Obama '08?

hawkeye, agreed. Also, local governments are also struggling, due to highly depressed sales tax revenue, etc. Local governments are traditionally more responsible than governments on up the ladder, but even they will be applying pressure just to maintain basic services, such as police and fire protection. It is interesting as well that the more traditionally Democratically controlled large cities are especially in bigger trouble, such as Detroit, but maybe some of these places can get their friend Obama to bail them out with our money? Our money will be printed money that we will ultimately pay for with super inflated dollars and devalued investments. Its all about "spreading the wealth around," and that means taking it from the responsible and giving it to the irresponsible.

This is what you get with an administration made up with people that "admire Chairman Mao."

Your mention of Detroit to explain your point shows how uninformed you really are. Detroit is one major city that was hit hard by the auto industry and its relative tax base. You are an idiot!

I guess it is a wonder that the Iraqis don't realize how good we were to their country. In fact, the vast majority hate our guts and can't wait for our departure.

Watching Rasmussen, Obama's numbers have fluctuated lately between about -5 and -10 in the Strongly approve / disapprove number, but this week it seems to be taking another dive downward a bit more, not at all time low, but close to it at -13 today, with strongly approve at only 27%. Also, the second graph posted shows the percentage that at least somewhat approve of Obama at all is down again to only 47%, which is close to his low a few weeks ago. Also, the approval of the health care reform is only 42% vs. 54% opposed. Rasmussen's numbers are based upon voters.

Obama and advisors are probably working on this alot more than Afghanistan, trying to figure out how to shut up Fox News from pointing out all the communists and admirers of Chairman Mao in his administration. They know that public opinion is important to them to try to ram all their power grabs through Congress, chiefly health care reform for starters.

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13. That’s just a point above the lowest level ever recorded for this President. It’s also the sixth straight day in negative double digits, matching the longest such streak .(see trends).

Just 31% of voters believe that Congress has a good understanding of the health care proposal.

...
Support for the health care plan proposed by the President and Congressional Democrats is down to 42%. Fifty-four percent (54%) are opposed. "

Good evening. It has been a little quiet around here. Are yall okay?
The Obama administration disclosed today that Kenneth Feinstein (who is the overseer of compensation at firms receiving TARP money) intends to announce in the next few days that the chief executives of CITI, BOA, GM, AIG, GMAC, Chrysler and one other which I forget) will see their salaries cut 90%. The top 25 folks in those companies will face a cut of, on average, 50%.
Cynics claim that this is a a PR move by President Obama that won't resolve the underlying systemic flaws in the financial sector.
Others say that this move will result in a "brain drain" away from careers in the financial sector.
It escapes me as to where those "really smart" people would go instead.

I don't have a problem with people making less money. What I do have a problem with is the government telling companies what they can pay their employees. If the government wants to effectively limit compensation by using tax laws or laws governing corporations such that it would make it less profitable tax wise to pay large sums, or that corporate shareholders have more control over executive compensation, I think that would be more attractive alternatives, and more constitutional.

But didn't, Okie, when these companies agreed to accept Tarp money, also agree to accept government oversight from the likes of Mr Feinstein?

okie argues that the government is guilty of wealth redistribution, but doesn't want the government to regulate how the people's money is spent.

What's wrong with this picture?

Perhaps, I am not personally familiar with exactly what they agreed to, but I still think it is inappropriate for the government to have their noses in this. I was against it when it happened, at least in part because I figured stuff like this would begin to happen.

You guessed wrong! The TARP money was necessary to save the banks and finance companies. You don't even understand Econ 101. No banks, no economy.

You're an idiot!

you can put the banks out of business, and start new ones. We have FDIC now, we did not need to bail out the banks, we could have taken all of our losses, made the little guys whole, and told everyone else to go **** themselves. It was the big boys who destroyed the economy, let them take the hit.

That is what bankruptcy is supposed to be about too, take all of your losses, get all of the garbage to the dump, and start building again.

Hawkeye, Who's going to start new banks? Where is the money going to come from? What happens to all the money of all the depositors? They are FDIC protected.

Poll numbers from Rasmussen today show that voters have the lowest strong approval of Obama yet recorded.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. That’s the lowest level of Strong Approval yet measured for this President. Thirty-nine percent (39%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13"

<yawn>

Do you seriously not see the flaw in that article? They're cherry-picking only one measure ("strongly approve") and trying to turn it into a sensationalistic story.

This might indicate a slight erosion in support, and I'd expect Obama's team to investigate it, but it hardly requires bold and colored print!

C'mon, DD. It's all they got.

Cycloptichorn

It beats admiring Chairman Mao.

I forgot, they also have meaningless non-sequiturs.

Cycloptichorn

okie likes to exaggerate the small stuff, because he has nothing else. Small opinions from a small individual.

How he manages to survive in the real world is the big mystery.

Remember that the execs don't get that compensation (1,000 times the compensation of the average worker in the firm) in arm's-length transactions. Moreover, the firms only exist because of the government bailouts. Thus, it is silly to complain of government intervention on compensation.

Not only that, but okie fails to see what he always complains about; wealth transfer. He's just too dense to see it.