Obama Presidency Watch/post election & first 100 days

reply to post by xpert11

During the Cold War up until the 70s the US was happy to use Chiang and Taiwan as a political counter weight to Red China. Taiwan didn't play the role in the Cold War that Chiang would have the country do so. Truman declined to use Nationalist troops in Korea. After Nixon recognized main land China Taiwan eventually ended up in the position it is in today.

Well, that - non-recognition of China - turned out to be more like our embargo of Cuba but no other country cares or respects our embargo. Which put us behind in dealing with mainland China. The US was last by a decade in recognizing mainland China. Taiwan is 12,000 sq miles and a population of 22.9 million (14% from the mainland), and GDP per person, $31,900. (China, $6,100) (South Korea, $26,000) (Japan, $35,300). All data per the CIA World Factbook.

In late 1950, which is the time when there was a discussion of involving the Nationalists in Korea, they had just in December 1949, been pushed off the mainland. The Nationalist army was tired, getting old and not much interested in going into another war. Remember, the Nationalists and Communists had been at it since the early1930s. And integrating the Chinese Army into our UN command would not have been easy.

If you recall from the WW2 CBI history, Chiang was much like an oriental DeGaulle. He wanted to run the train even though he was not buying the coal!

Plus, there was the very real problem of logistics. As it turned out we had enough men to do the job, all the more so if MacArthur had followed his orders.

If Taiwan was free of US influence the matter would have been resolved by now. Also Taiwan wouldn't make arms purchases from US if it was free from that country influence. IMO as time goes the likely hood of reunification rather then independence for Taiwan grows because of China recent economic growth and the focus of the US being elsewhere. Still the matter does need to be resolved so the US can stop trying to appease both sides.

I suppose no country even the RF is totally “free” of US influence. Although we got our intel butts kicked in the Georgia fiasco last year, nevertheless the US was able to generate a problem that hurt the RF’s public image. But I am of the opinion the relationship between W-DC and Taipei soured in 1972 when Nixon recognized the PRC.

We changed from being the benevolent big brother to Chiang to being his meddlesome uncle. OTOH not only did the 7th fleet have orders to prevent the Chi-coms from invading Taiwan but it ALSO had orders to stop any return to the mainland by the Nationalists.

I fully agree the direction points to reunification, most likely on the Hong Kong plan. I understand that already there is pretty much freedom of travel between the island and the mainland. Postal, telephone and telegraph service has been restored. The split is more technical than factual.
www.u-s-history.com...

[edit on 3/14/2009 by donwhite]

reply to post by marg6043

I wonder, I think is a conspiracy in the making in our nation and it has nothing to do with the people behind it.

Clinton sold us out in 1995 and the "free trade policies" are finally coming home to roost. Either there will be a HUGH public outcry in the next year or two or David Rockefeller's dream will come true

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. . . . It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

Within the next five to ten years or less the USA will be no more.


Where did the banking crisis come from?

In Sept. 14, 1994 David Rockefeller, speaking at the UN Business Council,. "This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long - We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

Were Rockefeller and his buddies behind the crisis?
This is the same Rockefeller of International banking, and Standard Oil fame who has controlling interest in not one but four international Oil Companies. Rockefeller who has hosted luncheons at the family's Westchester estate for the world's finance ministers and central bank governors, following the annual Washington meetings of the World Bank and IMF. Rockefeller whose Chase Bank served as training grounds for three World Bank presidents, John J. McCloy, Eugene Black and George Woods.

What “major crisis" could he be talking about? Skipping ahead to the present we find stories of “JP Morgan Chase to become Megabank” and “Analysts say JP Morgan Chase (the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds) will emerge from the bank collapse as the big winner” We also find Monsanto reported record earnings in 2008. The rest of the Ag Corporations are privately owned so no reports are available. Gee what a coincidence! The oil companies, the Ag companies and JP Morgan Chase all come up winners while the peons in the USA lose there jobs, their homes and now food costs and taxes are poised to soar thanks to the new laws. Note Monsanto's major stockholders are financial institutions handling mutual funds and pensions

Rockefeller's statement about implementing NWO was in 1994 and in 1995 the World Trade Organization was ratified. Unlike GATT, WTO has major clout from trade sanctions and control of 90% of the international trade. Since 2000 we have already lost 25% of our manufacturing jobs due to "free Trade" The WTO and The Politics of GMO. The WTO and the Politics of Food


Now we have an assault on our Second Amendment right to have guns and several bills on "Food Safety" that will regulate independent food growing out of existance. If you thought OPEC was bad wait until Cargill, Monsanto etc have complete control of food. Seed patenting and outlawing of seed cleaning, seed saving will make home gardens impossible.

