The Obama Administration / State of the Union Address

Is this 275 bn on top of the other 800bn they quanititatively eased the other day

No wonder the bright ones are clearing their money out of the Dow today ...

Quote :

Obama unveils 275 billion dollar housing plan

PHOENIX, Arizona (AFP) – President Barack Obama Wednesday targeted the housing crisis at the root of the US economic meltdown, with a program which could cost 275 billion dollars and reach nine million homeowners.

The strategy includes 75 billion dollars designed as an incentive for lenders to reduce interest rates to prevent at-risk mortgage debtors joining the millions who have already fallen victim to foreclosures.

The government will also put up an additional 200 billion dollars to bolster confidence in efforts by federal lenders Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to offer affordable mortgages and bring stability to the housing market.

Obama opened the new front in the broad battle against the economic crisis a day after signing a huge, 787-billion-dollar stimulus plan into law, and as he simultaneously attempts to restructure the debilitated US auto industry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090218/bs_afp/useconomyhousingobamaprogram

One can only laugh at the poor saps who thought there would be any change whatsoever. Business as usual and the fools worried about civil rights are "SHOCKED". Some people never learn

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090220/pl_afp/usdiplomacyasiachinarights

"human rights will not interfere with other priorities"

Well that is a big surprise! Money first as it has always been

What fool would thing the world would be any different, after all the USA is the worlds leading rouge state.

About 60 million here and 4 million in Ireland

They could have had change

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/025457.html

Has this already posted.

Quote :

21/02/2009 - 08:59:30
US president Barack Obama’s Justice Department shocked human rights activists today as it backed the former Bush administration, saying detainees in Afghanistan had no constitutional rights.

In a two-sentence court filing, department lawyers said the Obama administration agreed that detainees at Bagram Air Base could not use US courts to challenge their detention.

The filing left human rights lawyers stunned

Breaking News Today.

I'n not shocked, but still very very angry.

Get over it.

YoungDan

Well you know my views on this, people should vote for people who want to truely represent them, or people who have genuine views. I don't care if those views and beliefs are fundamentally wrong, or opposed to my own, if they are truely held. You can have a discussion with someone who has different opinion, and you may persuade them, but you will never persuade someone who is bought or is following some hidden agenda. A lot more straight forward honesty would go a long way in politics. A career where spin and deceit are the measure of many says volumes about the ethics and standard of government.

I have severe doubts about the very concept of Democracy. It is extremely easy to corrupt. The idea of one man/woman one vote sounds all very fine, but a large percentage of the population have not the slightest interest in politics, many vote for tribal reasons rather than sane reason and those that vote for what could be called reason often vote for what they perceive as their own narrow self interest. Tell them you will not tax them and will build new schools and deliver them to the land of milk and honey and chances are you get their vote. It also helps if you look presentable.

This is before we even get to those who put themselves forward. Who would want the job and why? Well here is my brief list.
1 Someone out to make a name for him-her self. A person with something to prove. A person driven by some need to show worth. Possibly a very insecure person.
2 An idealist a dreamer who sees some cause being served.
3 People who treat political dogma like a religion.
4 Someone out to use his position to make personal gain.
5 A person placed to benifit an outside interest.

There is phrase that bothers me, "seeking a career in politics". I don't think it should be first and foremost a career. It should be a responsibility.

Then we move on to the process of getting elected. All you need to do is appeal to one large block to have a workable power base, so best head off to the local church or mosque where the faithful will see your face and identify with you. (Any large group will do)

The average person cannot stand and expect to win. The media perpetuate those that are already elected. The amount of money and support you need places this career beyond the pockets of many.

Then we have weird voting systems that do not give representation that reflect the views of society. (Ireland has a better than most system but is stuck in tribal voting). First past the post is plain bonkers. It suggests that 49% don't count. Then there is the question of how we carve up a country into constituencies, and guess who have to agree on the break up, yes the politicians. So you end up with some of the oddest boundary decisions. And on and on.......

To me this is an insane way to arrive at a group of people to run a country and ends up with a chamber where the legal profession is over represented. Now that should be an instant warning that something is very wrong.

Much of my childhood was about contested wills and custody battles so I have a jaundiced view of humanity, but I think I became very good at deciding on character. To me Obama is utterly phoney, his very mannerisms are wrong. He was lying and had little conviction in what he was saying. He is also a person who will prefer secrecy and will not wish to make public decisions that may cause difficulties with parts of his support base. So I don't expect much. Hopefully I am wrong.

What America needs is someone clear headed and decisive with enough character to take a lot of very hard, difficult decisions. It could be that Obama finds his feet and steps up to the challenge. Stranger things have happened throughout history. Sometimes the situation makes the man or woman, but I wouldn't put much money on it.

