I am not posting this to trumpet what Obama has done lately but rather to once again point out a little reality about our present state of economic affairs and why this Financial Reform act is going to be enacted. I have pulled this excerpt from a mainstream online news article: "head off a repeat of the near-collapse of the U.S. financial system shortly before he took office." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38258047/ns/business-stocks_and_economy This was a near collapse of the financial system. It was damned serious and it came under the watch of George W. Now I will sit back and look at articles and posts here about how all of the Financial reform is just Socialism voodoo cooked up by Obama with a ruse of trouble on Wall Street being the causative factor. It's pretty damned funny to see these head-in-the-sand far right winger reactions.
There is a disconnect here....no doubt the economy was bad late last year, it was what got Obama elected. If the economy was good I don't think he would have won. But now that he's elected he's got programs, solutions, etc, if they are socialistic in nature that's the way it is, they are socialistic in nature. If they aren't working, they aren't working, they deserve criticism. If you take a job and the previous guy left you a mess, doesn't your company expect you to evaluate, propose and implement solutions? At what point if your solutions aren't working are you responsible for the outcome?
Absolutely....but a little bit of time for implementation and results gathering would be expected. I wouldn't expect to hear howling down the hall before I had a chance to get anything done.
Wait a minute, didn't he almost immediately come up with a "necessary" stimulus package that would among other things keep unemployment from going over 8%. It cost almost a trillion dollars and has not managed to prevent unemployment from going over 10%. And we all know that the real rate is much, much higher. He not only stands around getting in the way of Gulf cleanup efforts by not waiving Jones Act requirements and preventing protective berms from being built but he also has managed to inflict terrible damage to the Gulf coast economy by directing a moratorium against further drilling. He's actully killing jobs in a devastated area. He's pandering to the seaman's union and environmentalists while screwing up the whole effort in the Gulf. But since BP has to pay for all this, he's trying to kill two birds with one stone. He's creating more damage so that he can destroy one of those Republican backing oil companies.
Dave, until you respond to questions posed to you, why should anyone do the same for you? Look at the last three posts on page 1 of the link below. A response of Obama looks like a one term president is not an answer to those posts: http://www.theskybox.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=6161&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
That's a lot to digest but the fact the Wall Street Journal posted the article makes it seem pretty legit at first glance. Hey.....my short answer is these kinds of things will bite him in butt come re-election time. That is my answer.....and was my answer.
That's all you have to say? Did Bush ever loan billions to anyone that wanted to drill for oil to sell exclusively to Red China? It's hypocrisy that you are not calling for impeachment!
Don't know enough about the whys and whatfors on this one Tom but it doesn't play well on Main Street at first look.
Tom...I've always been results oriented. The process is good....I like to see it.....but show me the results. Obama is still in the process and maybe the results won't cut the mustard. But I don't think we know for sure yet.
Dave, I thinkk we must be talking about two different things here. What results for America can be good when loaning 2 billion dollars to anyone for drilling for oil that not a drop will come to America. All of the oil is earmarked for Red China. Tell me how that helps America. I'm listening...
Your making me research this because I don't know much about it but here is one prevailing thing I have seen: I will keep looking when I have the time but feel free to chime in.
Dave you are for Govt Control of key commodities like oil, but wait it was the UK and Scottish Govt who made the deal? How does that play out?
So Stu you are saying that BP had no horse in the race and so therefore they didn't care if the deal was done or not? I think plenty was at stake for BP obviously and given the company's poor ethics track record I wouldn't be the least surprised if it was found out that a little money greased some palms in order to make that release deal happen. Blood money I would call it. By the way this almost a topic hijack even if related to big oil deals.
I am not saying anything...why are you always agitating and putting words in other peoples' mouths? I just posted some information relevant to the subject in hopes of shedding a little light on what the other side is. If BP put pressure on Scotland to release that butthead then they deserve to be condemned. I have seen nothing but rumors and allegations by some US Senators. Fine, investigate it...and bring it up if you want as an issue...but before condemning the hell out of them don't you think we ought to have a little evidence that it happened? They admitted expressing concern to the British gov't that the prisoner transfer agreement (already being worked on...not instigated by BP) was progressing slowly and was a detriment to British commercial interests (including BP's). OBVIOUSLY they had a horse in the race. They deny having anything to do with lobbying to release al-Megrahi. They also stated that the decision to release him was soley the decision of the Scottish government and had nothing to do with the UK govt., with whom they had their dealings. I realize that I am just repeating the article I quoted...but apparently you are taking it somewhere else. Yes, if money crossed palms that would be blood money of the worst kind. No, I am not naive enough to think that things like that don't occur. Let's see just a little proof. You show me a little evidence rather than your usual assumption that all big business is bad, then as far as I am concerned the politicians and businessmen involved should take his place in jail.
Stu...I don't contend all big business is bad but I do contend that a pervasive greed and lack of honesty and ethics in our big business sectors like energy and finance threatens to undermine what little confidence the buying public has left in those sectors. The oil spill and the causes behind it certainly doesn't help matters. If BP was influencing the Scottish government my bet is it wasn't about frying the SOB or letting him rot till doomsday.
I'ts ok to speculate about it...even ok to suspect it happened. I am TOTALLY in favor of investigating it. But it's useless to discuss it with you...you read one little allegation, and because it fits your preconceived notions you buy into it lock, stock, and barrel. I have seen not one shred of objective evidence, yet because it fits your ideas/agendas/whatever, then in your mind there is not the least little doubt that it happened.
They do acknowledging pressing the Scottish government for a resolution. Maybe they were just curious. :wink: