Obama's first 100 days II
Budget highlights:
"The plan would increase a range of taxes. This document follows through on candidate Obama's pledge to allow tax cuts for the rich to expire and to cut taxes for the middle class. Couples earning more than $250,000 would see the top tax rate rise [to] 39.6% by 2011, with the expiration of the tax cuts put in place during the Bush administration. There also would be new limits on tax deductions, including for charitable donations.
Today's proposal would make permanent the tax cuts of up to $800 for couples that were part of the recently passed economic stimulus package.
Other changes include new taxes on offshore drilling and expansions of existing tax credits for college students and the child tax credit.
. . . .
It projects a shortfall of about $1.75 trillion this year, about 12% of the gross domestic product, and a $1.1-trillion deficit next year. Those are about twice the size of the worse deficits on record.
. . . .
A major initiative is healthcare. The administration wants to create a $634-billion fund to begin overhauling healthcare and to bring care to the more than 47 million people in the U.S. who are uninsured. Funding would come from new taxes on the rich, new insurance regulations and some tax crackdowns.
. . . .
The plan calls for at least $75 billion in revenues by 2012 from a so-called cap-and-trade system that requires companies to buy credits if they exceed greenhouse-gas limits."
But since January, a number of the decisions made by the Obama administration have caused anxiety among human-rights advocates, who fear that the new president may indeed continue many Bush-era policies. Obama officials such as [b]Attorney General Eric Holder[/b], solicitor general nominee [b]Elena Kagan[/b], and Principal Deputy Solicitor General [b]Neal Katyam[/b] have released statements endorsing the idea that terror suspects can be defined as "enemy combatants" and held "for the duration of hostilities" without trial.
The Obama administration also recently invoked the state-secrets doctrine to dismiss a civil suit against a Boeing subsidiary that plaintiffs contend aided the CIA in their rendition to countries where they were tortured. Prior to the Bush administration, the state-secrets doctrine was used to dismiss individual pieces of evidence, rather than entire lawsuits. Civil libertarians bristled at Obama's use of the doctrine in the same manner, and on Feb. 11, Sen. Patrick Leahy introduced a bill in Congress that would regulate its use. The administration's actions were in contrast to Obama's earliest executive orders mandating that all interrogations by U.S. government agents comply with the Army Field Manual and that the Bush administration's infamous "black sites" be closed. President Obama is walking a fine line between Dick Cheney's "dark side" and his own promise to not compromise American values in the name of national security.
"If you want to give the administration the benefit of the doubt, they are taking the six months they've been given to figure out what their position is going to be," says Sahr Muhammedally, a senior law associate at Human Rights First. [b]"Or the other way of reading it is that they want to embrace the whole Bush position on detention."[/b]
[url=http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_blight_of_bagram][color=...
The more I see of Obama, compared to what we had before, the more I like him. Now if we could only give the boot to Ignatieff and Harper in Canada.
Go Obama Go!
Obama’s Budget Plan Sweeps Away Reagan Ideas
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/business/economy/27policy.html
The budget that President Obama proposed on Thursday is nothing less than an attempt to end a three-decade era of economic policy dominated by the ideas of Ronald Reagan and his supporters.
The Obama budget — a bold, even radical departure from recent history, wrapped in bureaucratic formality and statistical tables — would sharply raise taxes on the rich, beyond where Bill Clinton had raised them. It would reduce taxes for everyone else, to a lower point than they were under either Mr. Clinton or George W. Bush. And it would lay the groundwork for sweeping changes in health care and education, among other areas.
More than anything else, the proposals seek to reverse the rapid increase in economic inequality over the last 30 years. They do so first by rewriting the tax code and, over the longer term, by trying to solve some big causes of the middle-class income slowdown, like high medical costs and slowing educational gains.
After Mr. Obama spent much of his first five weeks in office responding to the financial crisis, his budget effectively tried to reclaim momentum for the priorities on which he campaigned.
His efforts would add to a budget deficit already swollen by Mr. Bush’s policies and the recession, creating the largest deficit, relative to the size of the economy, since World War II. Erasing that deficit will require some tough choices — about further spending cuts and tax increases — that Mr. Obama avoided this week.
But he nonetheless made choices.
