like this story, from npr.org (click for complete article):
May 22, 2011
President Obama leaves Sunday night on a weeklong trip to Europe. He'll visit with the Queen of England, attend a summit meeting of the Group of 8 nations in France and sit down with a group of Central European leaders in Poland. But his first stop, in Ireland, may hold the biggest thrill for both the president and the destination.
Obama's actually had a standing invitation to Ireland, but confirmed the visit, suitably enough, on St. Patrick's Day. During a meeting in the Oval Office, he told Enda Kenny, Ireland's newly elected taoiseach – or prime minister – he didn't just want to see Dublin and the usual tourist sites.
He wanted to see the tiny village of Moneygall, home to Obama's great-great-great grandfather on his mother's side. Kenny welcomed the visit, saying Ireland is anxious to give cade milla falcha – a hundred thousand welcomes – to its new favorite son.
"There is no one as Irish as Barack Obama," Kenny said. "And, may I say, sir, Mr. President, they're queuing up in the thousands to tell you that in Moneygall."
May 22, 2011
President Obama leaves Sunday night on a weeklong trip to Europe. He'll visit with the Queen of England, attend a summit meeting of the Group of 8 nations in France and sit down with a group of Central European leaders in Poland. But his first stop, in Ireland, may hold the biggest thrill for both the president and the destination.
Obama's actually had a standing invitation to Ireland, but confirmed the visit, suitably enough, on St. Patrick's Day. During a meeting in the Oval Office, he told Enda Kenny, Ireland's newly elected taoiseach – or prime minister – he didn't just want to see Dublin and the usual tourist sites.
He wanted to see the tiny village of Moneygall, home to Obama's great-great-great grandfather on his mother's side. Kenny welcomed the visit, saying Ireland is anxious to give cade milla falcha – a hundred thousand welcomes – to its new favorite son.
"There is no one as Irish as Barack Obama," Kenny said. "And, may I say, sir, Mr. President, they're queuing up in the thousands to tell you that in Moneygall."
20 May 2011 @ 06:56 pm
All 2012 reelection press releases and the official website indicate Joe Biden will be kept on as President Obama's running mate. Are you okay with that? Here's a poll for you. Check the box that best expresses your opinion.
Poll #1743400 Keep Biden as VP? A Poll.
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 43
Poll #1743400 Keep Biden as VP? A Poll.
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 43
Are you okay with keeping Joe Biden as Vice-President for another term?
View Answers
| Yes, I think he's doing a fine job. |
   38 (88.4%) |
| Not sure. |
| 1 (2.3%) |
| No. I'd like to see him replaced with someone else. No one in particular, though. |
| 2 (4.7%) |
| No. I'd like to see him replaced with a female VP candidate, but not any particular female candidate. |
| 1 (2.3%) |
| No. I have someone else in mind and will mention them in a comment. |
| 1 (2.3%) |
10 May 2011 @ 07:56 pm
02 May 2011 @ 12:13 pm
It's likely to start getting busier here in this LJ community in the months ahead. Time to ramp up again. However, I've been wondering about the community name going forward. As far as I know this is still the largest Obama-related community on LJ, and I'm questioning the pragmatism and public image issues of having 2008 in the name.
We went around and around on this just after the election and decided to keep the comm's original name for historical reasons, but that was a few years ago and we're coming on 2012, and there's new work to do.
What should happen? The comm name could be changed. Or a new comm could be started. Discuss...
We went around and around on this just after the election and decided to keep the comm's original name for historical reasons, but that was a few years ago and we're coming on 2012, and there's new work to do.
What should happen? The comm name could be changed. Or a new comm could be started. Discuss...
01 May 2011 @ 06:47 pm
28 April 2011 @ 07:39 pm
This video starts off slow, but makes some interesting points.
I would suggest starting at 2:20 and listening from there...
If at work -- wear headphones or close the door.
22 April 2011 @ 08:47 pm
Seen on another forum:
[chessdev] Listen to how **NOT** racist this man is...
17 April 2011 @ 04:21 pm
I hope it's okay to post this here. In response to the 2012 Obama-Biden campaign kicking off with the question "Are you in?" and the political climate in America, I have started this blog and I would love your participation!
http://almostin2012.wordpress.com/
http://almostin2012.wordpress.com/
07 April 2011 @ 05:45 pm
All I can say is It couldn't happen to a more deserving guy!
