[Still] The President of these here United States of America

[Clash Cadillac]

i always thought LC was a girl... im thoroughly put off by that

Like putting your hand down some "girl's" pants and finding the wrong hardware?

the thing about the "little things"
theyre very important, don't get me wrong
but the big things are what need to change, and Obama is keeping them right on track, even increasing them

interventionist foreign policy
continued MASS investment of public funds in the military industrial complex
(which, again, never ever pays off unless you do some hardcore raping and pillaging)
refusal to change current monetary policy
you should all look into how the federal reserve works
the US public hasn't actually owned any real assets in almost a century

Anyone who thinks a President can come in and make those kinds of changes is naive. Even if Obama wanted to do those things you must remember that he must work in the confines of "the system". If he can accomplish 10% of the things he laid out in his campaign, I say job well done. At least he is a move in the right direction on many issues and I applaud him for that and who knows, in time maybe he can lay the ground work to change "the system".

[Benno]

well check out ron paul if you don't believe in the power of the presidency

[DzM]

well check out ron paul if you don't believe in the power of the presidency

Ron Paul would be just as constricted by The System as Obama is.

The POTUS has the ability to set agenda and push for what s/he wants, but s/he does not have carte blanche to do whatever s/he wants (despite what far too many of our POTUS have asserted).

Ron Paul would no more be able to do the things he describes than Kucinich would.

[Benno]

could he not write an EO ending the Fed? ending the IRS?
pretty sure he could.
could he write an EO creating bullion backed currency?
definitely, lincoln and kennedy both did it

[DzM]

could he not write an EO ending the Fed? ending the IRS?

No, he couldn't. The Federal Reserve System was created as part of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The POTUS can not retroactively abolish laws s/he does not like.

could he write an EO creating bullion backed currency?
definitely, lincoln and kennedy both did it

Umm. No. The Legal Tender Act of 1862 created the so-called United States Note, a fiat currency (meaning "a currency that has value because an institution deemed trustworthy declares that it has value"). This act was passed to help pay for the civil war. At the end of the Civil War Lincoln tried to make the system created by the Legal Tender Act of 1862 permanent by lobbying Congress. Shortly thereafter Lincoln was assassinated and US currency began swinging back to the gold standard.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 established the Federal Reserve System.

The US officially moved off of the gold standard in 1933. Gold and Silver Certificates could still be exchanged for silver from the US Government until 1964 when all US Currency was officially changed to fiat currency.

The Executive Order from JFK that you're referring to allowed the Treasury to issue silver certificates against all the silver held by the US Government that did not already have certificates issued against it. This sure as hell wasn't a "create a bullion backed currency."

If you (Benno) are actually interested in monetary policy and learning about pros and cons of various systems, I very much recommend NPR's "Planet Money" podcast. In fact they have an excellent episode dedicated to answering the question "what is money?":

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2008/11/ ... nship.html
http://www.npr.org/blogs/globalpoolofmo ... t11.24.mp3

I also recommend the blog Baseline Scenario:
http://baselinescenario.com/

Both are quite good at providing information to non-economics majors about what this stuff is.

[Clash Cadillac]

could he not write an EO ending the Fed? ending the IRS?
pretty sure he could.
could he write an EO creating bullion backed currency?
definitely, lincoln and kennedy both did it

What would be the purpose of ending the IRS?

[DzM]

could he not write an EO ending the Fed? ending the IRS?
pretty sure he could.
could he write an EO creating bullion backed currency?
definitely, lincoln and kennedy both did it

What would be the purpose of ending the IRS?

There is a popular (by "popular" I mean "a small group of people") theory that the IRS is illegal. This group of people is pretty vocal:
http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbw.cg ... %20illegal

The IRS and US income tax code is also a favorite target of the Ron Paul campaign (and Ron Paul) that boils down to "taxes == The Gubment controls your life, not you."
http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbw.cg ... l%22%20irs

[Sandyfromvancouver]

well check out ron paul if you don't believe in the power of the presidency

Ron Paul would be just as constricted by The System as Obama is.The POTUS has the ability to set agenda and push for what s/he wants, but s/he does not have carte blanche to do whatever s/he wants (despite what far too many of our POTUS have asserted).Ron Paul would no more be able to do the things he describes than Kucinich would.