A good analysis of the food bills is in the works but not yet published. It has several people working on it.

reply to post by crimvelvet


Yes you are Right but corporate America has taken the will of the people for granted, its so much that they can think they can accomplish but is always the people the one that allows that control.

I still have hopes in my fellow American citizens that eventually we all rise up and tell this corporations and government where they can shove their laws and their control.

It will not be long when they will run like the fat rats they are out of the country.

As Glenn Beck has stated, "We surround THEM!" They derive their power from us. When are we going to demand that the power given them be used to better OUR quality of life instead of theirs?

Back on topic... Obama's first 100 days in office? I think my Avatar says it all.

reply to post by kozmo


Glenn Beck is an idiot... and as a matter of fact the right wing has always been a political minority... conservatives have consistantly have done better at getting out the vote... they do not surround anybody.

[edit on 14-3-2009 by grover]

reply to post by donwhite


North Carolina. Stats are available at Ag Census

I used the 2002 census because the 2007 was badly skewed. NAIS and the raids on farms and co-ops made many of the homesteaders and small farmers distrustful of the Census especially once it was found out the USDA was using the information to assign Premises ID.

In the NAIS document those who own livestock are called "stakeholder" and the land upon which the livestock presides is "premises". The lectric law library states that the word premises signifies a formal part of a deed,and is made to designate an estate; to designate is to name or entitle. Therefore a premises has no protection under the United States constitution and has no exclusive rights of the owner tied to it. Black's Law states 'premises' was a tenement or conveyance'. Stakeholder (the term the USDA is using to identify us) refers to a third party who temporarily holds money or property while its owner is still being determined. By signing up for NAIS, title to property rights are clouded, basically making the owner little more than a sharecropper. Esbee

So what should the Obama administration do about the AIG situation?

Personally I think we should use the anti-trust laws and break it up into little tiny pieces...

... either that or the peasants should storm Wall street and the AIG lair with pitch forks and torches in tow...

Actually I like that idea most.

reply to post by grover


This one is going to give Obama a very bad mark on this 100 days grade sheet.

Now it comes to light that congress knew very well about the bonuses and they kept it quiet until people outrage got them to react.

Also AIG is going to fail anyway and be broken down into small companies all will be owned by the government.

This was the words of the former VP of AIG, he said that AIG will fail anyway.

Still what this fat rats did thanks to our own government was to get the bail out send billions oversea, pay off more rats around and then give themselves bonuses before the company gets broken and they find themselves out of work.

Obama is starting to look very bad to the tax payer in the nation.

Two words: Epic Fail.

Two lines.

Originally posted by grover
So what should the Obama administration do about the AIG situation?

Stop the Bail Outs and write off AIG and other Bail Out recipients. Anybody with half a brain saw the situation coming .

Personally I think we should use the anti-trust laws and break it up into little tiny pieces...

Nah then instead of having one big company living off government hand outs you would end up with lots of little out fits suffering from the same problem .

... either that or the peasants should storm Wall street and the AIG lair with pitch forks and torches in tow...

That would insufficient . Capital Hill needs to blown up in order to save it .



[edit on 18-3-2009 by xpert11]

Reply to
post by crimvelvet

In my state we have 53,930 farms only 171 Farms are not Family held. North Carolina. Stats are available at Ag Census

I used the 2002 census because the 2007 was badly skewed. NAIS and the raids on farms and co-ops made many of the homesteaders and small farmers distrustful of the Census especially once it was found out the USDA was using the information to assign Premises ID.

Thanks for your response to my question about which state had “53,930 farms and only 171 were not family owned.” I found the 2003 NC farm census giving ‘53,500' farms in NC but I could not find the ‘171.’ It does say ‘170' acres average size. So possibly the ‘171' is a typo? And it relates to average size and not to type of ownership? www.agr.state.nc.us...