He sought to eliminate some corporate subsidies, for health insurers, banks and agricultural companies, that economists have long criticized. He proposed putting a price on carbon, to slow global warming, and then refunding most of the revenue from that program through broad-based tax cuts. He called for roughly $100 billion a year in tax increases on the wealthy — mostly delayed until 2011, when the recession will presumably have ended — and $50 billion a year in net tax cuts for the nonwealthy.
The history of the United States economy over the last 70 years can be roughly divided into two periods: the decades immediately after World War II, when inequality plummeted, and the past three decades, when global economic forces and government policies caused it to soar. Mr. Obama is setting out to begin a third period that looks more like the first than the second.
That agenda starts with taxes. Over the last three decades, the pretax incomes of the wealthiest households have risen far more than they have for other households, while the tax rates for top earners have fallen more than they have for others, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
As a result, the average post-tax income of the top 1 percent of households has jumped by roughly $1 million since 1979, adjusted for inflation, to $1.4 million. Pay for most families has risen only slightly faster than inflation.
Crisis Gives Obama a Chance to Make Long-Term Electoral Gains
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agsg69muiHWY&refer=home
The $2 trillion of federal spending President Barack Obama proposed to stimulate the economy, stabilize housing markets, curb financial excesses and remake the health care system packs a political punch too.
By shifting the focus of government policy away from upper- income Americans and targeting the vast numbers who consider themselves middle-class, Obama’s proposals may yield dividends for the Democratic Party.
Just as Franklin Roosevelt used the New Deal to create a loyal voter base that endured for four decades, Obama’s approach to fixing the economy offers the president an opportunity to recast political allegiances among swing voters. It also unwinds the policies of Ronald Reagan by dramatically increasing the role that government plays in the lives of voters and companies.
“It’s clear that Obama benefits politically by targeting programs precisely at these voters,” said Bruce Buchanan, a presidential scholar at the University of Texas in Austin. “It all ties up into a little ball, and I can understand why Republicans are worried.”
The president’s strategy for boosting growth is a clear departure from his predecessor, George W. Bush, whose policies gave the greatest increases in after-tax income to people at the top end of the distribution.
“Bush’s argument was that they’re the engines of prosperity, they’ll invest and create jobs, and prosperity will trickle down,” said Roberton Williams, an analyst at the Tax Policy Center in Washington. Median income for U.S. households fell to $50,233 in 2007 from $50,557 seven years earlier, adjusted for inflation, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
Delivering Tax Breaks
Obama has made shifting the tax burden from the middle class to the wealthy central to his economic plan. His campaign proposals would provide the largest immediate breaks to Americans in the third and fourth income quintiles, or those with incomes between $38,000 and $112,000, while pushing average taxes up for those earning more than $225,000, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center. Those making more than $600,000 would see substantially higher taxes.
Does anybody really believe that tax reform is going to save the capitalist system from collapse?
Capitalist collapse is sort of like the secular version of the Rapture. We're assured it's on its way at any moment and is inevitable, but it never happens.
Communist collapse on the other hand - happens quite easily - like a house of cards.
Does anybody really believe that tax reform is going to save the capitalist system from collapse?
Actually it is the only thing that will save the capitalist system from complete collapse.
Oh really.
Why would anyone want to save the capitalist system from complete collapse?
And your Obama worship is getting creepy. It's getting into Dear Leader territory.
Are your arguments so weak you have to resort to this kind of silliness? Compared to what the USA has had for presidents in the recent past I'm delighted with what the new president represents. Canada should be so lucky as to have a leader like Obama.
Oh, but we do!
More good news.
Enjoying New Muscularity, Liberals Rejoin Lobbying Fray
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/us/politics/01lobby.html?_r=1&hp
“This is no longer going to be Barack Obama standing by himself getting pilloried by the special interests with no one pushing back — if I can describe what it felt like in the White House in 1993,” Mr. Podesta said Friday.
Oh, but we do!
In fairness, Obama is far more right wing than Harper.
More good news.
Enjoying New Muscularity, Liberals Rejoin Lobbying Fray
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/us/politics/01lobby.html?_r=1&hp
“This is no longer going to be Barack Obama standing by himself getting pilloried by the special interests with no one pushing back — if I can describe what it felt like in the White House in 1993,” Mr. Podesta said Friday.
In his weekly radio and Internet address on Saturday, the president predicted that his agenda would draw attack from “special interests and lobbyists” on several fronts. “I know they’re gearing up for a fight as we speak,” he said. “My message to them is this: So am I.”
I heard this on tv. Sounded good!
