Did Barack Obama planned the US FINANCIAL CRISISOctober 23, 2008 by jithendra69
How Did it happen??? Did the top donors and corporate supporters of OBAMA pre planned to launch and create a US Financial Crisis and a Global Financial Crisis which help Barack Obama to win the US Elections.EVIDENCE WHICH PROVE THAT OBAMA CREATEDTHE US FINANCIAL CRISIS:OBAMA’S TOP DONORS FOR THE CAMPAIGHNThis table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization’s PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization’s members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY’s List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers.
Goldman Sachs $739,521University of California $697,506Harvard University $501,489Citigroup Inc $492,548Google Inc $487,355JPMorgan Chase & Co $475,112National Amusements Inc $432,169Microsoft Corp $429,656UBS AG $419,550Lehman Brothers $391,774Wilmerhale Llp $383,024Time Warner $375,063Sidley Austin LLP $370,916Skadden, Arps et al $360,409Stanford University $341,399Morgan Stanley $341,380Latham & Watkins $328,879Jones Day $309,960University of Chicago $294,237General Electric $290,584
Percent of Contributions CodedCoded $165,000,223 (70%)Uncoded $71,144,336 (30%)Total $236,144,559
above you will see that half of the top American Corporates in USA who have given big money to obama are the companies who went bankrupt as a result of Financial Crisis and further among them are JP Morgan Chase,Lehman Brothers,Morgan Stanley, which have donated big money to Obama and little money to Mccain.Also the biggest technological players in the US economy and Global Economy like Google and Microsoft has helped and invested in OBAMA with great return on investmen plans.
So think twice before you vote OBAMA because no man in the world wants to run out of money and face a global recession as a result of voting a secret change agent who created a pre-planned financial crisis in order to be the American President.THE REAL TRUTH FROM THE BEGINING TO THE END.JOIN THE GROUP.
Recent News
OBAMA SAYS HE IS THE CHANGE AGENT! WELL OF COURSE HE IS THE CHANGE BECAUSE HE PLANNED A US FINANCIAL CRISIS ALONG WITH A GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS AND A COMING UP GLOBAL RECESSION TO CHANGE THE WORLD, WHICH MEANS TO BRING DOWN OF THE WORLD, IT IS A SIMPLE TRUTH.HOW OBAMA’S FAMILY HISTORY AND POLITICS TALLY :
Obama’s family root are from Afro Americans so which means Afro Americans were initially brought to United States by British to get the slavery work done so some slaves survived and they started their way in America.The most famous figure is the Martin. Luther King who was a so called socialist and so is the BARACK OBAMA who is going to bring American Socialism after winning the election by creating A US Financial Crisis and A Global Financial Crisis to change the ideas of high class,middle class and low class people in the global economical system which in turn bring down the International Economical Sytem and OBAMA’s mere ambition is to bring Socialism to the worlds leading country by brainwashing depressed people who are facing a Global Financial Crisis Scam which is also a creation by OBAMA to achieve his presidential goal.
THE HISTORY OF AFRO-AMERICANS FROM WIKIPEDIA>
African AmericanFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, searchAfrican American
Frederick Douglass • Beyoncé • Henry JohnsonCondoleezza Rice • M. L. King, Jr. • Colin PowellMalcolm X • Robert Curbeam • W. E. B. Du BoisTotal populationAfrican American39,151,870[1]13.1% of the total U.S. populationNon-Hispanic Black38,167,719[2]12.7% of the U.S. populationBlack Hispanic984,1510.33% of the U.S. population
Regions with significant populationsUnited States(predominantly Southern) 38,662,569 [3][4]Liberia(called Americo-Liberians) 150,000
LanguagesAmerican English · African American Vernacular English · minorities of Spanish · French · indigenous African languagesReligionChristianity (mostly Protestantism or Roman Catholicism) · Islam · Judaism · Buddhism · Atheism · othersRelated ethnic groupsAfrican-Native Americans · Americo-Liberian
————————–
————————–————————–
–
view • talk • editAfrican Americans or Black Americans are citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa.[5] In the United States, the term is generally used for Americans with at least partial Sub-Saharan African ancestry. Most African Americans are the descendants of captive Africans who survived the slavery era within the boundaries of the present United States, although some are — or are descended from — voluntary immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean, Central America, South America, or elsewhere.[6] African Americans make up the single largest racial minority in the United States,[7] though Hispanics compose the largest ethnic minority.[8]
History
An artist’s conception of Crispus Attucks, the first “martyr” of the American Revolution.Main article: African American historyThe first recorded Africans in British North America (the future United States) arrived in 1619 as indentured servants who settled in Jamestown, Virginia. They for many years were similar in legal position to poor English indenturees, who traded several years labor in exchange for passage to America.[9] Africans could legally raise crops and cattle to purchase their freedom.[10] They raised families, marrying other Africans and sometimes intermarrying with Native Americans or English settlers.[11] By the 1640s and 1650s, several African families owned farms around Jamestown and some became wealthy by colonial standards. The popular conception of a race-based slave system did not fully develop until the 1700s. During the 1770s Africans, both enslaved and free, helped rebellious English colonists secure American Independence by defeating the British in the American Revolution.[12] Africans and Englishmen fought side by side and were fully integrated.[13] James Armistead, an African American, played a large part in making possible the 1781 York town victory that established the United States as an independent nation.[14] Other prominent African Americans were Prince Whipple and Oliver Cromwell, who are both depicted in the front of the boat in George Washingtons famous 1776 Crossing the Delaware portrait. By 1860, there were 3.5 million enslaved Africans in the United States due to the Atlantic slave trade, and another 500,000 Africans lived free across the country.[15] In 1863, during the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. The proclamation declared all slaves in states that had seceded from the Union were free.[16] Advancing Union troops enforced the proclamation with Texas being the last state to be emancipated in 1865.[17] While the post-war reconstruction era was initially a time of progress for African Americans, in the late 1890s, Southern states enacted Jim Crow laws to enforce racial segregation and disenfranchisement.[18] Most African Americans followed the Jim Crow laws and assumed a posture of humility and servility to prevent becoming victims of racially motivated violence. To maintain self-esteem and dignity, middle-class African Americans created their own schools, churches, banks, social clubs, and other businesses.[19]
In the last decade of the nineteenth century, racially discriminatory laws and racial violence aimed at African Americans began to mushroom in the United States. These discriminatory acts included racial segregation – upheld by the United States Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896[20] - which was legally mandated by southern states and nationwide at the local level of government, voter suppression or disenfranchisement in the southern states, denial of economic opportunity or resources nationwide, and private acts of violence and mass racial violence aimed at African Americans unhindered or encouraged by government authorities. The desperate conditions of African Americans in the South that sparked the Great Migration of the early 20th century,[21] combined with a growing African-American intellectual and cultural elite in the Northern United States, led to a movement to fight violence and discrimination against African Americans that, like abolitionism before it, crossed racial lines. The Civil Rights Movement aimed at abolishing public and private acts of racial discrimination against African Americans between 1954 to 1968, particularly in the southern United States. By 1966, the emergence of the Black Power movement, which lasted from 1966 to 1975, expanded upon the aims of the Civil Rights Movement to include racial dignity, economic and political self-sufficiency, and freedom from white authority. The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom and the conditions which brought it into being are credited with putting pressure on President John F. Kennedy and then Lyndon B. Johnson that culminated in the passage the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that banned discrimination in public accommodations, employment, and labor unions.[22]
Ya ever hear of… Obama’s Global Poverty Act?Sam
This is the first entry in what we hope is a recurring feature on Bloggopher: “Ya ever hear of…?” It will highlight candidate proposals, achievements, statements, etc., that have not received much attention recently or ever.