I agree with your view of Obama, Squire, in order to see who Obama represents, a look at this list of contributors is enough. Obama, and any leader, is only one man. If he tried to go against the wishes of big business, he would be out on his ear or under the sod in double quick time.

If democracy worked, they'd ban it.

Wealth is power, and except on very rare occasions its interests are served. It is the delusion of the left that it is otherwise.

If you want representative democracy you would be better picking representatives by lottery.

Exactly Squire - randomly picked like a jury. There are so many horsey clientelistic nepotists that rule their little domains that we can't be waiting for them to die out naturally ...

Wealth is power but what is wealth ?

Wealth is having surplus beyond your basic needs. Some have excessive wealth and some are driven to increase their wealth as they wish either the security or the influence that that brings.

Poor is having insufficient assets to meet your basic needs. This then means you have to sell yourself to obtain the essentials. It can so happen that those with wealth indulge in work, but generally that is work of their choosing aimed at objectives that they themselves set. That distinguishes them from the working poor who work to further the aims and objectives of others. Poverty and slavery are not dissimilar.

Having decided on a lottery you then need to set up a system that makes corrupting lobbying extremely difficult. You also need continuity so say 10% a year with a 10 year time limited term. The problem then is how do you form a government and how is it organised. It would be a very different form of government and potentially very efficient in resources. People will say that the will of the people is not reflected but if the representation is a cross section then it is, and in any case if the electorate themselves cannot behave responsibility why should they have the right to chose?

Wealth affects power then - or the promise/allure of wealth. We were so easily sold a shlock of overpriced houses (do you think yourself they were overpriced and do you think they'll recover or how do you think it will pan out ?) and I think the electorate can easily be bought/threatened/frightened into voting for them from election to election - that's true here anyway. This system is quite easily manipulated as you said - coming up to the next election, please God I'll be watching the scare tactics, auctioneering, confidence tricking and the other slick salesmanship devices of the protagonists as many of them sickeningly work their wares to woo their quarry. It's true to say that the best interviewee isn't necessarily the best employee ... same goes for politics.

The revolution/change will have to come as people demand more in the line of policy than politics. I think there is a big self-sufficiency movement happening now and I really really hope it takes off as it will be true Anarchy, the only arms of the State left the Army and the Legal organs. The Education system needs to be wrested from them as it is getting dealt with appallingly ... Education is the secret weapon against them and once this is fully employed properly then it can begin to unfold and the detailed mechanics of voting and participation worked out as we go.

It's my belief that technology allows individuals and groups to over-produce so that in theory and in practice in the better of conditions that everyone by your own definition can be wealthy. I'm watching this happening and I think it's fascinating.

As tech and engineering and machinery and gadgetry get employed to do work on an individual and group level locally, what will ascend in importance is community and true handcraft; it has been only so many shiny baubles and so much feathery bright plumage up to now that now I think it is coming near the time for real change but it won't happen through demogogues, spangly new politicians or even dictators.

I had this discussion with some people last year. It was about what was likely to happen and what if the local banks folded as they have been known to do in those parts. What would their families need, could they access banks across the border and how often? Issues about extended families and how they would fair, sons, daughters and their families. A worst case scenario.

In reality the problems most people have is a lack of access to the resources needed to be self sufficient. Once they have that, it is a hard enough life but not so bad, especially if they are self sufficient in energy and are producing a bit of surplus to trade with. However one bad year and they could be facing starvation.


Self sufficient units or virtually self sufficient would cause all sorts of problems for governments. Thoughts of the Sheriff appearing to run off with 10% of the pigs and the sprouts. How do you tax someone who is not earning?

Quote :

In reality the problems most people have is a lack of access to the resources needed to be self sufficient. Once they have that, it is a hard enough life but not so bad, especially if they are self sufficient in energy and are producing a bit of surplus to trade with. However one bad year and they could be facing starvation.


Self sufficient units or virtually self sufficient would cause all sorts of problems for governments. Thoughts of the Sheriff appearing to run off with 10% of the pigs and the sprouts. How do you tax someone who is not earning?

Tax issues were regularly war talk in History weren't they ? I think this is a bizarre conversation to be having in one way but on the other hand it's very logical - people everywhere are starting to feel done over by those in power and perhaps there is some escape instinct kicking in big scale. There seems to be groups organising big time in the US and I'd predict a mass exodus from cities if this economic stuff keeps going wrong.

In fact it might happen anyway even if there was to be an upturn ... a tipping point might be reached before that as the bottom to a deflationary spiral; people might get pissed off and scared and head for the hills, banding into self-supporting communities. There is enough technology to be able to do it and as you say and when these crystallisations happen then they happen on a massive scale and very quickly.