The 2007 Census of Agriculture shows a continuation in the trend towards more small and very large farms. Between 2002 and 2007, the number of farms with sales of less than $1,000 increased by 118,000. The number of farms with sales of more than $500,000 grew by 46,000 during the same period.

2007 Census of Agriculture results show that concentration of production in agriculture has increased in the last five years. In 2002, 144,000 farms produced 75 percent of the value of U.S. agricultural production. In 2007, the number of farms that produced that same share of production declined to 125,000.

Large family farms (sales between $250,000 and $500,000) and very large family farms (sales over $500,000) made up only 9 percent of all farms. Yet they produced more than 63 percent of the value of all agricultural products sold. www.agcensus.usda.gov...
From ‘Census Highlights’ I selected Fact Sheets: ‘Farm Numbers’

The statistics confirm my understanding about American agriculture since the end of WW2. The small family farm is an historical anachronism. Us city slickers think of a family farm as a place where the family lives and makes the greater portion of its income from farming. Fellows who live in the rural areas but work in the city and do farming on the side are engaged in a hobby, IMO. I think the IRS says that also, i.e., if a farm does not turn a profit in 5 years, then it is a hobby and not a business and is not entitled to the Schedule C business deductions.

NAIS. National Animal Identification System. An essential component in protecting the health and welfare of the nation. I have a low regard for the Anti NAIS organization. It is a lobbying organization the primary purpose of which is the fattening of the wallets of its owners and operators. It’s sort of an NRA in the mud! Or stirring the cow plods. They traffic in the all too common anti-government sentiments held by otherwise well-meaning Americans. You cannot live the life of a 21st century person under rules that at best were abandoned in the 19th century. There is no place left on the planet where that is possible. You gotta set aside 25% of your time to fill out the forms.

In the NAIS document those who own livestock are called "stakeholder" and the land upon which the livestock presides is "premises". Therefore a premises has no protection under the United States constitution and has no exclusive rights of the owner tied to it. Stakeholder (the term the USDA is using to identify us) refers to a third party who temporarily holds money or property while its owner is still being determined. By signing up for NAIS, title to property rights are clouded, basically making the owner little more than a sharecropper. Esbee nonais.org...

Sounds too much like just more Bovine Excreta. Brought to you by the same guys who 10 years ago were selling books saying you don’t have to pay income taxes because the 16th amendment is illegal. If you believed that, you could end in jail. Or that the Federal Reserve System is illegal. And etc.


[edit on 3/18/2009 by donwhite]

I don't have much time for the crowd that claims that income tax in the US is illegal or unconstitutional but I do think that the same elitist(SP?) that run the Oil Cartels would be happy to run food cartels . Since Obama hasn't shown any interest in doing any Trust Busting(SP?) there is no reason to think that he wouldn't allow food cartels to take over the worlds food supply .

Cheers xpert11 .

reply to post by xpert11

I don't have much time for the crowd that claims that income tax in the US is illegal or unconstitutional but I do think that the same elites that run the Oil Cartels would be happy to run food cartels. Since Obama hasn't shown any interest in doing any Trust Busting there is no reason to think that he wouldn't allow food cartels to take over the worlds food supply. Cheers xpert11.

Republican Supreme Court appointees have approved every instance of mergers and acquisitions that have come before it. The Federal Trade Commission has been filled with anti competitive advocates since 1980. The Attorneys General for 20 out of the last 28 years have been PRO cartels. It is not possible to reverse this calculated quagmire we are in overnight.

Our 12 Circuit Courts of Appeal have been STACKED with the same kind of judges over the past 20 of the last 28 years. The US Tax Court likewise reflects this same mentality that got us here.

I don’t know if anyone here listened, but in ‘06, then Senate Majority Leader Bill FRIST threatened to use the ‘Nuclear Option’ if the Dems did not STOP blocking those reactionary judiciary appointees the Republicans put forth.

Remember the senate rules allow anyone to talk a bill to death! It takes 60 votes to stop him. That’s called not closure but cloture. The 60 vote rule protect minorities from the bullying of the majority. What Frist meant was to try a RULES gambit using VP Cheney in the chair, to allow a re-vote on the CLOTURE rules. Currently that is 60 votes.