Americans seem to be liking their new president. It's not hard to do when you consider the main alternative - Bobby Jindal. 
The Ecstasy and the Agony
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/opinion/01rich.html
As he stood before Congress on Tuesday night, the new president was armed with new job approval percentages in the 60s. After his speech, the numbers hit the stratosphere: CBS News found that support for his economic plans spiked from 63 percent to 80. Had more viewers hung on for the Republican response from Bobby Jindal, the unintentionally farcical governor of Louisiana, Obama might have aced a near-perfect score.
His address was riveting because it delivered on the vision he had promised a battered populace during the campaign: Government must step in boldly when free markets run amok and when national crises fester unaddressed for decades. For all the echoes of F.D.R.’s first fireside chat, he also evoked his own memorably adult speech on race. Once again he walked us through a lucid step-by-step mini-lecture on “how we arrived” at an impasse that’s threatening America’s ability to move forward.
Obama’s race speech may have saved his campaign. His first Congressional address won’t rescue the economy. But it brings him to a significant early crossroads in his presidency — one full of perils as well as great opportunities. To get the full political picture, look beyond Obama’s popularity in last week’s polls to the two groups of Americans whose approval numbers are in the toilet. There is good news for Obama in these findings, but there’s also a stark indication of the unchecked populist rage that could still overrun his ambitious plans.
The first group in national disfavor is the G.O.P. In the latest New York Times/CBS News survey, 63 percent said that Congressional Republicans opposed the stimulus package mostly for political reasons; only 17 percent felt that the Republicans should stick with their own policies rather than cooperate with Obama and the Democrats. The second group of national villains is corporate recipients of taxpayer money: only 39 percent approve of a further bailout for banks, and only 22 percent want more money going to Detroit’s Big Three.
Is there any horseshit opinion that the New York Times publishes that you do not (a) read (b) agree with and (c) breathlessly share with us?
Just wondering.
Here's possibly some more good news for the new president:
Jim Bunning Threatens To Resign From Senate To Hurt GOP
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/27/jim-bunning-threatens-to_n_170665.html
Even better would be him going independent and agreeing to caucus with the Dems on all procedural matters, much like Jim Jeffords did when he decided to go independent. Bye-bye filibuster. :)
Capitalist collapse is sort of like the secular version of the Rapture. We're assured it's on its way at any moment and is inevitable, but it never happens.
Sorry, Doug, but, er ... aren't you the guy keeping babble vigil over that very collapse? I mean, I read the papers too, and the collapse is well underway, global, and will be far worse than our Dear Leader lets on.
In his weekly radio and Internet address on Saturday, the president predicted that his agenda would draw attack from “special interests and lobbyists” on several fronts. “I know they’re gearing up for a fight as we speak,” he said. “My message to them is this: So am I.”
http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/text/us/fdr1936.html
"It is needless to repeat the details of the program which this Administration has been hammering out on the anvils of experience. No amount of misrepresentation or statistical contortion can conceal or blur or smear that record. Neither the attacks of unscrupulous enemies nor the exaggerations of over-zealous friends will serve to mislead the American people."
"Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me‹and I welcome their hatred."
I read the papers too, and the collapse is well underway, global, and will be far worse than our Dear Leader lets on.
In other words, the "collapse of capitalism" is whatever you decide to call a collapse.
Well when things get worse than the 1930's - which of course resulted not in the collapse of capitalism but in the modern welfare state - I'll start talking about a collapse. Indeed the crisis in the US seems to be bearing a "new" New Deal already.
Dr ConwayEven better would be him going independent and agreeing to caucus with the Dems on all procedural matters, much like Jim Jeffords did when he decided to go independent. Bye-bye filibuster. :)
That would be sweet.
I believe we will somehow overcome this financial hangover we are encountering right now, but by taking on the very rich and powerful Obama is going to need all the help he can get.
Making the rich pay the American way.
Obama chose a time of recession to propose a massive increase in progressivity -- a 10-year, trillion-dollar haul from the rich, already being punished by the stock market collapse and the housing market decline. This does not just involve undoing the Bush tax reductions but capping tax deductions to collect about $30 billion a year. Despite all the rhetoric of "responsibility" and shared sacrifice, the message of the Obama budget is clear: The wealthy are responsible for the economic mess and they will bear the entire sacrifice so that government can "invest" in the people.