Obama has depth and breadth and vision that Ron Paul just doesn't.

I would say, The System is just as much bureaucracy and Republicans as it is the Democratic party. Big oil (Republicans), with Big Automotive (Democrats) scuppered perfectly good electric car engineering that might be in mass production if not for their efforts.

Also, Obama is banking on the American people not knowing much about Afghanistan. His idea is to ramp up the war there by persuading other countries to send their troops. He wants to get far more "other" troops there, from say, Canada, Britain and France. As soon as he took up office, the US military was asking Canada to put more troops there, for longer than our existing mandate. Obama himself has soft-pedalled this request. But.

[DzM]

Incidentally, for those wishing to keep track of where Obama is living up to his promises, where's backpedaled, and where he's compromised, this site seems pretty helpful:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... es/browse/

[Sandyfromvancouver]

Incidentally, for those wishing to keep track of where Obama is living up to his promises, where's backpedaled, and where he's compromised, this site seems pretty helpful:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... es/browse/

Early days, early days. As you have pointed out, DzM, Obama is carrying so much freight, some people's high hopes will no doubt be disappointed.

[DzM]

Incidentally, for those wishing to keep track of where Obama is living up to his promises, where's backpedaled, and where he's compromised, this site seems pretty helpful:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... es/browse/

Early days, early days. As you have pointed out, DzM, Obama is carrying so much freight, some people's high hopes will no doubt be disappointed.

I find it astounding that he's been in office for only ~40 days and people are already piling on with "and what a failure! Look at all the broken promises!!1! ZOMG!!1"

He's not the "anointed one," he's not the anti-christ, he does not have absolute power to do whatever he wants, etc. He will not have the ability to do everything he has said he would work to do (there IS a legislative branch that has to actually enact laws to do most of these things, and there IS a judicial branch that will have to hear challenges to these laws, etc), and some things that made sense in 2007 or the former half 2008 will no longer make sense given the events of the latter half of 2008.

I know that there will never be a POTUS that 100% represents my views, but that's not a deal-breaker for me. Obama has a track record of fighting for many of the things I believe in, and he's surrounded himself with smart advisers. He is listening to scientists. He is listening to economists (and the economists he's listening to are more of the Keynesian school than the Polish or Chicago schools, and I tend to agree with them). He is working within the confines of the mess he inherited and is compromising where needed. He is not letting a fanatical devotion to principle prevent any forward progress, choosing instead to accept some amount of compromise in order to NOT stagnate.

I'll give him a chance to do some good. Unless he brings back interment camps and institutes a system of gulags then he certainly won't do more damage to our country than the last administration did.

[Sandyfromvancouver]

I know that there will never be a POTUS that 100% represents my views, but that's not a deal-breaker for me. Obama has a track record of fighting for many of the things I believe in, and he's surrounded himself with smart advisers. He is listening to scientists. He is listening to economists (and the economists he's listening to are more of the Keynesian school than the Polish or Chicago schools, and I tend to agree with them). He is working within the confines of the mess he inherited and is compromising where needed. He is not letting a fanatical devotion to principle prevent any forward progress, choosing instead to accept some amount of compromise in order to NOT stagnate.

I'll give him a chance to do some good. Unless he brings back interment camps and institutes a system of gulags then he certainly won't do more damage to our country than the last administration did.

One of the things I like about Obama, is that while he's idealistic, he's not terribly partisan. He is certainly not doctrinaire. And DzM, good presidents are like good spouses: Pick 'em carefully. After the honeymoon is over, they should still please you, and you them, more than half the time.