Machinery can be made to last forever if you care for it - toolists can often manufacture their own parts - even a crystallisation point with that would be reached at some point where there is enough stuff mined already to last 40 years if people take care of it. Hence the Vintage Car at the top.

There is also so much housing now we don't need to build anymore, hardly. Anywhere that a community could go and get surplus food and power would be a huge pain in the bananas for a Big Govt.

I think it's happening; after all - how much stuff can people be sold before they realise half of it is useless crap ?

Auditor #9 wrote:

Tax issues were regularly war talk in History weren't they ? I think this is a bizarre conversation to be having in one way but on the other hand it's very logical -

In the context of somewhere like Argentina it is all too real a consideration. Enjoy http://www.rapidtrends.com/blog/surving-argentinas-economic-collapse-part-1-3/

That is exactly the mindset that is needed Squire and I will be back to it later.

Note lately that some are suggesting that we need fewer TDs. Exactly the opposite to what is needed. Ireland actually needs about 1200 TDs. One for every 3000 people.

Politics is about power and wealth transfer. There are people who think that politicians are there to help them. Most will die of old age still under this delusion.

I reckon that piece was actually written by an American, too obsessed with guns, gold and medicine. The Argentinians are much more philosophical and fatalistic. Their government pulled off a real stunt back in 2001-2002. They converted all dollar and foreign currency bank accounts to Peso and devalued. People couldn't get money out of banks, others were not paid. Utter mess.

The government there recently increased the retenciones tax on soy to 41% and by the time you pay all the rest of the taxes you would be lucky to keep 10-15% Yes nearly 90% tax so the farmers are aggrieved.

Squire wrote:

YoungDan

Well you know my views on this, people should vote for people who want to truely represent them, or people who have genuine views. I don't care if those views and beliefs are fundamentally wrong, or opposed to my own, if they are truely held. You can have a discussion with someone who has different opinion, and you may persuade them, but you will never persuade someone who is bought or is following some hidden agenda. A lot more straight forward honesty would go a long way in politics. A career where spin and deceit are the measure of many says volumes about the ethics and standard of government.

I have severe doubts about the very concept of Democracy. It is extremely easy to corrupt. The idea of one man/woman one vote sounds all very fine, but a large percentage of the population have not the slightest interest in politics, many vote for tribal reasons rather than sane reason and those that vote for what could be called reason often vote for what they perceive as their own narrow self interest. Tell them you will not tax them and will build new schools and deliver them to the land of milk and honey and chances are you get their vote. It also helps if you look presentable.

This is before we even get to those who put themselves forward. Who would want the job and why? Well here is my brief list.
1 Someone out to make a name for him-her self. A person with something to prove. A person driven by some need to show worth. Possibly a very insecure person.
2 An idealist a dreamer who sees some cause being served.
3 People who treat political dogma like a religion.
4 Someone out to use his position to make personal gain.
5 A person placed to benifit an outside interest.

There is phrase that bothers me, "seeking a career in politics". I don't think it should be first and foremost a career. It should be a responsibility.

Then we move on to the process of getting elected. All you need to do is appeal to one large block to have a workable power base, so best head off to the local church or mosque where the faithful will see your face and identify with you. (Any large group will do)

The average person cannot stand and expect to win. The media perpetuate those that are already elected. The amount of money and support you need places this career beyond the pockets of many.

Then we have weird voting systems that do not give representation that reflect the views of society. (Ireland has a better than most system but is stuck in tribal voting). First past the post is plain bonkers. It suggests that 49% don't count. Then there is the question of how we carve up a country into constituencies, and guess who have to agree on the break up, yes the politicians. So you end up with some of the oddest boundary decisions. And on and on.......

To me this is an insane way to arrive at a group of people to run a country and ends up with a chamber where the legal profession is over represented. Now that should be an instant warning that something is very wrong.

Much of my childhood was about contested wills and custody battles so I have a jaundiced view of humanity, but I think I became very good at deciding on character. To me Obama is utterly phoney, his very mannerisms are wrong. He was lying and had little conviction in what he was saying. He is also a person who will prefer secrecy and will not wish to make public decisions that may cause difficulties with parts of his support base. So I don't expect much. Hopefully I am wrong.

What America needs is someone clear headed and decisive with enough character to take a lot of very hard, difficult decisions. It could be that Obama finds his feet and steps up to the challenge. Stranger things have happened throughout history. Sometimes the situation makes the man or woman, but I wouldn't put much money on it.

Great post.

I have the height of respect for those who represents the people who they are supposed to be representing. Granted I am not familiar with most of the present day Irish politicians but when pressed there were 3 I admired, MD Higgins, Jim Kemmy and Gregory. might mention that Higgins that lost his seat too if I knew him better. All of them 100% wrong but honest when they speak.

All the rest are bought in one fashion or other. It may be themselves that buys themselves by basing every decision on what most likely increases reelection chances. Over here a local pol would do well to listen when a mobster whispers something in his ear. Here in Massachusetts the most powerfull senator in the Massachusetts Senate was the brother of Whitey Bulger the killer who controled Eastern Massachusetts.

The higher you go the more dirt so nearly everyone is on tape doing or saying something that can bring them down. Spitzer and Blago were 2 governors only doing what everyone was doing but the stepped on someones toes.

The idea of fewer TDs is crazy as you must never centralise power. Have a thousand TDs and pay them 100 dollars like in New Hampshire. It works well. Pay them expenses when they sit which is not very often. TDs are not public servants they are public pigs.

The greaest mistake this country made was changing the constitution to allow the people of the state to elect the US senator by popular vote rather than have the state legislators pick them. They were easily bought after that.

I agree the less you pay them, the more of them there are. and the more local most financial decisions can be taken the better. Very hard to control every busy body in every village. However I don't want to end up living in the Kingdom of Porlock and Minehead, so we need wider associations to avoid endless border checks. I do value the ability to travel and work where ever I chose.

There is a lot I agree with in what the likes of Ron Paul says, where I would disagree is the apparent attitude that we are responsible for ourselves alone. Many many people end up in dire straights because of no fault of their own, or can't afford to educate the children or put money aside. I have seen dire poverty and people generally end up there through no fault of their own. In a civilised society I think we need to address such issues. It is very much my responsibility. However I have real issues about Government efficiency and do believe that much of the legislation could be safely binned and processes simplified.

I also have less faith in gold than Rom Paul has. Basically because of issues around access, ownership and power. Yes we need stable currencies but it is a bit like politicians if we go for asset based we need spread the asset base so that it cannot be controlled and peg currencies issued to general changes in a overall assets. Make it very difficult to rig.

With regards democracy I just do not think it works once it goes beyond the local parish council and we should address that problem candidly. What does being elected by say 22% of the population actually mean? Why exactly do people vote? Is voting the best way to obtain a good cross section to represent? What does an election actually mean? Is it really the will of the people when roughly a quarter vote in people they know nothing about?

Most people do not have a clue what exactly they are voting for, and most politicians delude themselves. Could you imagine being given education or health in the morning! Just think about it. That is the equivalent to running a business of major proportions. On top of that most have no related qualification, no managerial skills stay in post for just a few years, and often hop from one job to the next. Would you run a business like this? No, so why do we run countries in this manner?

The way it was set up here was to localise the decision making. The states were to be supreme. We at at the crux. All the states must secede simultaniousely to kill this federal beast

If you're inclined youngdan would you give us a bit more detail on the TDs in New Hampshire and what happens there.

Do you know much about it and is it different from Massachusetts ?

All states are similiar. The have a House, Senate and Governor who is like the president. The house passes a law and the senate passes a law and then the Governor signs it. In Massachusetts thepop. is 6.5 million and there are 160 in the House and 40 in the senate and they are paid big bucks.

In NH WITH 1.25 MILLION THERE ARE 400 House members. They are public servants and get paid 100 dollars a year. I assume they get expenses of course. They meet less often. The senate has 24 members. The beauty of it is that each representative in the house covers 3000 population so a person will be likely know to his reoresentative by name and each vote carries more weight.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/

This will give you the gist of it

What's the 100 dollars a year ? They don't do it full time so they do it part time. It must be like a church committee or something then - Parish committees can be pretty useful to the community as long as there aren't too many Fr. Teds around. For a church and parish committee 3000/1 is even large - some places might have a football team of committee attenders for the 3000 but your fellas in NH are empowered to vote on State laws or something.

All states have an entire governmental apparatus in themselves then and could function as independent entities if necessary. I didn't know that before.

NH is the differentest out of all the states then is it ?

"What the 100 dollars a year?" About 2 bucks a week. These guys make the state laws.

It is like this.

The NH house is like the Dail, The senate is like a Seanad that would have equal power to the Dail. The governor is like McALEESE if she had the power of Obama. They make NH law.

The you have federal laws that are like EU DIRECTIVES which supercede Irish laws. The situaution is like where Ireland is going the the EU WILL RUN THE SHOW.

The whole point of the 10th amendment laws being introduced is to bring the power back to the states and have them as independent entities in nearly everything