Winning The Future!

[1KielsonDrive]

Well, the unemployment numbers did seem to start showing some improvement once President Obama signed into law the extension of the Bush tax cuts!

Sorry!!! I disagree! Unemployment numbers are as managed and massaged under NO!bama as they ever were under Bush. When my unemployment ran out the UIA and politicians couldn't urge me strongly enough to stop calling and reporting. Why? Guess.... I'm no longer unemployed as far they're concerned. No matter I don't have a job and I've been unable to get one for three years. I see very little improvement in unemployment, foreclosures, genuine education opportunities and extended unemployment benefits. Every corporation, rich person and politician in the US got a bailout except hardworking lifers - the backbone of our country.

[1KielsonDrive]

Well, the unemployment numbers did seem to start showing some improvement once President Obama signed into law the extension of the Bush tax cuts!

Mainly because thousands of people fell off the unemployment rolls when extensions were denied and they were urged or forced to stop reporting.

[1KielsonDrive]

Improvements to health care: Companies' profits are limited. No pre-existing conditions , extension of children's coverage under parents' policies to age 26, insurance exchanges to be set up. THose are just off the top of my heard.

You don't have to be a devout anything to see that there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans. Just the fact that a Democratic president attempted to fix the healthcare system is a big
difference. Since you obviously won't be happy until the perfect candidate comes along, I imagine that you don't vote. And how childish to call people losers. Obama is the President of the U.S., so he hardly qualifies as a loser in anybodies book.

And you never said the same of Bush1 or 2? Reagan? Yes, theres a difference - but it's minuscule. Companies profits limited? Joke! Insurance exchanges to be set up? When? Joke! NO!bama's efforts are the efforts of a guy in way over his head. I certainly know an awful lot of people who agree with me that NO!bama is a loser. So your statement, 'anybodies' book, is a stretch. I worked for NO!bama. Sorry to admit it. I worked long and hard. To this point he's only been a relief from Bush2. NO!bama is a loser.

[1KielsonDrive]

Demican campaign motto for 2012: "We're trying to win our balls back".

[Mikeg]

And your point is that the rich are going to rush out now and create jobs for us all now that they have still more tax cuts.?That goes under the Republican lies thread.

I'm not a liar and if you want to have a rational discussion with me, you will have to stop putting words in my mouth and then calling it a bunch of lies.

Apparently you've never had to develop and operate under a budget and meet a payroll or performance targets. My point is that it removed the lingering uncertainty under which all consumers and businesses were forced to make their future spending and budget plans. Once the tax rate extensions were signed into law, they could calculate with greater certainty how much spending, debt payments and/or additional consumer demand they could factor into their 2011 budgets, which began a whole two weeks after Obama signed the bills.

[maxx]

Don't get your knickers in a knot.The idea that tax cuts to the rich will lead to more jobs is Reaganomics. I don't think you can take credit for it unless your name is David Stockman.

[Jimaz]

Don't get your knickers in a knot.The idea that tax cuts to the rich will lead to more jobs is Reaganomics. I don't think you can take credit for it unless your name is David Stockman.

Who I believe has since thoroughly denounced the scam: David Stockman : THE GOP DESTROYED U.S. ECOMONY.

[Mikeg]

Don't get your knickers in a knot.The idea that tax cuts to the rich will lead to more jobs is Reaganomics. I don't think you can take credit for it unless your name is David Stockman.

What the fuck is your problem? Again, you continue to try and put words in my mouth instead of trying to have a rational discussion.. Go back and re-read what I've written and you will find that I never claimed that tax cuts drove the recent modest improvement in the unemployment rate. That's because there was no actual tax cut at the end of 2010 - it was the uncertainty of whether and how much of a tax increase might result after the expiration of the Bush tax rates that kept folks planning for 2011 on a worst-case basis. Once the uncertainty was eliminated for the next two years, it provided a modest boost to the economy.

