backtop


Print 98 comment(s) - last by MrPoletski.. on Jan 13 at 7:12 AM


Aneesh Chopra  (Source: AFP)
CEA President Gary Shapiro says the government is silencing innovation

The Obama administration has already had a profound impact on technology.  From charging Intel with antitrust violations to taking majority ownership of GM and Chrysler, the administration's actions have profoundly affected the tech landscape.  And as new decisions, such as the proposed ACTA treaty and Copenhagen climate promises loom, the Obama administration is a hot topic at the 2010 Consumer Electronics Show.

Obama's Chief Technology Officer Aneesh Chopra was in Las Vegas yesterday, but received a rather icy welcome from Consumer Electronics Association President Gary Shapiro, who admonished the Obama administration's approach on many topics.

He offered mild criticism of the bailout of the financial and auto sectors, which he called "panic spending".  And he stated, "When it comes to innovation, there's a lot the government can do, and there's a lot they should not do.  The government doesn't spur innovation or entrepreneurship. The government often gets in the way."

Mr. Shapiro complains that the Obama administration isn't doing enough to make sure that the U.S.'s trade policy allows our goods to compete with cheaper goods elsewhere.  He also complains that they are dragging their feet about implementing measures to allow the faster transfer of tech savvy workers from nations like China and India.

An apologetic Chopra commented, "We have to eat our own dogfood.  Gary is right about the federal deficit. We are in an economic crisis but we are going to tackle it. We have to get it right."

Mr. Chopra is a graduate of John Hopkins and worked in government and as the managing director at a health think tank before taking on the role of government CTO.  The tech industry's leadership has thus far been rather mixed in their opinions on his leadership and that of the Obama administration.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By hmurchison on 1/8/2010 12:59:12 PM , Rating: -1
The whole Intel vs Nvidia is a debacle. Newsflash to Intel .."your graphics tech sucks". Preventing Intel's weight from crushing smaller and better companies isn't thwarting innovation it's helping preserve it.

As for GM and Chrysler...it's still a bit early to ascribe "innovation" to them unless you're talking about the Chevy Volt which will elicit a "nice but too expensive" as people leave the GM dealer and go buy a Prius.

Innovation only comes from having multiple vendors vying for marketshare. How much innovation do you see from Cisco in light of viewing their acquisition list for the last decade? Not enough IMO.

Shapiro needs a cold can of STFU.




RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By Reclaimer77 on 1/8/10, Rating: -1
RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By amanojaku on 1/8/2010 2:00:31 PM , Rating: 1
hmurchison is right, Shapiro needs to STFU. He's complaining that the financials and others got money from the bailout, forgetting that it was a policy created during the Bush era by Henry Paulson. McCain and Obama supported the final version of the measure, but neither had a hand in creating the original version. It had to be revised a few times before passing both the House and the Senate, which is the only time Obama or anyone other than Paulson could have legally (I stress legally) influenced the proposal. It went into effect October 3, 2008; Obama assumed Office January 20, 2009, nearly four months afterward. By then a good portion of the money was "lent". Obama is just trying to play ball with the Republicans and instead he gets shafted.

Then Shapiro says America needs to increase skilled emigration. I don't think you'd like that:
quote:
By Reclaimer77 on 1/4/2010 3:23:22 PM , Rating: -1
It's not like there are millions of Americans that can't even find work. Clearly we need to bring in foreigners to compete with Americans for jobs.


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By SandmanWN on 1/8/2010 3:12:43 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
It went into effect October 3, 2008; Obama assumed Office January 20, 2009, nearly four months afterward. By then a good portion of the money was "lent". Obama is just trying to play ball with the Republicans and instead he gets shafted.

Only $298B of TARP I was spent by the time Obama got his hands on it. Thats less than half. And nearly all of the money under Bush's TARP I plan has been repaid. "Lent" and repaid, check.

Of course the monkey was out of the bag for O. He went on to create TARP II at $900B and this wonderful medical mess we've inherited at 10 Trillion. Then put money down on two car companies that haven't made money in a decade.

298B vs 11,900B and 10% unemployment. Maybe you need to take a sip of that STFU yourself...


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By omnicronx on 1/8/10, Rating: -1
RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By SandmanWN on 1/8/2010 4:21:40 PM , Rating: 5
Not enough time has passed for revisionist history just yet.
quote:
TARP 1 was designed to increase lending

Uhm, NO, that was part II genius and completely organized by BO.

The CBO and several other organizations tracked the funds of TARP. TARP I's sole purpose was to rescue the financial market. Lending was not even on the radar yet. The following summers high gas prices revealed the housing. When the funds exceeded the needs of the banks it was later revised as an "as needed" fund. TARP I funds are tracked and mostly recuperated.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., Morgan Stanley, American Express Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., U.S. Bancorp, Capital One Financial Corp., Bank of New York Mellon Corp., State Street Corp., BB&T Corp, and Bank of America have repaid TARP money.