The Dems have 58 seats, the GOP 41 and Minnesota is still not resolved. We desperately need a law to require a new vote or election anytime the difference is fewer than 5,000 votes. No matter what the outcome is in MN, no one will have confidence in the result. That is tragic!

And we go abroad telling others how to hold elections? Sweet Jesus, Come Quick!

OK everyone Obama is half way through his first 100 days... grades please.

I give him a B....because he is not doing as well as I would have hoped but at the same time he's doing far better than either bush minor or Clinton did in their first 100.

At least he's trying.

reply to post by grover


Hmm I'm going to grade Obama in differnt policy areas .

Economy Grade : F
Due to continued support for the Bail Outs and fiscal lunacy earns Obama such a low Grade .

Foreign Policy Grade : A
A much needed focus on the war in Afghanistan is being made .

On Social Policy I support the lifting of the ban on supporting funding for Stem Cell research . But otherwise I haven't seen or heard enough on Obama doings in this area to give a grade . On a another note entirely I respect Bush notion that Obama deserves his silence . When the time come comes for Obama to leave the White House I hope that he remembers the dignity with which Bush departed and his voluntarily enforced silence .

I would be a little more generous in regards to the economy... I would give him a C. I do think he is trying on this but at the same time Wall street has made such a mess of things that I doubt anyone else could do better so quickly... certainly not John McCain.

I am afriad that I haven't been able to up a link to back this up . I read somewhere that a couple of Obama economics advisers held a similar role in Japan during the Asian Financial Crises . These clowns dreamed up the failed stimulus packages and bailouts that Japan under took a decade ago . Fast forward to the present and the same mistakes have been made the world over . Personally I would give a very low grade to the handling of the Credit Crunch across the board .

reply to post by xpert11

I am afraid that I haven't been able to up a link to back this up. I read somewhere that a couple of Obama economics advisers held a similar role in Japan during the Asian Financial Crises. These clowns dreamed up the failed stimulus packages and bailouts that Japan under took a decade ago. Fast forward to the present and the same mistakes have been made the world over . Personally I would give a very low grade to the handling of the Credit Crunch across the board.

There are mistakes and there are mistakes. Not all mistakes are foreboding. It seems historically capitalism produces ups and downs in the economy. From 1865 to 1929 those ups and downs occurred regularly in about 3 to 7 year cycles. Associated with bank failures, these were called PANICS. Or bank panics.

America was growing by leaps and bounds. Free land. Over the period 30 million immigrants. One-third of our population was immigrants by 1920. Railroads. Gold strikes. Steam boats. The telegraph and soon thereafter, the telephone. Electric lights. The McCormick reaper revolutionized agriculture. And then came the automobile and Henry Ford. And until the 1913 Federal Reserve Act it is estimated we were printing 5,000 different currencies in the US! Shades of default swap derivatives.

I read a book in the late 1940s where the author tried to tie the economic cycles to the sunspot cycle which is about 11 years, more or less. Economics is not called the dismal science for no reason. See Fort Note 1.

Unless those people in Japan in the 1990s were ideologically driven as are today’s Republicans in general, then it is equally possible they could have learned valuable lessons from that experience. Aside: I have serious reservations the Japanese needed or wanted outside advice on their economy. Or on anything for that matter. That is not a trait the Japanese are well known for.

One of the most significant outcomes of the 1929 Crash was the establishment of the FDIC (and FSLIC) that insured bank deposits so the SMALL guy would hot lose his life’s savings when some bank owner went berserk! See Foot Note 2. That concept has grown to the point where we don’t want any FDIC bank to fail. It is part of our NATIONAL REFUTATION that depositors in American banks do not suffer losses!

The current economic calamity is much broader in its causes and its effects than either Japan (1990s) or America (1929-1939) had experienced. Today it is a NEW ball game. Let’s hope we hit a home run before the supply of “balls” runs out!


Foot Note 1. It is stated that Thomas Carlyle gave economics the nickname "dismal science." The full phrase "dismal science" first occurs in an 1849 tract on slavery. Carlyle wrote, "Not a 'gay science,' I should say, like some we have heard of; no, a dreary, desolate and, indeed, quite abject and distressing one; what we might call, by way of eminence, the dismal science." en.wikipedia.org...