[TKshreve]

What the fuck is your problem? Again, you continue to try and put words in my mouth instead of trying to have a rational discussion.. Go back and re-read what I've written and you will find that I never claimed that tax cuts drove the recent modest improvement in the unemployment rate. That's because there was no actual tax cut at the end of 2010 - it was the uncertainty of whether and how much of a tax increase might result after the expiration of the Bush tax rates that kept folks planning for 2011 on a worst-case basis. Once the uncertainty was eliminated for the next two years, it provided a modest boost to the economy.

It's pretty narrow thinking to hinge your entire argument [[and any economical improvement) solely upon the fact that we did not raise taxes. At least, you don't mention anything else in your argument do you? You do realize that our economy at this point has only experienced a "modest boost", if anything at all.

Guess I'll have to wait for that "modest boost" to plinko its way down to me though. Once again...... savings directly/immediately to the richest top percentiles of the nation, while the lesser has to wait for that to "take its effect". I have some fresh squeezed Kool Aid here if you would like a cup.


What's more........ perhaps if we had raised taxes we wouldn't see such severe budget shortfalls in the fed. And we wouldn't need such aggressive, partisan beauracracy to keep our heads above water.

[Danny]

We're NOT winning the future by making or seeing new technological features that you all seen the World Fairs long ago or seeing what is in the TV show THE JETSONS where George Jetson heading to work in his flying car. We're so busy arguing about dogmatic politics and ethics that we slowing losing our ability to gain knowledge and reason.

It would take 100 years before we make spaceships with lightspeed for space exploration. [[ That's if hostile aliens don't invade our planet.)

It would take about 50 years before most nation find a better clean greener use of energy to power the world. [[That's if we don't have a Japan Syndrome.)

2010 to 2020; we will see small progress in technological development and more political and enviromental conflicts, even after the 2012 end of Ka'tun cleansing and Purification Era begins.

WORD FROM THE STREET PROPHET

As I about to build a spaceship to leave Earth and go to Mars so I can rest and relax and leave my troubles behind.

Neda, I miss you so.

[maxx]

My point is that it removed the lingering uncertainty under which all consumers and businesses were forced to make their future spending and budget plans. Once the tax rate extensions were signed into law, they could calculate with greater certainty how much spending, debt payments and/or additional consumer demand they could factor into their 2011 budgets, which began a whole two weeks after Obama signed the bills.

Yes, all those tax cuts under W just weren't enough. It's rough trying to maintain that 400:1 ratio of CEOs salaries to the average worker's. Fifty years ago that ratio was closer to 40:1. No wonder the median wage has barely budged since 1975 while the U.S. workers have become ever-more "productive". If we get any more productive, we'll all be dead by age 50.

[Mikeg]

"Winning the Future with a Nobel Peace Prize Winner"

Well, let's just review what this Nobel Peace Prize-winner of a President has [[and hasn't) done in the past week:

• tried giving sanctions one more chance, after all we got Qaddafi to give up his entire nuke program without having to fire a singe cruise missile.....
• built a multinational coalition by convincing them sanctions have failed and that a "no-fly zone" is needed in Libya.....
• avoided a "rush to war" by painstakingly making the case for military intervention so that the coalition could enforce the "no-fly zone" with the moral authority of a UN Resolution......
• went above and beyond just briefing a few Senators by first consulting Congress and allowing debate before starting military hostilities......
• promised a few Senators that:
  
  • the US military has a clearly-defined mission that is limited to destroying the Libyan air defenses and air force, and that there will be no "mission creep' beyond that bright line.....
  • this is not about regime change; that stuff about "lost the legitimacy to lead" was just bluster; remember that we can expect to call in some favors for that $400,000 worth of US taxpayer's money we gave to two of his children less than 18 months ago
  • there will be "no boots on the ground" so nobody has to worry about hearing shouts of "no blood for oil"....
  • there is a clearly defined exit strategy......
  
  
• committed the US military to dropping thousands of US bombs and firing hundreds of US cruise missiles as part of a military intervention that is under a foreign command that agrees with Obama's clearly-defined mission and exit strategy.....

[1KielsonDrive]

The demicans - "Winning Our Balls Back". NO!bama may have performed relatively well in this instance but he's still a failure as chief exec. Where's NO!bama been? Hiding out, preparing for re-election.