Save for a few mentions in his Berlin oration (”lift the child in Bangladesh from poverty,” global wealth to be shared “more equitably”), Obama’s foreign tour was about conflicts and wars, not global poverty. But one of his least mentioned (it’s not even on VoteGopher— yet) foreign policy initiatives is a plan to combat global poverty, the aptly named Global Poverty Act, which Obama introduced in December 2007.
What little coverage the GPA has received has been from conservative commentators who overstate its breadth. Today’s Investor’s Business Daily editorial lambasts it as a global “tax” and says that it follows from “Marxist theology.” For those who favor audacious global poverty initiatives, perhaps the fact that IBD exaggerates the plan will come as a disappointment. In any case, the GPA will not be paid for “on the backs of U.S. taxpayers” because it doesn’t actually require additional spending (more on this later). Nor would it “force U.S. taxpayers to fork over 0.7% of our GDP every year to fund a global war on poverty.” This figure is based on the U.N. recommendation that countries spend that percentage of their GDP on foreign aid in order to reach the U.N. Millennium Development Goals (only one of these goals, the one that calls for a reduction by half in the number of people living on a dollar a day, is actually the subject of the GPA). Obama’s bill simply does not commit to that 0.7% funding level, or any funding level. That’s why the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the GPA will cost less than $1 million a year.
The rest of the IBD editorial is given over to dubious metaphors (Obama wants to buy the world a Coke, Obama wants to give the world a fish without teaching it how to fish), outright falsehoods (”the plan would cost every American taxpayer around $2,500″), guilt-by-association (Obama’s plan is connected somehow to John Kerry’s “global test” gaffe in 2004), and irrelevant, faux-populist nonsense (”Who’s to say we can’t load up our SUV and head out in search of bacon double cheeseburgers at the mall?”).
So let’s see what Obama’s bill does propose to do. A good place to start would be to look at the text of the legislation. The GPA would “require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy” for alleviating global poverty, the goal of which would be “reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide… who live on less than $1 a day.” Sounds ambitious, right? Surely it must call for a brand-new “tax” on Americans that will go directly into the pockets of the world’s poorest? Well, no, not even close. To reach this goal, the bill mandates only that the President’s “strategy” must include the following policies: continuing current poverty-reduction initiatives; improving the “effectiveness” of our assistance by requiring accountability-enhancing procedures like benchmarks, timetables, and reports to Congress; coordinating our efforts with other countries and institutions; mobilizing the private sector to help out; using debt relief and trade policy to “enhance economic development prospects for developing countries”; and, finally, the only item that could explicitly lead to an increased foreign aid budget, “making available additional overall United States assistance levels as appropriate.”
Granted, perhaps a President Obama would decide that it’s “appropriate” for assistance levels to be hiked way up. It may well be the case that, in order to reach the stated goal of the legislation, assistance levels need to be increased. But Obama is not reflexively throwing more money at the problem of global poverty. He is first seeing whether we can get more bang for our buck. The GPA does not obligate him, or anybody, to spend more money. It does nothing more than ask the President to work towards a goal and find the best ways of reaching that goal.
Unless you disagree with the importance of the goal, the method is hardly radical. This is not welfare for foreigners. The GPA says, when writing trade deals, we should take into account how they will affect those living on a dollar a day. Do the same when thinking about debt cancellation. Make sure the existing aid is “effective,” that it’s getting where it needs to go. Ask bureaucrats to figure out the best ways of coordinating poverty-reduction with other humanitarian goals, like fighting AIDS. Encourage private businesses, NGOs, non-profits, and existing agencies to help fight global poverty. The fact that the CBO estimates its cost at less than a million dollars demonstrates that the GPA is, at best, a bill to encourage poverty-reduction, not to require it.
One strike against Obama’s bill could be that it declares a goal but doesn’t prescribe a procedure that’s very likely to achieve the goal. That’s what I meant earlier when I suggested that those looking for sweeping anti-poverty initiatives should look elsewhere. Obama’s bill is a step in that direction, but it’s not a leap. The U.S. spends just 0.16% of its GDP on foreign aid, and has not set the goal of reaching 0.7%, as has Italy, the only country that in 2004 fell below the U.S. in its assistance levels. The GPA says that the U.S. would like to reduce global poverty, and that it hopes it won’t need to spend more money to do so. Leaving open the option of future spending increases may be enough to infuriate conservatives, but in the meantime, they can’t pretend that the bill mandates those increases. They’d know that if they read it.
Tags: Barack Obama, Diplomacy, Global Poverty, poverty
addthis_pub = ‘votegopher’;addthis_logo = ‘http://www.addthis.com/images/yourlogo.png’;addthis_logo_background = ‘EFEFFF’;addthis_logo_color = ‘666699′;addthis_brand = ‘votegopher.com’;addthis_options = ‘email, digg, favorites, facebook, delicious, google, myspace, Mixx, reddit, more’; Share
This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 30th, 2008 at 1:15 pm and is filed under The Issues, Impartially, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
3 Responses to “Ya ever hear of… Obama’s Global Poverty Act?”
This Just In: Obama Is a Secret Agent from the U.N.! - The Plank Says:August 6th, 2008 at 7:23 am […] sbarr13 said: Jeff, yeah, your guess is pretty much right. Here’s a post on the Global Poverty Act that explains it all: http://www.votegopher.com/blog August 6, 2008 9:41 AM // […]
TLB Says:August 6th, 2008 at 10:02 am It would be fair to state that this bill could start a process that would result in the U.S. spending the amount claimed; see for instance this estimate from the WorldBank: peekURL.com/z1doski
Note also this from the bill: “The year 2007 marks the mid-point to the Millennium Development Goals deadline of 2015.” That implies that the bill wants us to continue on the path to meeting that deadline, and doing that is going to require us to spend a lot of money, in addition to doing a lot of other things covered by the MDG.