But governments do not "invest," they spend. Such spending can be justified or unjustified. It is wealthy individuals, however, who actually invest their capital in job creation. Most have much less capital than they used to. Under the Obama budget, they would have less still. This does not seem to matter in the economic worldview of the Obama budget. Equality is the goal instead of opportunity or economic mobility. And government, in this approach, is more capable of investing national wealth than America's discredited plutocrats -- meaning successful two-income families, entrepreneurs and professionals.
This is not merely the rejection of "trickle-down economics," it is a weakening of the theoretical basis for capitalism -- that free individuals are generally more rational and efficient in making investment decisions than are government planners.
This ideological shift is also evident in Obama's treatment of charitable giving. The new budget seeks to raise billions for health reform by limiting the charitable deduction for the wealthy. This is a direct claim that the good done by government spending will be more important than the good done by the wealthy. But it is often wealthy people who make the large donations that sustain colleges, universities and teaching hospitals. If government is inherently superior at making such charitable choices in the public good, why not make our entire education and medical systems public? Which seems to be the goal.
I love the over the top hysteria of the right-wing media over, what is actually, a modest increase in taxes on the poor rich. Good thing they weren't around during the New Deal, or even the 1950s, when the top tax rate was 90%. They've just been used to having their way for the last 30 years or so, that they start stomping their feet when a different policy direction is put into place.
I love the over the top hysteria of the right-wing media over, what is actually, a modest increase in taxes on the poor rich.
That's Ok. It's balanced out by the liberals' paroxysms of joy over the same measures.
This should be good as Rove is going to testify under penalty of perjury.
In an agreement reached today between the former Bush Administration and Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Karl Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers will testify before the House Judiciary Committee in transcribed depositions under penalty of perjury. The Committee has also reserved the right to have public testimony from Rove and Miers. It was agreed that invocations of official privileges would be significantly limited.In addition, if the Committee uncovers information necessitating his testimony, the Committee will also have the right to depose William Kelley, a former White House lawyer who played a role in the U.S. Attorney firings.
The Committee will also receive Bush White House documents relevant to this inquiry. Under the agreement, the landmark ruling by Judge John Bates rejecting key Bush White House claims of executive immunity and privilege will be preserved. If the agreement is breached, the Committee can resume the litigation.
Chairman Conyers issued the following statement:
"I have long said that I would see this matter through to the end and am encouraged that we have finally broken through the Bush Administration's claims of absolute immunity. This is a victory for the separation of powers and congressional oversight. It is also a vindication of the search for truth. I am determined to have it known whether U.S. Attorneys in the Department of Justice were fired for political reasons, and if so, by whom."
This kind of stuff must be warming Obama's heart.
Fears of a Clown
http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/fears-of-a-clown/?hp
As someone who spends a lot of time on the road, I used to find Limbaugh to be an obnoxious but entertaining companion, his eruptions more reliable than Old Faithful. But now that Limbaugh has become something else — the face of the Republican Party, by a White House that has played him brilliantly — he has been transformed into car-wreck-quality spectacle, at once scary and sad.
but by taking on the very rich and powerful Obama is going to need all the help he can get.
You can't possibly be so delusional as to seriously believe that Obomber is gonna "take on" his benefactors. All his appointments are bankers, for chrissakes. His cabinet is staffed with pure laine oligarchs.
You also seem to assume that Obama has any say in the matter. He isn't calling the shots here. That's the deal.
North Report - what is your opinion on Obomba's warmongering?
Are you thrilled about his decision to put 17,000 more troops in Afghanistan? How about his decision to continue holding prisoners in secret detention centres around the world and torturing them?
Check out this clip, eight minutes into it though...
I think everyone's misunderestimated Obama.
North Report - what is your opinion on Obomba's warmongering?
Are you thrilled about his decision to put 17,000 more troops in Afghanistan? How about his decision to continue holding prisoners in secret detention centres around the world and torturing them?
Don't expect a reply just yet. North Report is busy reading the right-wing MSM in the USA to dig up [b]stories and editorials that he thinks will make Obomba happy.[/b] He thinks that's the topic of this thread.
Al-Q - wish I could watch that on this computer!
I find North Report very amusing and I find it difficult not to laugh out loud. You have to hand it to Obama for duping so many people though. He really did a marvelous job.
I see that yesterday he annoyed the Brits by refusing them a WH press conf. Today he is refusing to release names of banks receive corporate welfare. Tomorrow north report will help spread the news that peace in the middle east has come!