[LittleCupcakes]

Incidentally, for those wishing to keep track of where Obama is living up to his promises, where's backpedaled, and where he's compromised, this site seems pretty helpful:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... es/browse/

Early days, early days. As you have pointed out, DzM, Obama is carrying so much freight, some people's high hopes will no doubt be disappointed.

I find it astounding that he's been in office for only ~40 days and people are already piling on with "and what a failure! Look at all the broken promises!!1! ZOMG!!1"

He's not the "anointed one," he's not the anti-christ, he does not have absolute power to do whatever he wants, etc. He will not have the ability to do everything he has said he would work to do (there IS a legislative branch that has to actually enact laws to do most of these things, and there IS a judicial branch that will have to hear challenges to these laws, etc), and some things that made sense in 2007 or the former half 2008 will no longer make sense given the events of the latter half of 2008.

I know that there will never be a POTUS that 100% represents my views, but that's not a deal-breaker for me. Obama has a track record of fighting for many of the things I believe in, and he's surrounded himself with smart advisers. He is listening to scientists. He is listening to economists (and the economists he's listening to are more of the Keynesian school than the Polish or Chicago schools, and I tend to agree with them). He is working within the confines of the mess he inherited and is compromising where needed. He is not letting a fanatical devotion to principle prevent any forward progress, choosing instead to accept some amount of compromise in order to NOT stagnate.

I'll give him a chance to do some good. Unless he brings back interment camps and institutes a system of gulags then he certainly won't do more damage to our country than the last administration did.

I guess you are aware of my basic reactions to much of this, and my disagreements with your characterization of The Man Who Will Lower The Oceans And Lift The People, so I'll not belabor the same points I've made before. Suffice to say, he's listening to the WRONG people and is most certainly "guilty" of fanatical devotion to the soft socialist ideology of the left.

I would specifically ask:

Where has the compromise been? What exactly has Obama ceded any aspect of his assbackwards economic gambit ("plan" is far too exalted a word for that mess) to conservatism/libertarianism? I guess one could point to the small tax breaks he allowed in the lardass "stimulus", but those were purely political (so he could claim "bipartisanship"), but otherwise, where is the compromise?

And to Clash, I kind of agree with with you: If Obama only does 10% of what he promised, the USA will be a 90% less bad place than it could have been

To Sandy: Ron Paul has a great deal more vision than Mr Hopey-Changey. Obama wants to try all the standard Euro-Lefty moves, and tax the bejesus out of everyone to do it. Nothing new there at all. Want to see real radical ideas? Paul's your man. Sure, he also happens to agree with much of conservatism, but his ideas about the appropriateness of many functions of government are decidedly non-mainstream.

[Sandyfromvancouver]

Where has the compromise been?
To Sandy: Ron Paul has a great deal more vision than Mr Hopey-Changey. Obama wants to try all the standard Euro-Lefty moves . . . . Sure, he also happens to agree with much of conservatism, but his ideas about the appropriateness of many functions of government are decidedly non-mainstream.

Oh, dear. Suffice to say we'll have to agree to disagree. IMHO Euro-Lefty is more new to the US than Ron Paul's ideals.

And if you're looking for ways Obama isn't your softie leftie, look at his government's refusal to share judicial material with the UK. Or the limbo that Omar Khadr is still in. Thorny issues, of course, but there isn't much difference with the Bush administration on those points.

[Clash Cadillac]

Where has the compromise been? What exactly has Obama ceded any aspect of his assbackwards economic gambit ("plan" is far too exalted a word for that mess) to conservatism/libertarianism? I guess one could point to the small tax breaks he allowed in the lardass "stimulus", but those were purely political (so he could claim "bipartisanship"), but otherwise, where is the compromise?

So please tell me exactly what you believe the economic plan should be? If you are going to tell me you believe in supply side economics then please tell me why or point me to some examples of where this has worked. I am actually enjoying this crash course in economics (the little bit of internet browsing I did last night) more than I thought I would.