Maybe next time we can look forward to this site discussing those other MDGs and admitting that BHO obviously wants us to meet all of them.
admin Says:August 6th, 2008 at 1:03 pm TLB,Yes, it would be fair to state that the GPA “could start a process that would result in the U.S. spending the amount claimed.” I note with a heavy heart that this is not at all what has been claimed by you yourself or by right-wing commentators. The IBD editorial said “Obama’s bill would force U.S. taxpayers to fork over 0.7% of our gross domestic product every year.” Let me make this clear: That. Is. Not. True.
Moreover, though I am thankful that you acknowledge this bill only proposes to “start a process,” you neglect the fact that the next step in this process would be to get actual Congressional authorization for increased spending. The GPA doesn’t give that authority, and that’s why it only costs a million bucks, according to the CBO. All this bill says is that the president should seek to meet the U.N.’s goal, not that he should use the U.N.’s strategy, nor for that matter Jeffrey Sach’s or the World Bank’s.
Your argument is that the bill wants to meet the goal, and the goal “require[s] us to spend a lot of money.” Now, that may be your opinion, and in my post, I admit that one could jab at Obama’s bill for being toothless because it doesn’t do what would be “required” to meet the U.N.’s goal. It doesn’t tell anyone to spend more money. It seeks to reach the goal without spending more money, by doing everything else BUT spend more money: improve accountability, enhance “coordination,” mobilize the private sector, etc.
And why should we discuss the other Millennium Development Goals? The bill reiterates that we have agreed (both in 2000, under Clinton, and in 2005 under Bush) to work towards the MDGs. But, seeing as we have not heretofore committed 0.7% of our GDP to global poverty-reduction, what makes you think that merely mentioning the MDGs is as good as a funding commitment? The only MDG that the bill concerns is the poverty-reduction one. And while your speculation that Obama wants to meet all the MDGs may well be true, it would also be true about Bush, and probably McCain. The devil is in the details— how does one achieve the goal. Like or not, Obama’s proposal is not to throw money at it.
21.10.2008
Democratic Revolution in Presidential FundraisingFrankly, I am glad that the Democrats have finally gotten over their nearly four decades long obsession with campaign financing reform. I always thought that it was not a matter of money corrupting candidates but of money going primarily to Republicans. Democrats do have a penchant for self-righteousness. I hope it is finished, at least on this issue.
Even so, the Democrats didn’t do at all badly, what with those 527s and other independent vehicles that were engaged in the campaign, although independent of the party. Both Al Gore and John Kerry collected less money than their Republican opponents. But the margins were not enormous.
Still, Barack Obama has caused a revolution in presidential fund-raising. As the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times pointed out in Monday’s editions, Obama raised $150 million, with 633,000 contributors giving an average of $86 each to his campaign during the month of September. Or a total of $600 million up to October 1.
You have to have some pity for John McCain who stood by his commitment to the federal law he had sponsored and which allowed only so much fundraising (and spending) if the candidate decided to take matching funds from the government. I supposed you could say that this was a principled decision. I suspect, however, that it was a prudential one. McCain realized he had not and could not energize even his supporters to give what they usually did in other elections.
Campaign financing records will not be filed with the government commission that oversees these matters until Friday. So I am hazarding a small guess about what you can read from the information we already have from the Obama effort. But here is one fact that is self-evident:Democrats and liberal Democrats, at that, are not poorer than Republicans and conservatives. They can not only give and raise enormous sums. But those of them who are wealthy are quite willing, even enthusiastic, to contribute to a candidate whose success will mean an increase in their taxes. Nobody particularly likes paying taxes. But, as Warren Buffett said, he should not be paying a lesser percentage of his income in tax than his secretary does. I shouldn’t either, and neither should you.
Does this willingness make Democrats more patriotic than Republicans? No. Does it make them masochistic? No. But it is a perfectly sentient response to a national predicament that has arisen from selfishness run rampant and enshrined in both law and culture. So let’s just agree that it is a concrete expression of Matthew Arnold’s ethical injunction to “choose equality and flee greed.”
Posted: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 11:50 AM with 4 comment(s)
Comments
You must be logged-in to comment.
Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!
sdemuth said:
I’m with Biden on this: unwillingness to pay a fair share of taxes, or willingness to starve the government of tax revenue on the foolish principle that government cannot do anything useful, is unpatriotic. Republicans have poisoned the public debate in this country for years with “government is the problem” and “starve the beast” and the notion that the only legitimate policy for a candidate is a tax cut. Let’s call it what it is: selfish and unpatriotic.
October 21, 2008 12:17 PM
rozenson said:
Hear, hear.
I’m one of those people who’s given to Obama in numbers less than $200. The Obama campaign has chosen not to disclose my contributions because it does not have to by law, but the McCain folks seem to think that concealing small-time donors will ruin democracy. Well, here you go, Steve Schmidt: commenter rozenson of TNR talkback has contributed $65 to the Barack Obama for President campaign. Yes, I am complicit in destroying democracy. Do with me what you want.
October 21, 2008 4:22 PM
Wandreycer1 said:
That’s just not true about campaign finance reform Marty - ithe prostitution ring set up in DC is seriously toxic to the our country (see: Wall Street). Corporate ownership of our reprsentatives is not free speech.
I’m with Gore Vidal on this, why not just have the corporate, oil and coal fatcats run the debates? Or even just interview the candidates in a big arena somewhere? It would be more honest.
Obama’s finance model has given the people back their government, 200 bucks at a time.
October 21, 2008 6:23 PM
roidubouloi said:
Sorry Mr. Peretz, but the willingness to pay more taxes for the common good is more patriotic than the alternative and the Democratic party is overwhelmingly more patriotic than the Republican party.