Ok...back to reading about Michelle's excellent fashion sense.
Ghislaine, what's to like about that!
I'm would be surprised if it were the case, but you almost sound like you would prefer to have Bush reinstated as president. Just for the record I prefer Obama. Got it.
North Report - what is your opinion on Obomba's warmongering?
Are you thrilled about his decision to put 17,000 more troops in Afghanistan? How about his decision to continue holding prisoners in secret detention centres around the world and torturing them?
[url=http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/march/obama_to_single_paye.php][color=red]... to Single Payer Advocates: Drop Dead[/u][/color][/url]
President Obama's White House made crystal clear this week: a Canadian-style, Medicare-for-all, single payer health insurance system is off the table.
Obama doesn't even want to discuss it. [...]
Dr. David Himmelstein is a founder and spokesperson for Physicians for a National Health Program.
Himmelstein's take - Obama is caving to the insurance industry.
"The President once acknowledged that single payer reform was the best option, but now he's caving in to corporate healthcare interests and completely shutting out advocates of single payer reform," Himmelstein said. "The majority of Americans favor single payer, and it's the most popular reform option among doctors and health economists, but no single payer supporter has been invited to participate in the administration's health care summit. Meanwhile, he's appointed as his health reform czar Nancy-Ann DeParle, a woman who has made her living advising health care investors and sits on the board of many for-profit firms that have made billions from Medicare. Her appointment - and the invitation list to the healthcare summit - is a clear signal that the administration plans to propose a corporate-friendly health reform that has no chance of actually solving our health care crisis."
[url=http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/obama-leave-50000-troops-ira... To Leave 50,000 Troops In Iraq Indefinitely[/u][/color][/url]
The $900 million the US pledged for rebuilding Gaza? A lie ...
The Obama administration intends to spend most of a $900-million Palestinian aid package on support for the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, rather than in the Hamas-run Gaza Strip communities that were badly damaged in the recent weeks-long Israeli offensive, a State Department official said Sunday.
Torturer? Have no fear of Obomba.
CIA Director Leon Panetta says agency employees who took part in harsh interrogations of terrorism suspects are not in danger of being punished.
Sarah Palin is starting to look good compared to the rest of the GOP.
The axis of drivel
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/07/opinion/07blow.html?ref=opinion
The Democrats know the Republicans are afraid to confront and disavow Limbaugh, so they keep poking him, and he keeps snapping like a rabid dog. This is a brilliant bit of Machiavellian strategy on the part of the Democrats. (I didn’t know that they had it in them.)
What does that have to do with "Obama's First 100 Days"?
This thread, as originally conceived by Michelle, was intended to be a "catch-all thread for [b]news about stuff Obama's doing as President[/b]."
It is not an all purpose thread for everything to do with US politics. If you want to start a thread about Rush Limbaugh and his fellow Republicrats, go right ahead.
Miracles Take Time
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/07/opinion/07herbert.html?ref=opinion
What I know is that the renegade clowns who ruined this economy, the Republican right in alliance with big business and a fair number of feckless Democrats — all working in opposition to the interests of working families — have no credible basis for waging war against serious efforts to get us out of their mess.Maybe the markets are down because demand has dried up, because many of the nation’s biggest firms have imploded and because Americans are losing their jobs and their homes by the millions. Maybe a dose of reality is in order, as opposed to the childish desire for yet another stock market bubble.
Maybe the nuns in grammar school were right when they counseled that patience is a virtue. The man has been president for six weeks.
What does that have to do with "Obama's First 100 Days"?
This thread, as originally conceived by Michelle, was intended to be a "catch-all thread for [b]news about stuff Obama's doing as President[/b]."
It is not an all purpose thread for everything to do with US politics. If you want to start a thread about Rush Limbaugh and his fellow Republicrats, go right ahead.
North Report's link is related to the strategy of tying the Repubs with Limbaugh and his whole "I hope Obama fails" schtick, that has been niggled by the WH. It started about a month ago when he was casually mentioned in a Presidential meeting and then by other muckity mucks as the Repugs started infighting more. It's understandable though that it would seem out in left field if one hasn't been following that part of the goings on this past couple of weeks. It might not be interesting to those not interested in that sort of political strategy stuff rather then stark policy but it does fit with being something that the admin has been doing.
Taliban Jack er Barack
Obama mulls over reaching out to Taliban
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7930865.stm
US President Barack Obama has said the US is not winning in Afghanistan, saying it is more complex than Iraq.