I have to admit that, other than various clips here and there, I've never even seen his show, or anything else on Faux "News" (well, not since Geraldo Rivera left, anyway! ;-)
Just as with the last occupant of the White House, I can't even stand to see the "man's" face on my TV, much less listen to any of the putrid prevarications that ooze out of him like so much methane gas out of a drainfield.
Being that he's his own biggest fan, maybe now he can find some REAL tears to shed for HIMSELF!
I have to admit that, other than various clips here and there, I've never even seen his show, or anything else on Faux "News" (well, not since Geraldo Rivera left, anyway! ;-)
Just as with the last occupant of the White House, I can't even stand to see the "man's" face on my TV, much less listen to any of the putrid prevarications that ooze out of him like so much methane gas out of a drainfield.
Being that he's his own biggest fan, maybe now he can find some REAL tears to shed for HIMSELF!
09 February 2011 @ 06:54 am
Seen from a friend's journal:
========================================
The GOP's selective memory on Ronald Reagan
By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
As we mark the centennial of Ronald Reagan's birth, one of our major political parties has become imbued with the Gipper's political philosophy and governing style. I mean the Democrats, of course.
Ronald Reagan: Actor, president, statesman
The Republican Party tries to claim the Reagan mantle but has moved so far to the right that it now inhabits its own parallel universe. On the planet that today's GOP leaders call home, Reagan would qualify as one of those big-government, tax-and-spend liberals who are trying so hard to destroy the American way of life.
Some Republicans, I suppose, might be so enraptured by the Reagan legend that they are unaware of his actual record. I hate to break it to Sarah Palin, but Reagan raised taxes. Often. Sometimes by a lot.
When he took office as governor of California in 1967, the state faced a huge budget deficit. Reagan promptly raised taxes by $1 billion - at a time when the entire state budget amounted to just $6 billion. It was then the biggest state tax increase in history. During Reagan's eight years in Sacramento, the top state income tax rate increased from 7 percent to 11 percent. Business and sales taxes also soared.
When Reagan moved into the White House, he brought with him a theory that critics derided as "voodoo economics" - the idea that the way to balance the budget was to lower taxes, not raise them. Reagan quickly pushed through the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, a tax cut of about $264 billion. Republicans seem to rank this event alongside Columbus's discovery of the New World as one of the great milestones in human history.
What eludes the GOP's selective memory is that Reagan subsequently raised taxes 11 times, beginning with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. All told, he took back roughly half of that hallowed 1981 tax cut. Why? Because he realized that the United States needed an effective federal government - and that to be effective, the government needed more money.
Republicans laud Reagan's unshakable commitment to smaller government. Yet federal employment rolls grew under his watch; they shrank under Bill Clinton. Reagan had promised to eliminate the departments of Energy and Education, but he didn't. Instead, he signed legislation that added to the Cabinet a new Department of Veterans Affairs.
On social issues, Reagan advocated a federal ban on abortions, the legalization of organized prayer in the schools and an end to court-ordered busing to achieve racial balance. He accomplished none of this. In his personal life, by all accounts, Reagan was a live-and-let-live kind of guy. He did, after all, spend much of his adult life as a denizen of - cover your ears, Republicans - evil Hollywood.
None of this is to suggest that the patron saint of modern American conservatism was some sort of flaming liberal, just that he was a pragmatist who respected objective reality. In a big state or a big country, big government was a given. When taxes needed to be raised, the thing to do was raise them.
Even though Reagan knew that ideology had its limits, I don't doubt that he truly believed the ideology he espoused. His biggest impact on domestic politics was that the center of gravity shifted to the right - enough, in fact, that what once were extreme views have become orthodox.
Democrats sound and act almost like Reaganites. It was Clinton, remember, who balanced the budget and ended welfare "as we know it." President Obama has pledged not to raise taxes on the middle class, and Democrats couldn't even manage to reverse tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that might have made even Reagan blush. Obama based his health-care package on Republican ideas - including the individual mandate, which had been proposed by conservative think tanks and implemented by Mitt Romney.