The Republican party drapes itself in the flag and jingoism in order to draw attention away from its only real agenda — diverting public resources into the pockets of its own faithful on a heavily sliding scale that produces peanuts at the bottom and billions at the top. The Republican party is about as patriotic as the mafia. Come to think of it, not nearly as patriotic as the mafia. The mafia has a sense of proportion. The Republicans are perfectly willing to destroy the country in order to continue raping it. That is treason, not patriotism.
Try again.
October 22, 2008 6:34 PM
22.10.2008
Could Obama Lose Even After He Wins?In the Washington Post today, Mike Gerson tries to get his tentacles around the conservative defections to Obama:
[Obama] sees himself as the reconciler of opposites, the seer of merit on both sides, the transcender of stale debates. He is the racial healer who understands racial anger. The peace candidate who prefers a more aggressive war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. … All things being equal, conservatives prefer liberals to be ironic and self-questioning rather than messianic and filled with gleaming-eyed intensity. In Obama’s case, this humility might translate into an administration focused on achievable goals, run by seasoned, reasonable professionals (such as Tom Daschle and Dennis Ross), reaching out to Republicans in the new Cabinet and avoiding culture war battles when possible.
I like the idea of Obama as “ironic and self-questioning,” and I think his astonishing ability to appear to be everything to everyone is some of what appeals to conservatives. But, Gerson goes on, Obama’s reconciler temperament and his lack of intense passions of his own means he’s bound to disappoint his moderate and conservative admirers:
[C]ourage may be required to confront a genuinely radical and passionate Democratic Congress. Following an electoral victory, Obama is likely to face a massive challenge: … Democratic leaders with large majorities would be pushed by conviction and hubris, and pressured by Democratic constituencies, toward divisive measures that punish and alienate businesses, seek backward-looking political vengeance and impose cultural liberalism.
You hear this all the time from conservatives: Obama might be okay, maybe, but once in the Oval Office he’ll be as effective as a well-intentioned insect in stopping the stampeding behemoth that is the Liberal Congress. But, my friends, it’s just not true. Do not expect the Congress sworn in next January to be a left-wing monolith bent on replacing those moribund North Carolina textile plants with leather shops and gun-to-plowshare factories.
Yes, the Democrats are poised to expand their House majority — but by electing conservative Democrats who, in some cases, have ideologically more in common with John McCain than with Nancy Pelosi. These conservative Democrats — many of whose districts will vote McCain — won’t feel that they owe Obama, will be well-organized as a faction under the “Blue Dog” banner, and, if their actions in the 110th are any indicator, won’t shirk from bucking their party’s leadership. Some even view their mandate as to put the brakes on liberals. Check out, for an example, today’s Post endorsement of Frank Kratovil, a conservative Democratic candidate vying to turn a red district in Maryland blue (I’ve also got a story on him in this issue). The endorsement echoes one of Kratovil’s own biggest points in his pitch:
In a Congress likely to be controlled by Democrats, Mr. Kratovil would provide a welcome counterweight to the more liberal members of his party.
P.S. Don’t miss Tim Fernholz’s interesting account of how the Democratic leadership helped nurture these conservative young’uns:
As [North Carolina conservative Democrat Heath] Shuler puts it, “Rahm understands districts such as mine. There are things that we have to disagree [about] because of my personal beliefs and my district’s beliefs, that we may differ from the party. Rahm … never tried to change my mind. Being pro-life is a perfect example. The party is a pro-choice party, we feel strongly in my district that being pro-life is very, very important.”
–Eve Fairbanks
Posted: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 11:44 AM with 7 comment(s)
21.10.2008
Obama’s Sneaky New Climate StrategyLast week, Jason Grumet, one of Obama’s main energy advisors, caused a small splash in enviro-policy circles by telling Bloomberg News that, if Obama becomes president, his EPA would probably use the authority given to it by the Supreme Court last year and start regulating carbon-dioxide emissions directly. In other words, an Obama administration wouldn’t necessarily have to wait for Congress before starting to curtail greenhouse gases.
Now, my sense has is that the Obama camp is simply applying a little pre-emptive pressure to the various interest groups that are going to be involved in climate policy—especially businesses. These folks may not want any sort of carbon cap, but if Obama’s EPA is going to start cracking down on greenhouse gases anyway, using the relatively clumsy Clean Air Act, then they’ll probably line up to support a cap-and-trade bill. (In theory, a trading regime is more cost-effective than straight-up regulation, since it allows the cheapest and easiest reductions to get done first, though here’s some dissent on that point from Gar Lipow.)
But here’s a different view, courtesy of Michael Northrup and David Sassoon writing in Environmental Finance, making the case for Clean Air Act regulation on the merits. They don’t trust Congress to design a decent cap-and-trade bill, and think that any new trading regime would take too long to get up and running. The catch is that no one agrees on how the EPA would regulate carbon on its own. Would it build off and coordinate existing state-level endeavors like the Western Climate Initiative or RGGI? Would the EPA just set flat CO2 limits on all coal-fired plants, oil refineries, steel and concrete plants, etc? It’s not clear, and the EPA is still seeking public comment from experts. But if Obama becomes president and Congress can’t pass its own bill on greenhouse gases, this could be the epicenter of climate policy over the next four years, so it’s one to watch very carefully.
–Bradford Plumer
Posted: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 11:18 PM with 1 comment(s)
Comments
You must be logged-in to comment.
Tags: BARACK OBAMA, OBAMA, DEMOCRAT, FINANCIAL CRISIS, GLOBAL RECESSION, DID OBAMA PLANNED THE GLOBAL RECESSION, OBAMA THE SECRET AGENT, UNETHICAL, OBAMA THE RECESSION AGENT, OBAMA PRE PLANNED THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS, OBAMA THE LAWYER WHO PLANNED A GLOBAL RECESSION, RECESSION IS COMING WITH OBAMA, OBAMA THE FRAUD, RECESSION IS COMING BEHIND OBAMA, GLOBAL FALLPosted in Uncategorized No Comments »
harriscrl3 said:
Republicans would rather ship their $15 an hour job Overseas so that folks in China can pay the equivalent of $1 a week and then force Americans to buy substandard product that contains lead while competing with their teenage children for the minimum wage McDonald jobs. The end result is Corporations get richer American workers get poorer China POLLUTE and American children are chewing on Lead Toys.