[Mikeg]

The demicans - "Winning Our Balls Back". NO!bama may have performed relatively well in this instance but he's still a failure as chief exec. Where's NO!bama been? Hiding out, preparing for re-election.

The one with the "balls" in this administration on the Libya issue are Clinton and Rice, who appear to have finally convinced the dithering Obama to follow France's lead. Unfortunately, if there is to be no regime change, how are we to know when our military has reached "mission accomplished" so Obama can claim the credit for the results of his testicular fortitude? Also, the "mission creep" has the US apparently targeting ground troops and armored columns in addition to making the "no-fly zone" possible. The road outside Benghazi on Saturday looked like road to Baghdad in 1991.

[1KielsonDrive]

The one with the "balls" in this administration on the Libya issue are Clinton and Rice, who appear to have finally convinced the dithering Obama to follow France's lead. Unfortunately, if there is to be no regime change, how are we to know when our military has reached "mission accomplished" so Obama can claim the credit for the results of his testicular fortitude? Also, the "mission creep" has the US apparently targeting ground troops and armored columns in addition to making the "no-fly zone" possible. The road outside Benghazi on Saturday looked like road to Baghdad in 1991.

Very good points.

[maxx]

We're NOT winning the future by making or seeing new technological features that you all seen the World Fairs long ago or seeing what is in the TV show THE JETSONS where George Jetson heading to work in his flying car. We're so busy arguing about dogmatic politics and ethics that we slowing losing our ability to gain knowledge and reason.

It would take 100 years before we make spaceships with lightspeed for space exploration. [[ That's if hostile aliens don't invade our planet.)

It would take about 50 years before most nation find a better clean greener use of energy to power the world. [[That's if we don't have a Japan Syndrome.)

2010 to 2020; we will see small progress in technological development and more political and enviromental conflicts, even after the 2012 end of Ka'tun cleansing and Purification Era begins.

The source of this misinformation????

http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of...rating-returns

The Law of Accelerating Returns

March 7, 2001 by Ray Kurzweil


An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense “intuitive linear” view. So we won’t experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century — it will be more like 20,000 years of progress [[at today’s rate). The “returns,” such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. There’s even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity — technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history. The implications include the merger of biological and nonbiological intelligence, immortal software-based humans, and ultra-high levels of intelligence that expand outward in the universe at the speed of light...

[How can you complain about your prediction that we will have space ships moving at lightspeed within the next century??? That's progress even the most optimistic futurist doesnt' foresee.Why do you give credence to this prophesy about Katun? Because someone said it a long long time ago. Ancient peoples said a lot of things and none of those prophecies is worth a hoot next to the prophecies modern science makes about the fate of our universe.

[maxx]

Originally Posted by Mikeg
The one with the "balls" in this administration on the Libya issue are Clinton and Rice, who appear to have finally convinced the dithering Obama to follow France's lead.

At least we are not operating alone. Oh, that's right, W's "coalition of the willing" the Republicans touted included Palau, Micronesia, and the Solomon Islands. What a bunch of snake oil.


The Lebanese U.N. ambassador explains the process.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11554

[Mikeg]

"Winning the Future with Smart Diplomacy"

So many questions..... and too few clear answers.

Q: Is the US fighting a war in Libya?
A: No, a multinational coalition is conducting a "kinetic military action" under the authority of UN Resolution 1973.

Q: President Obama is on record as saying it would only be "days, not weeks" until the U.S. turns over leadership of the coalition. Now that we are one week into the "kinetic military action", what is the new timeline for the leadership transition?
A: The immediate humanitarian objective is the focus of this phase one, along with the shaping of the conditions for a no-fly zone. The transition of political and military control of the "kinetic military action" is still being discussed at NATO. Those discussions will continue.......

Q: What nations are participating in this coalition?
A: Not only "the United Kingdom and France, but also Italy, Spain, the Dutch, several other European partners, the Turks are talking about what their contribution might be, as well as Qatar. And then we continue to talk to other Arab states like Jordan and the UAE...... " While in Chile, President Obama elaborated, “In the past there have been times when the United States acted unilaterally or did not have full international support, and as a consequence typically it was the United States military that ended up bearing the entire burden.”