Meanwhile, the Republican Party has lost its mind. The GOP argues for deep across-the-board budget cuts of a kind that Reagan ultimately rejected. Party leaders denounce the belief that government can do any good for anybody as "socialism."
Here's a quote that might have come from a Democrat during last fall's tax-cut debate: "We don't seek to aid the rich, but those lower- and middle-income families who are most strapped by taxes and the recession." In fact, Ronald Reagan said those words in 1983, when he was arguing for tuition tax credits. Remind me: Who are the Gipper's true heirs?
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con
========================================
The GOP's selective memory on Ronald Reagan
By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
As we mark the centennial of Ronald Reagan's birth, one of our major political parties has become imbued with the Gipper's political philosophy and governing style. I mean the Democrats, of course.
Ronald Reagan: Actor, president, statesman
The Republican Party tries to claim the Reagan mantle but has moved so far to the right that it now inhabits its own parallel universe. On the planet that today's GOP leaders call home, Reagan would qualify as one of those big-government, tax-and-spend liberals who are trying so hard to destroy the American way of life.
Some Republicans, I suppose, might be so enraptured by the Reagan legend that they are unaware of his actual record. I hate to break it to Sarah Palin, but Reagan raised taxes. Often. Sometimes by a lot.
When he took office as governor of California in 1967, the state faced a huge budget deficit. Reagan promptly raised taxes by $1 billion - at a time when the entire state budget amounted to just $6 billion. It was then the biggest state tax increase in history. During Reagan's eight years in Sacramento, the top state income tax rate increased from 7 percent to 11 percent. Business and sales taxes also soared.
When Reagan moved into the White House, he brought with him a theory that critics derided as "voodoo economics" - the idea that the way to balance the budget was to lower taxes, not raise them. Reagan quickly pushed through the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, a tax cut of about $264 billion. Republicans seem to rank this event alongside Columbus's discovery of the New World as one of the great milestones in human history.
What eludes the GOP's selective memory is that Reagan subsequently raised taxes 11 times, beginning with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. All told, he took back roughly half of that hallowed 1981 tax cut. Why? Because he realized that the United States needed an effective federal government - and that to be effective, the government needed more money.
Republicans laud Reagan's unshakable commitment to smaller government. Yet federal employment rolls grew under his watch; they shrank under Bill Clinton. Reagan had promised to eliminate the departments of Energy and Education, but he didn't. Instead, he signed legislation that added to the Cabinet a new Department of Veterans Affairs.
On social issues, Reagan advocated a federal ban on abortions, the legalization of organized prayer in the schools and an end to court-ordered busing to achieve racial balance. He accomplished none of this. In his personal life, by all accounts, Reagan was a live-and-let-live kind of guy. He did, after all, spend much of his adult life as a denizen of - cover your ears, Republicans - evil Hollywood.
None of this is to suggest that the patron saint of modern American conservatism was some sort of flaming liberal, just that he was a pragmatist who respected objective reality. In a big state or a big country, big government was a given. When taxes needed to be raised, the thing to do was raise them.
Even though Reagan knew that ideology had its limits, I don't doubt that he truly believed the ideology he espoused. His biggest impact on domestic politics was that the center of gravity shifted to the right - enough, in fact, that what once were extreme views have become orthodox.
Democrats sound and act almost like Reaganites. It was Clinton, remember, who balanced the budget and ended welfare "as we know it." President Obama has pledged not to raise taxes on the middle class, and Democrats couldn't even manage to reverse tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that might have made even Reagan blush. Obama based his health-care package on Republican ideas - including the individual mandate, which had been proposed by conservative think tanks and implemented by Mitt Romney.
Meanwhile, the Republican Party has lost its mind. The GOP argues for deep across-the-board budget cuts of a kind that Reagan ultimately rejected. Party leaders denounce the belief that government can do any good for anybody as "socialism."
Here's a quote that might have come from a Democrat during last fall's tax-cut debate: "We don't seek to aid the rich, but those lower- and middle-income families who are most strapped by taxes and the recession." In fact, Ronald Reagan said those words in 1983, when he was arguing for tuition tax credits. Remind me: Who are the Gipper's true heirs?
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con