So who the hell do you think love their country more
Carol
LOGIN TO THE GROUP FOR MORE AWARENESS
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=30992208397&ref=ts
https://obamaandthefinancialcrisis.wordpress.com/wp-admin/page.php?action=edit&post=3
https://obamaandthefinancialcrisis.wordpress.com/wp-admin/page.php?action=edit&post=3
How Did it happen??? Did the top donors and corporate supporters of OBAMA pre planned to launch and create a US Financial Crisis and a Global Financial Crisis which help Barack Obama to win the US Elections.EVIDENCE WHICH PROVE THAT OBAMA CREATEDTHE US FINANCIAL CRISIS:OBAMA’S TOP DONORS FOR THE CAMPAIGHNThis table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization’s PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization’s members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY’s List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers.
Goldman Sachs $739,521University of California $697,506Harvard University $501,489Citigroup Inc $492,548Google Inc $487,355JPMorgan Chase & Co $475,112National Amusements Inc $432,169Microsoft Corp $429,656UBS AG $419,550Lehman Brothers $391,774Wilmerhale Llp $383,024Time Warner $375,063Sidley Austin LLP $370,916Skadden, Arps et al $360,409Stanford University $341,399Morgan Stanley $341,380Latham & Watkins $328,879Jones Day $309,960University of Chicago $294,237General Electric $290,584
Percent of Contributions CodedCoded $165,000,223 (70%)Uncoded $71,144,336 (30%)Total $236,144,559
above you will see that half of the top American Corporates in USA who have given big money to obama are the companies who went bankrupt as a result of Financial Crisis and further among them are JP Morgan Chase,Lehman Brothers,Morgan Stanley, which have donated big money to Obama and little money to Mccain.Also the biggest technological players in the US economy and Global Economy like Google and Microsoft has helped and invested in OBAMA with great return on investmen plans.
So think twice before you vote OBAMA because no man in the world wants to run out of money and face a global recession as a result of voting a secret change agent who created a pre-planned financial crisis in order to be the American President.THE REAL TRUTH FROM THE BEGINING TO THE END.JOIN THE GROUP.
Recent News
OBAMA SAYS HE IS THE CHANGE AGENT! WELL OF COURSE HE IS THE CHANGE BECAUSE HE PLANNED A US FINANCIAL CRISIS ALONG WITH A GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS AND A COMING UP GLOBAL RECESSION TO CHANGE THE WORLD, WHICH MEANS TO BRING DOWN OF THE WORLD, IT IS A SIMPLE TRUTH.HOW OBAMA’S FAMILY HISTORY AND POLITICS TALLY :
Obama’s family root are from Afro Americans so which means Afro Americans were initially brought to United States by British to get the slavery work done so some slaves survived and they started their way in America.The most famous figure is the Martin. Luther King who was a so called socialist and so is the BARACK OBAMA who is going to bring American Socialism after winning the election by creating A US Financial Crisis and A Global Financial Crisis to change the ideas of high class,middle class and low class people in the global economical system which in turn bring down the International Economical Sytem and OBAMA’s mere ambition is to bring Socialism to the worlds leading country by brainwashing depressed people who are facing a Global Financial Crisis Scam which is also a creation by OBAMA to achieve his presidential goal.
THE HISTORY OF AFRO-AMERICANS FROM WIKIPEDIA>
African AmericanFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, searchAfrican American
Frederick Douglass • Beyoncé • Henry JohnsonCondoleezza Rice • M. L. King, Jr. • Colin PowellMalcolm X • Robert Curbeam • W. E. B. Du BoisTotal populationAfrican American39,151,870[1]13.1% of the total U.S. populationNon-Hispanic Black38,167,719[2]12.7% of the U.S. populationBlack Hispanic984,1510.33% of the U.S. population
Regions with significant populationsUnited States(predominantly Southern) 38,662,569 [3][4]Liberia(called Americo-Liberians) 150,000
LanguagesAmerican English · African American Vernacular English · minorities of Spanish · French · indigenous African languagesReligionChristianity (mostly Protestantism or Roman Catholicism) · Islam · Judaism · Buddhism · Atheism · othersRelated ethnic groupsAfrican-Native Americans · Americo-Liberian
————————–
————————–————————–
–
view • talk • editAfrican Americans or Black Americans are citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa.[5] In the United States, the term is generally used for Americans with at least partial Sub-Saharan African ancestry. Most African Americans are the descendants of captive Africans who survived the slavery era within the boundaries of the present United States, although some are — or are descended from — voluntary immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean, Central America, South America, or elsewhere.[6] African Americans make up the single largest racial minority in the United States,[7] though Hispanics compose the largest ethnic minority.[8]
History
An artist’s conception of Crispus Attucks, the first “martyr” of the American Revolution.Main article: African American historyThe first recorded Africans in British North America (the future United States) arrived in 1619 as indentured servants who settled in Jamestown, Virginia. They for many years were similar in legal position to poor English indenturees, who traded several years labor in exchange for passage to America.[9] Africans could legally raise crops and cattle to purchase their freedom.[10] They raised families, marrying other Africans and sometimes intermarrying with Native Americans or English settlers.[11] By the 1640s and 1650s, several African families owned farms around Jamestown and some became wealthy by colonial standards. The popular conception of a race-based slave system did not fully develop until the 1700s. During the 1770s Africans, both enslaved and free, helped rebellious English colonists secure American Independence by defeating the British in the American Revolution.[12] Africans and Englishmen fought side by side and were fully integrated.[13] James Armistead, an African American, played a large part in making possible the 1781 York town victory that established the United States as an independent nation.[14] Other prominent African Americans were Prince Whipple and Oliver Cromwell, who are both depicted in the front of the boat in George Washingtons famous 1776 Crossing the Delaware portrait. By 1860, there were 3.5 million enslaved Africans in the United States due to the Atlantic slave trade, and another 500,000 Africans lived free across the country.[15] In 1863, during the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. The proclamation declared all slaves in states that had seceded from the Union were free.[16] Advancing Union troops enforced the proclamation with Texas being the last state to be emancipated in 1865.[17] While the post-war reconstruction era was initially a time of progress for African Americans, in the late 1890s, Southern states enacted Jim Crow laws to enforce racial segregation and disenfranchisement.[18] Most African Americans followed the Jim Crow laws and assumed a posture of humility and servility to prevent becoming victims of racially motivated violence. To maintain self-esteem and dignity, middle-class African Americans created their own schools, churches, banks, social clubs, and other businesses.[19]
In the last decade of the nineteenth century, racially discriminatory laws and racial violence aimed at African Americans began to mushroom in the United States. These discriminatory acts included racial segregation – upheld by the United States Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896[20] - which was legally mandated by southern states and nationwide at the local level of government, voter suppression or disenfranchisement in the southern states, denial of economic opportunity or resources nationwide, and private acts of violence and mass racial violence aimed at African Americans unhindered or encouraged by government authorities. The desperate conditions of African Americans in the South that sparked the Great Migration of the early 20th century,[21] combined with a growing African-American intellectual and cultural elite in the Northern United States, led to a movement to fight violence and discrimination against African Americans that, like abolitionism before it, crossed racial lines. The Civil Rights Movement aimed at abolishing public and private acts of racial discrimination against African Americans between 1954 to 1968, particularly in the southern United States. By 1966, the emergence of the Black Power movement, which lasted from 1966 to 1975, expanded upon the aims of the Civil Rights Movement to include racial dignity, economic and political self-sufficiency, and freedom from white authority. The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom and the conditions which brought it into being are credited with putting pressure on President John F. Kennedy and then Lyndon B. Johnson that culminated in the passage the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that banned discrimination in public accommodations, employment, and labor unions.[22]
Ya ever hear of… Obama’s Global Poverty Act?Sam
This is the first entry in what we hope is a recurring feature on Bloggopher: “Ya ever hear of…?” It will highlight candidate proposals, achievements, statements, etc., that have not received much attention recently or ever.