Q: To back up the President's assertion about the lack of full international support in the past, can you name all of the other countries which initially signed up as coalition participants in the 2003 Iraq invasion as compared to those in the coalition for the 2011 Libyan "kinetic military action"?
A: Citing the US State Department:
Iraq 2003 - 30 countries...Libya 2011 - 15 countries
Afghanistan....................France
Albania..........................United Kingdom
Australia....................... Italy
Azerbaijan.....................Canada
Bulgaria.........................Belgium
Colombia.......................Denmark
Czech Republic..............Norway
Denmark........................Qatar
El Salvador.....................Spain
Eritrea...........................Greece
Estonia..........................Germany
Ethiopia.........................Jordan
Georgia..........................Poland
Hungary.........................Morocco
Italy...............................United Arab Emirates
Japan
South Korea
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Philippines
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
Uzbekistan

[Det_ard]

So how goes the "kinetic military action"? LOL

Reminds me of their other euphemisms like "Overseas Contingency Operation", "Countering Violent Extremism" and "Man-Caused Disasters".

Translation: war, war, war and terrorism.

[Mikeg]

"Winning the Future with Smart Diplomacy" - UPDATE

This just in.......

[3:10 p.m. ET Thursday, 9:10 p.m. Thursday in Libya] A deal has been reached for NATO to take command of the military mission in Libya in the coming days, two diplomatic officials said. The deal was reached after a conference call between U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her counterparts from Britain, France and Turkey.

Ooops.......
Apparently that deal was "tentative" and it looks like it is falling apart:

[4:39 p.m. ET Thursday, 9:39 p.m. Thursday in Belgium] A tentative agreement for NATO to take over operations in Libya may be in jeopardy, CNN's Paula Newton reports. The Turkish delegation is not happy with the timing of the transition and wants the United States to give up command sooner than previously agreed upon. If a consensus is not reached in the next 20 to 25 minutes, talks will stop for the evening and resume tomorrow.

Despite President Obama's stated desire to make the transition happen as soon as possible, apparently he is not making it happen fast enough to suit the Turks.

[6:22 p.m. ET Thursday, 6:22 p.m. Thursday in Foggy Bottom] We're standing by with bated breath for the Secretary of State's news conference which should be starting any minute now. Maybe "Ms. Smart Diplomacy" can explain why "Mr. Nobel Peace Prize Winner"'s continued dithering is holding up the transition agreement.

[7:00 p.m. ET Thursday, 7:00 p.m. Thursday in Foggy Bottom] The Secretary of State's news conference that was scheduled for 6:15 p.m. has still not started. Rumor has it that she is still on the phone with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who last December received the Kadhafi International Prize for Human Rights. Meanwhile, now that he is back form his trip to Rio, President Obama is busy updating his bracket results in anticipation of tonight's NCAA games.

[7:10 p.m. ET Thursday, 7:10 p.m. Thursday in Foggy Bottom] Secretary Clinton announces that
- President Obama still wants the US military mission in Libya to be limited in time and scope
- the coalition is now in control of skies over Libya
- there is now an agreement to transition command and control of the no fly zone enforcement to NATO [[no effective date was mentioned, not to worry though because the US has already wiped out the Libyan air force).
- there still needs to be an agreement with NATO for an operational plan to protect Libyan citizens, in the meantime the US will continue control of all other operations in the Libyan intervention

[Mikeg]

"Winning the Future with Kinetic Military Action"

Apparently Hillary Clinton didn't do a good enough job Thursday evening of explaining the status of the Kinetic Military Action in Libya and the agreed-upon leadership transition plan that will get the US out of the lead role in the Libyan military intervention "within days, not weeks".

Immediately following Clinton's delayed press conference, the White House made it known that President Obama was reluctant to make a major address on Libya until the United States hands over most command and combat duties to its allies. However, less than twenty-four hours later, it was announced that [[just as soon as he finishes a weekend of golf and NCAA Tournament watching) the President plans to explain it all to a confused nation [[not to mention some critical Democrats and Republicans) during a nationally televised speech this coming Monday night at the National Defense University.