North Report's link is related to the strategy of tying the Repubs with Limbaugh and his whole "I hope Obama fails" schtick, that has been niggled by the WH. It started about a month ago when he was casually mentioned in a Presidential meeting and then by other muckity mucks as the Repugs started infighting more. It's understandable though that it would seem out in left field if one hasn't been following that part of the goings on this past couple of weeks. It might not be interesting to those not interested in that sort of political strategy stuff rather then stark policy but it does fit with being something that the admin has been doing.
Sounds like a strategy dreamed up by the White House to divert attention away from what Obama is actually doing or not doing.
"Mr. President, why aren't you taking serious steps to bring US government torturers to justice?" "Oh look, over there. Isn't that Rush Limbaugh talking strategy with Republicans?"
And North Report is pitching in and doing his bit to advance that diversionary tactic, in a thread that's supposed to be about what Obama is or is not doing in his first 100 days.
Obama mulls over reaching out to Taliban
Yeah, with another 17,000 US troops, soon to be increased to 30,000.
US President Barack Obama has said the US is not winning in Afghanistan, saying it is more complex than Iraq.
Well, duh! They aren't winning, says Obama, because they need to send 30,000 more frakkin' troops before they can win.
And then, in the same interview, Obomba implies that the US would be willing to make targeted assassinations of "dangerous" people in countries that don't have an extradition treaty with the US.
So much for the rule of law.
Imagine, Obama is acting like a politician. The nerve of him.
Ya, Lib Dem-neocon political diffs arent like that old cartoon with Simon Bar Sinister versus Underdog and Sweet Polly Purebred. It's more like Spy vs Spy, or Foghorn Leghorn v chickenhawk.
Imagine, Obama is acting like a politician. The nerve of him.
Imagine. Obama acting exactly like George Walker Bush. The nerve of him.
You just don't fucking get it, do you? This isn't about "politicians", this is about an Emperor. Obama slid into the role like, as farmers say, shit from a goose.
North Report's link is related to the strategy of tying the Repubs with Limbaugh and his whole "I hope Obama fails" schtick, that has been niggled by the WH. It started about a month ago when he was casually mentioned in a Presidential meeting and then by other muckity mucks as the Repugs started infighting more. It's understandable though that it would seem out in left field if one hasn't been following that part of the goings on this past couple of weeks. It might not be interesting to those not interested in that sort of political strategy stuff rather then stark policy but it does fit with being something that the admin has been doing.
Sounds like a strategy dreamed up by the White House to divert attention away from what Obama is actually doing or not doing.
"Mr. President, why aren't you taking serious steps to bring US government torturers to justice?" "Oh look, over there. Isn't that Rush Limbaugh talking strategy with Republicans?"
And North Report is pitching in and doing his bit to advance that diversionary tactic, in a thread that's supposed to be about what Obama is or is not doing in his first 100 days.
You just contradicated your point here but sure, whatever.
This is amazing:
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7925240.stm][color=red][b]Obama renews Zimbabwe sanctions for one more year[/b][/color][/url]
Despite this:
Earlier, the new prime minister of Zimbabwe, Morgan Tsvangirai, in his maiden speech to parliament, appealed to Western countries to lift sanctions.
Obama obviously told him to f*** off, because Tsvangirai doesn't understand a simple point - [b][i]it isn't about Zimbabwe[/i][/b]:
"These actions and policies pose a continuing unusual and [b]extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States[/b]," he added.
... the continuation, without amendment, of the foreign policy of G. W. Bush.
Obama Aims to Shield Science From Politics
Memo to Accompany Stem Cell Action
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/08/AR2009030801476.html?nav=hcmodule
On Friday, officials confirmed that Obama would fulfill a longtime promise to lift those restrictions today, thrilling supporters but stirring intense criticism from opponents, who argue that there are alternative approaches free from ethical concerns.As supporters had hoped, Obama's order will come without any caveats and leave the details to be worked out by the National Institutes of Health, which will have 120 days to develop guidelines that will be used to vet requests for federal funding for research. The guidelines will address a host of thorny ethical issues raised by such research, such as how to obtain proper consent from donors of embryos used to obtain the cells.
"As a result of lifting those limitations, the president is in effect allowing federal funding of embryonic stem research to the extent it's permitted by federal law -- that is work with stem cells themselves, not the derivation of those stem cells," Varmus said.