Save for a few mentions in his Berlin oration (”lift the child in Bangladesh from poverty,” global wealth to be shared “more equitably”), Obama’s foreign tour was about conflicts and wars, not global poverty. But one of his least mentioned (it’s not even on VoteGopher— yet) foreign policy initiatives is a plan to combat global poverty, the aptly named Global Poverty Act, which Obama introduced in December 2007.
What little coverage the GPA has received has been from conservative commentators who overstate its breadth. Today’s Investor’s Business Daily editorial lambasts it as a global “tax” and says that it follows from “Marxist theology.” For those who favor audacious global poverty initiatives, perhaps the fact that IBD exaggerates the plan will come as a disappointment. In any case, the GPA will not be paid for “on the backs of U.S. taxpayers” because it doesn’t actually require additional spending (more on this later). Nor would it “force U.S. taxpayers to fork over 0.7% of our GDP every year to fund a global war on poverty.” This figure is based on the U.N. recommendation that countries spend that percentage of their GDP on foreign aid in order to reach the U.N. Millennium Development Goals (only one of these goals, the one that calls for a reduction by half in the number of people living on a dollar a day, is actually the subject of the GPA). Obama’s bill simply does not commit to that 0.7% funding level, or any funding level. That’s why the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the GPA will cost less than $1 million a year.
The rest of the IBD editorial is given over to dubious metaphors (Obama wants to buy the world a Coke, Obama wants to give the world a fish without teaching it how to fish), outright falsehoods (”the plan would cost every American taxpayer around $2,500″), guilt-by-association (Obama’s plan is connected somehow to John Kerry’s “global test” gaffe in 2004), and irrelevant, faux-populist nonsense (”Who’s to say we can’t load up our SUV and head out in search of bacon double cheeseburgers at the mall?”).
So let’s see what Obama’s bill does propose to do. A good place to start would be to look at the text of the legislation. The GPA would “require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy” for alleviating global poverty, the goal of which would be “reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide… who live on less than $1 a day.” Sounds ambitious, right? Surely it must call for a brand-new “tax” on Americans that will go directly into the pockets of the world’s poorest? Well, no, not even close. To reach this goal, the bill mandates only that the President’s “strategy” must include the following policies: continuing current poverty-reduction initiatives; improving the “effectiveness” of our assistance by requiring accountability-enhancing procedures like benchmarks, timetables, and reports to Congress; coordinating our efforts with other countries and institutions; mobilizing the private sector to help out; using debt relief and trade policy to “enhance economic development prospects for developing countries”; and, finally, the only item that could explicitly lead to an increased foreign aid budget, “making available additional overall United States assistance levels as appropriate.”
Granted, perhaps a President Obama would decide that it’s “appropriate” for assistance levels to be hiked way up. It may well be the case that, in order to reach the stated goal of the legislation, assistance levels need to be increased. But Obama is not reflexively throwing more money at the problem of global poverty. He is first seeing whether we can get more bang for our buck. The GPA does not obligate him, or anybody, to spend more money. It does nothing more than ask the President to work towards a goal and find the best ways of reaching that goal.
Unless you disagree with the importance of the goal, the method is hardly radical. This is not welfare for foreigners. The GPA says, when writing trade deals, we should take into account how they will affect those living on a dollar a day. Do the same when thinking about debt cancellation. Make sure the existing aid is “effective,” that it’s getting where it needs to go. Ask bureaucrats to figure out the best ways of coordinating poverty-reduction with other humanitarian goals, like fighting AIDS. Encourage private businesses, NGOs, non-profits, and existing agencies to help fight global poverty. The fact that the CBO estimates its cost at less than a million dollars demonstrates that the GPA is, at best, a bill to encourage poverty-reduction, not to require it.
One strike against Obama’s bill could be that it declares a goal but doesn’t prescribe a procedure that’s very likely to achieve the goal. That’s what I meant earlier when I suggested that those looking for sweeping anti-poverty initiatives should look elsewhere. Obama’s bill is a step in that direction, but it’s not a leap. The U.S. spends just 0.16% of its GDP on foreign aid, and has not set the goal of reaching 0.7%, as has Italy, the only country that in 2004 fell below the U.S. in its assistance levels. The GPA says that the U.S. would like to reduce global poverty, and that it hopes it won’t need to spend more money to do so. Leaving open the option of future spending increases may be enough to infuriate conservatives, but in the meantime, they can’t pretend that the bill mandates those increases. They’d know that if they read it.
Tags: Barack Obama, Diplomacy, Global Poverty, poverty
addthis_pub = ‘votegopher’;addthis_logo = ‘http://www.addthis.com/images/yourlogo.png’;addthis_logo_background = ‘EFEFFF’;addthis_logo_color = ‘666699′;addthis_brand = ‘votegopher.com’;addthis_options = ‘email, digg, favorites, facebook, delicious, google, myspace, Mixx, reddit, more’; Share
This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 30th, 2008 at 1:15 pm and is filed under The Issues, Impartially, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
3 Responses to “Ya ever hear of… Obama’s Global Poverty Act?”
This Just In: Obama Is a Secret Agent from the U.N.! - The Plank Says:August 6th, 2008 at 7:23 am […] sbarr13 said: Jeff, yeah, your guess is pretty much right. Here’s a post on the Global Poverty Act that explains it all: http://www.votegopher.com/blog August 6, 2008 9:41 AM // […]
TLB Says:August 6th, 2008 at 10:02 am It would be fair to state that this bill could start a process that would result in the U.S. spending the amount claimed; see for instance this estimate from the WorldBank: peekURL.com/z1doski
Note also this from the bill: “The year 2007 marks the mid-point to the Millennium Development Goals deadline of 2015.” That implies that the bill wants us to continue on the path to meeting that deadline, and doing that is going to require us to spend a lot of money, in addition to doing a lot of other things covered by the MDG.