Maybe the President is thinking that hopefully by then, the disagreements will all be resolved and the critics will go away and stop asking for clarification over the different roles and leadership responsibilities involved with the Libyan military intervention.

Interestingly, on Friday the different roles and current leadership transition status were made a whole lot clearer by USN Vice Admiral Bill Gortney, chief of the U.S. military's Joint Staff. Reuters reports he explained during a briefing at the Pentagon that

......the U.N.-backed operation against Gaddafi's forces involved three different missions -- an arms embargo, a no-fly zone and protecting Libyan civilians.
He said the U.S. military initially assumed command of all three missions in order to quickly implement the U.N. resolution authorizing the action. But President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials made it clear the United States would hand off control of the operation as soon as feasible.
The Western alliance already has assumed control of the arms embargo, led by an Italian vice admiral, and has agreed to take over the no-fly zone in coming days, Gortney said. But there is disagreement over the third mission, which includes air strikes to stop Gaddafi from attacking his opponents.
"This mission will remain in U.S. hands until such time as the coalition is ready to assume it," Gortney told a briefing at the Pentagon. "My expectation is that it, too, could fall under NATO. But ... these are decisions and discussions ongoing at the political level and I just would not speculate right now where it will end up."

So maybe Professor Obama will announce on Monday that the "coming days" are over and that NATO is now fully responsible for enforcing the no-fly zone using US and coalition military personnel and assets. Will he be able by then to also announce that the disagreements have been resolved over who should take responsibility for the most distasteful part of the military intervention, that of protecting Libyans? Will his teleprompter help him make a convincing argument to the American public that he and his administration know what they are doing and that there is an exit strategy in place? Stay tuned......

[1KielsonDrive]

Demican campaign motto: "Winning Our Balls Back - 2012".

[maxx]

Why should anyone listen to Republican rants about anything Pres. Obama does since they have made it clear that their only goal is to regain the presidency in 2012? They have not attempted to work with the President on anything major that might mitigate the misery they have brought on the American people and the economy. They oppose a healthcare bill that was very similar to one presented by Republicans in the 1990s. They take a stand and then as soon as Obama does somethng somewhat similar, they flip flop and oppose it. Their base must either be utter morons without any memories or power-hungry corporatists who merely use political rhetoric to sway the sheeple first one way and then another for their own gain. A case in point:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...orth-on-libya/

[1KielsonDrive]

Why should anyone listen to Republican rants about anything Pres. Obama does since they have made it clear that their only goal is to regain the presidency in 2012? They have not attempted to work with the President on anything major that might mitigate the misery they have brought on the American people and the economy. They oppose a healthcare bill that was very similar to one presented by Republicans in the 1990s. They take a stand and then as soon as Obama does somethng somewhat similar, they flip flop and oppose it. Their base must either be utter morons without any memories or power-hungry corporatists who merely use political rhetoric to sway the sheeple first one way and then another for their own gain. A case in point:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...orth-on-libya/

Maxx, you are correct. Unfortunately, it doesn't change the fact that NO!bama is a loser. Where's NO!bama been the last couple of months while protests are going on in Madison, Lansing and Columbus? What did he do in Libya other than possibly drag us into another Iraq/Afghanistan? And without consulting congress. The very criticism he made of Bush's forays. What's happening with budget discussions? Bottom line: NO!bama is in over his head. He's an academic/corporatist elite. His ideas and goals were and are nothing new, unusual and visionary. Nothing remotely resembling 'Change You can Believe In'. The demicans need another presidential candidate. NO!bama will campaign our pants off and then proceed to give away the rest of the house if elected.

[maxx]

Your use of the term "loser" is perplexing since Obama has a law degree from an ivy league law school, teaching experience from U. of Chicago and work experience at a Chicago law firm. I don't think he'll have to worry about his future employment.

RE: Libya

Our actions come after a U.N. resolution and a request from the Arab League. As I understand it, there was concern that thousands of people in rebellion to Gaddafi would have been killed like what happened in Iraq following the first Gulf War.

Republicans' concern over the money spent on this operation is hypocritical when they gave Halliburton billions of money to boost Iraq's economy nine of which they can't account for. I don't recall any concern over that money.