Foot Note 2. Michigan's respected Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg rejected both bills because neither contained a ceiling on the guarantees. He proposed an amendment covering all banks, beginning by using a temporary fund and a $2,500 ceiling on covered deposits. It was passed as the Glass-Steagall Deposit Insurance Act in June 1933 with Steagall's amendment that the program would be managed by the new Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. [This act, crucial to the security of banking, was repealed in 2001 by the Gingrich GOP Congress and quickly signed into law by Bush43.]

The act gave the FDIC the authority to regulate and supervise state [chartered] non-member banks; it extended federal oversight to all COMMERCIAL banks [cf. investment banks] for the first time, and prohibited banks from paying interest on checking accounts. The act funded the FDIC with $289 million in loans from the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve, loans which the FDIC repaid in 1948. The bill was NOT supported by the banks: Francis Sisson, then-president of the American Bankers Association, said that concept of banks paying into a fund that would insure individual banks against losses was "unsound, unscientific, unjust, and dangerous." [OLD capitalists and their ideas die hard].

Deposit insurance started January 1, 1934. In early 1934, Roosevelt appointed Leo Crowley, a Wisconsin banker, as the second head of FDIC. Crowley, Roosevelt soon learned, did not have an unblemished record as a banker in Wisconsin. After some anguish, Roosevelt kept Crowley on and ignored his detractors. The outstanding public service of Leo Crowley was not generally known until 1996. en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 3/24/2009 by donwhite]

Capitalism and/or corporatism are inherently unstable systems.

Think about it this way... the impulse in both is to continue growing and to eliminate competition... much like sharks they must keep moving and keep growing or begin dying. The problem with this system is that it can only grow so large before it begins to collapse... in this sense the system is indeed self regulating and it is also reassuring because if the pattern is part of the system no one corporation or economic power will ever be able to permanently dominate the system... even with political support.

It seems like Obama is TRYING to curb lobbyists who may try to get a share of the Recovery Act funds by pulling strings behind the scenes.

Obama Offers Guidance On Stimulus Spending

"President Obama today announced 'unprecedented restrictions' aimed at deterring lobbyists from influencing projects under a massive economic stimulus plan and vowed that recovery efforts will not become 'an excuse for waste and abuse.'

They were talking about the "memo" Obama sent out the other day. Here is a link to it and how he is trying to curb these lobbyists.

SUBJECT: Ensuring Responsible Spending of Recovery Act Funds

Sec. 3. Ensuring Transparency of Registered Lobbyist Communications.

(a) An executive department or agency official shall not consider the view of a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.,
concerning particular projects, applications, or applicants for funding under the Recovery Act unless such views are in writing.

(b) Upon the scheduling of, and again at the outset of, any oral communication (in-person or telephonic) with any person or entity concerning particular projects, applications, or applicants for funding under the Recovery Act, an executive department or agency official shall inquire whether any of the individuals or parties appearing or communicating concerning such particular project, application, or applicant is a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. If so, the lobbyist may not attend or participate in the telephonic or in-person contact, but may submit a communication in writing.

(c) All written communications from a registered lobbyist concerning the commitment, obligation, or expenditure of funds under the Recovery Act for particular projects, applications, or applicants shall be posted publicly by the receiving agency or governmental entity on its recovery website within 3 business days after receipt of such communication.

(d) An executive department or agency official may communicate orally with registered lobbyists concerning general Recovery Act policy issues; provided, however, that such oral communications shall not extend to or touch upon particular projects, applications, or applicants for funding, and further that the official must contemporaneously or immediately thereafter document in writing: (i) the date and time of the contact on policy issues; (ii) the names of the registered lobbyists and the official(s) between whom the contact took place; and (iii) a short description of the substance of the communication. This writing must be posted publicly by the executive department or agency on its recovery website within 3 business days of the communication.

(e) Upon the scheduling of, and again at the outset of, any oral communications with any person or entity concerning general Recovery Act policy issues, an executive department or agency official shall inquire whether any of the individuals or parties appearing or communicating concerning such issues is a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. If so, the official shall comply with paragraph (d) above.

I wonder if this will affect the lobbyists much or not.

I guess it's all just a matter if all the government agencies/people that these lobbyists lobby actually follow the guidelines in the memo.

But it still looks like Obama wants to see the funding go to the right places and not to the most influential lobbyist!

[edit on 3/24/2009 by Keyhole]