Maybe next time we can look forward to this site discussing those other MDGs and admitting that BHO obviously wants us to meet all of them.
admin Says:August 6th, 2008 at 1:03 pm TLB,Yes, it would be fair to state that the GPA “could start a process that would result in the U.S. spending the amount claimed.” I note with a heavy heart that this is not at all what has been claimed by you yourself or by right-wing commentators. The IBD editorial said “Obama’s bill would force U.S. taxpayers to fork over 0.7% of our gross domestic product every year.” Let me make this clear: That. Is. Not. True.
Moreover, though I am thankful that you acknowledge this bill only proposes to “start a process,” you neglect the fact that the next step in this process would be to get actual Congressional authorization for increased spending. The GPA doesn’t give that authority, and that’s why it only costs a million bucks, according to the CBO. All this bill says is that the president should seek to meet the U.N.’s goal, not that he should use the U.N.’s strategy, nor for that matter Jeffrey Sach’s or the World Bank’s.
Your argument is that the bill wants to meet the goal, and the goal “require[s] us to spend a lot of money.” Now, that may be your opinion, and in my post, I admit that one could jab at Obama’s bill for being toothless because it doesn’t do what would be “required” to meet the U.N.’s goal. It doesn’t tell anyone to spend more money. It seeks to reach the goal without spending more money, by doing everything else BUT spend more money: improve accountability, enhance “coordination,” mobilize the private sector, etc.
And why should we discuss the other Millennium Development Goals? The bill reiterates that we have agreed (both in 2000, under Clinton, and in 2005 under Bush) to work towards the MDGs. But, seeing as we have not heretofore committed 0.7% of our GDP to global poverty-reduction, what makes you think that merely mentioning the MDGs is as good as a funding commitment? The only MDG that the bill concerns is the poverty-reduction one. And while your speculation that Obama wants to meet all the MDGs may well be true, it would also be true about Bush, and probably McCain. The devil is in the details— how does one achieve the goal. Like or not, Obama’s proposal is not to throw money at it.
21.10.2008
Democratic Revolution in Presidential FundraisingFrankly, I am glad that the Democrats have finally gotten over their nearly four decades long obsession with campaign financing reform. I always thought that it was not a matter of money corrupting candidates but of money going primarily to Republicans. Democrats do have a penchant for self-righteousness. I hope it is finished, at least on this issue.
Even so, the Democrats didn’t do at all badly, what with those 527s and other independent vehicles that were engaged in the campaign, although independent of the party. Both Al Gore and John Kerry collected less money than their Republican opponents. But the margins were not enormous.
Still, Barack Obama has caused a revolution in presidential fund-raising. As the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times pointed out in Monday’s editions, Obama raised $150 million, with 633,000 contributors giving an average of $86 each to his campaign during the month of September. Or a total of $600 million up to October 1.
You have to have some pity for John McCain who stood by his commitment to the federal law he had sponsored and which allowed only so much fundraising (and spending) if the candidate decided to take matching funds from the government. I supposed you could say that this was a principled decision. I suspect, however, that it was a prudential one. McCain realized he had not and could not energize even his supporters to give what they usually did in other elections.
Campaign financing records will not be filed with the government commission that oversees these matters until Friday. So I am hazarding a small guess about what you can read from the information we already have from the Obama effort. But here is one fact that is self-evident:Democrats and liberal Democrats, at that, are not poorer than Republicans and conservatives. They can not only give and raise enormous sums. But those of them who are wealthy are quite willing, even enthusiastic, to contribute to a candidate whose success will mean an increase in their taxes. Nobody particularly likes paying taxes. But, as Warren Buffett said, he should not be paying a lesser percentage of his income in tax than his secretary does. I shouldn’t either, and neither should you.
Does this willingness make Democrats more patriotic than Republicans? No. Does it make them masochistic? No. But it is a perfectly sentient response to a national predicament that has arisen from selfishness run rampant and enshrined in both law and culture. So let’s just agree that it is a concrete expression of Matthew Arnold’s ethical injunction to “choose equality and flee greed.”
Posted: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 11:50 AM with 4 comment(s)
Comments
You must be logged-in to comment.
Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!
sdemuth said:
I’m with Biden on this: unwillingness to pay a fair share of taxes, or willingness to starve the government of tax revenue on the foolish principle that government cannot do anything useful, is unpatriotic. Republicans have poisoned the public debate in this country for years with “government is the problem” and “starve the beast” and the notion that the only legitimate policy for a candidate is a tax cut. Let’s call it what it is: selfish and unpatriotic.
October 21, 2008 12:17 PM
rozenson said:
Hear, hear.
I’m one of those people who’s given to Obama in numbers less than $200. The Obama campaign has chosen not to disclose my contributions because it does not have to by law, but the McCain folks seem to think that concealing small-time donors will ruin democracy. Well, here you go, Steve Schmidt: commenter rozenson of TNR talkback has contributed $65 to the Barack Obama for President campaign. Yes, I am complicit in destroying democracy. Do with me what you want.
October 21, 2008 4:22 PM
Wandreycer1 said:
That’s just not true about campaign finance reform Marty - ithe prostitution ring set up in DC is seriously toxic to the our country (see: Wall Street). Corporate ownership of our reprsentatives is not free speech.
I’m with Gore Vidal on this, why not just have the corporate, oil and coal fatcats run the debates? Or even just interview the candidates in a big arena somewhere? It would be more honest.
Obama’s finance model has given the people back their government, 200 bucks at a time.
October 21, 2008 6:23 PM
roidubouloi said:
Sorry Mr. Peretz, but the willingness to pay more taxes for the common good is more patriotic than the alternative and the Democratic party is overwhelmingly more patriotic than the Republican party.
The Republican party drapes itself in the flag and jingoism in order to draw attention away from its only real agenda — diverting public resources into the pockets of its own faithful on a heavily sliding scale that produces peanuts at the bottom and billions at the top. The Republican party is about as patriotic as the mafia. Come to think of it, not nearly as patriotic as the mafia. The mafia has a sense of proportion. The Republicans are perfectly willing to destroy the country in order to continue raping it. That is treason, not patriotism.
Try again.
October 22, 2008 6:34 PM
22.10.2008
Could Obama Lose Even After He Wins?In the Washington Post today, Mike Gerson tries to get his tentacles around the conservative defections to Obama:
[Obama] sees himself as the reconciler of opposites, the seer of merit on both sides, the transcender of stale debates. He is the racial healer who understands racial anger. The peace candidate who prefers a more aggressive war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. … All things being equal, conservatives prefer liberals to be ironic and self-questioning rather than messianic and filled with gleaming-eyed intensity. In Obama’s case, this humility might translate into an administration focused on achievable goals, run by seasoned, reasonable professionals (such as Tom Daschle and Dennis Ross), reaching out to Republicans in the new Cabinet and avoiding culture war battles when possible.
I like the idea of Obama as “ironic and self-questioning,” and I think his astonishing ability to appear to be everything to everyone is some of what appeals to conservatives. But, Gerson goes on, Obama’s reconciler temperament and his lack of intense passions of his own means he’s bound to disappoint his moderate and conservative admirers:
[C]ourage may be required to confront a genuinely radical and passionate Democratic Congress. Following an electoral victory, Obama is likely to face a massive challenge: … Democratic leaders with large majorities would be pushed by conviction and hubris, and pressured by Democratic constituencies, toward divisive measures that punish and alienate businesses, seek backward-looking political vengeance and impose cultural liberalism.
You hear this all the time from conservatives: Obama might be okay, maybe, but once in the Oval Office he’ll be as effective as a well-intentioned insect in stopping the stampeding behemoth that is the Liberal Congress. But, my friends, it’s just not true. Do not expect the Congress sworn in next January to be a left-wing monolith bent on replacing those moribund North Carolina textile plants with leather shops and gun-to-plowshare factories.
Yes, the Democrats are poised to expand their House majority — but by electing conservative Democrats who, in some cases, have ideologically more in common with John McCain than with Nancy Pelosi. These conservative Democrats — many of whose districts will vote McCain — won’t feel that they owe Obama, will be well-organized as a faction under the “Blue Dog” banner, and, if their actions in the 110th are any indicator, won’t shirk from bucking their party’s leadership. Some even view their mandate as to put the brakes on liberals. Check out, for an example, today’s Post endorsement of Frank Kratovil, a conservative Democratic candidate vying to turn a red district in Maryland blue (I’ve also got a story on him in this issue). The endorsement echoes one of Kratovil’s own biggest points in his pitch:
In a Congress likely to be controlled by Democrats, Mr. Kratovil would provide a welcome counterweight to the more liberal members of his party.
P.S. Don’t miss Tim Fernholz’s interesting account of how the Democratic leadership helped nurture these conservative young’uns:
As [North Carolina conservative Democrat Heath] Shuler puts it, “Rahm understands districts such as mine. There are things that we have to disagree [about] because of my personal beliefs and my district’s beliefs, that we may differ from the party. Rahm … never tried to change my mind. Being pro-life is a perfect example. The party is a pro-choice party, we feel strongly in my district that being pro-life is very, very important.”
–Eve Fairbanks
Posted: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 11:44 AM with 7 comment(s)
21.10.2008
Obama’s Sneaky New Climate StrategyLast week, Jason Grumet, one of Obama’s main energy advisors, caused a small splash in enviro-policy circles by telling Bloomberg News that, if Obama becomes president, his EPA would probably use the authority given to it by the Supreme Court last year and start regulating carbon-dioxide emissions directly. In other words, an Obama administration wouldn’t necessarily have to wait for Congress before starting to curtail greenhouse gases.
Now, my sense has is that the Obama camp is simply applying a little pre-emptive pressure to the various interest groups that are going to be involved in climate policy—especially businesses. These folks may not want any sort of carbon cap, but if Obama’s EPA is going to start cracking down on greenhouse gases anyway, using the relatively clumsy Clean Air Act, then they’ll probably line up to support a cap-and-trade bill. (In theory, a trading regime is more cost-effective than straight-up regulation, since it allows the cheapest and easiest reductions to get done first, though here’s some dissent on that point from Gar Lipow.)
But here’s a different view, courtesy of Michael Northrup and David Sassoon writing in Environmental Finance, making the case for Clean Air Act regulation on the merits. They don’t trust Congress to design a decent cap-and-trade bill, and think that any new trading regime would take too long to get up and running. The catch is that no one agrees on how the EPA would regulate carbon on its own. Would it build off and coordinate existing state-level endeavors like the Western Climate Initiative or RGGI? Would the EPA just set flat CO2 limits on all coal-fired plants, oil refineries, steel and concrete plants, etc? It’s not clear, and the EPA is still seeking public comment from experts. But if Obama becomes president and Congress can’t pass its own bill on greenhouse gases, this could be the epicenter of climate policy over the next four years, so it’s one to watch very carefully.
–Bradford Plumer
Posted: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 11:18 PM with 1 comment(s)
Comments
You must be logged-in to comment.
Tags: BARACK OBAMA, OBAMA, DEMOCRAT, FINANCIAL CRISIS, GLOBAL RECESSION, DID OBAMA PLANNED THE GLOBAL RECESSION, OBAMA THE SECRET AGENT, UNETHICAL, OBAMA THE RECESSION AGENT, OBAMA PRE PLANNED THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS, OBAMA THE LAWYER WHO PLANNED A GLOBAL RECESSION, RECESSION IS COMING WITH OBAMA, OBAMA THE FRAUD, RECESSION IS COMING BEHIND OBAMA, GLOBAL FALLPosted in Uncategorized No Comments »
harriscrl3 said:
Republicans would rather ship their $15 an hour job Overseas so that folks in China can pay the equivalent of $1 a week and then force Americans to buy substandard product that contains lead while competing with their teenage children for the minimum wage McDonald jobs. The end result is Corporations get richer American workers get poorer China POLLUTE and American children are chewing on Lead Toys.
So who the hell do you think love their country more
Carol
LOGIN TO THE GROUP FOR MORE AWARENESS
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=30992208397&ref=ts
https://obamaandthefinancialcrisis.wordpress.com/wp-admin/page.php?action=edit&post=3
https://obamaandthefinancialcrisis.wordpress.com/wp-admin/page.php?action=edit&post=3