AIG, GM, and Regions are the only companies not listed as having not repaid or don't currently have a plan to do so.
quote:
By the time TARP was actually passed, the market didnt even think it would work.

You mean you didn't think it would work, but it did so get over it.


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By omnicronx on 1/8/2010 5:32:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
TARP I's sole purpose was to rescue the financial market. Lending was not even on the radar yet.
.. and what exactly do you think was the purpose of pumping billions back into financial institutions? To get them to continue lending, so to say it was not even on the radar yet is just plain foolish.
quote:
You mean you didn't think it would work, but it did so get over it.
Really? So why is it when it was announced the stock market rebounded, in which the bill ended up not being passed. When the bill was finally passed the stock market failed to rebound in the same way, that's not my opinion that's the financial markets opinion. Personally I had no idea if it would work or not, nor can you make the claim that it did work. Its not like it would have an instant effect, for all you know TARP II was the reason the market rebounded.


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By SandmanWN on 1/8/2010 7:18:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Really? So why is it when it was announced the stock market rebounded, in which the bill ended up not being passed. When the bill was finally passed the stock market failed to rebound in the same way, that's not my opinion that's the financial markets opinion.

Pretty simple with anyone with a brain that has actually learned anything from what has happened.

The markets fluctuate on the possibilities of just about everything. A larger than average thunderstorm flings the market into turmoil. You aren't exactly hitting me whirlwind evidence here. Speculation is one of the biggest pitfalls of the current market and that hasn't changed under Bush or Obama.
quote:
.. and what exactly do you think was the purpose of pumping billions back into financial institutions?

And what do you mean it didn't have an instant effect? Are you blind??? Did you not see the effect of an imminent run on the bank that was circulating when these institutions were floundering? It happened to many small banks, and one particular bank in California that was ceased by Feds before it collapsed in utter disarray.

The whole and entire purpose of TARP was the stop the imminent collapse of the dollar. The was no collective insight beyond that. There wasn't enough time! Nor did they have any idea how many banks would be affected or the outcome of lending for the next year. They took the biggest banks that had the highest impact of the economy and did what was necessary for their survival, thats it! Sorry, but you are clearly looking back on the situation with so much revisionist history and hatred that you can't tell the obvious from your little fantasy world.


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By ekv on 1/11/2010 3:25:39 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
bank in California that was ceased by Feds

as in deceased? or perhaps seized? The way I heard it was that Paulson was shoving TARP down everybodies throat, so to speak, including small banks that were perfectly solvent and did NOT want the money. With the money, of course, came Federal control. Etc.

quote:
The whole and entire purpose of TARP was the stop the imminent collapse of the dollar

Odd statement, especially considering that the Fed has not supported the dollar for quite some time. Foreign governments and other large holders of dollars aren't happy at losing billions upon billions [may Carl Sagan roll over in his grave 8] of dollars in the process. Pressure is mounting to do something. FOMC meeting is Jan. 25-26 which, simply, will be interesting.

I am also terribly curious what the deal tween Turbo Timmy and AIG was. Of course, that transaction isn't exactly transparent. Or is it?


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By amanojaku on 1/8/2010 4:29:13 PM , Rating: 1
ONLY $300B of TARP was spent in three months? That's nearly HALF! Programs like that are supposed to last years and it was in danger of being spent in less than one year.

We all know what happened, of course. As you pointed out Obama spent another $787B (not including any later adjustments) on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. That included more than just business relief. $51B was set aside for business relief. $237B was tax cuts for citizens. $91B went to education and $148B went to health care. $83B went to worker's benefits (unemployment, welfare, job training, other)... The list goes on, but at less than 10% business bailouts were not a significant part of the stimulus.

I agree that Obama needs to quit with the damn medical reform. People aren't THAT interested in change, and we don't have the time or money for projects like this. However, it's just a PROPOSAL, and one that is designed to recover costs over time. It's not meant to be a flash in the pan type of system but something that can be enhanced over the long term. That won't be cheap, but if it's capable of reclaiming money the way Obama says it should then the ESTIMATES of the plan's costs may be justified in a few years. For crying out loud, this is a plan for 300+M people, it's not going to show positive results over night.


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By SandmanWN on 1/8/2010 4:55:57 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
ONLY $300B of TARP was spent in three months?

Yeah, only... I mean we are talking Trillions under BO. Whats Billions these days anyway?
quote:
Programs like that are supposed to last years and it was in danger of being spent in less than one year.

Which is less than most of it as you described previously.

And it did last years by the way. They spent half in a few short months sure, but the rest has been sitting at the Fed untouched until just a few months ago when guess what happened...
BO just discovered there is 350B left over from the first TARP that hasn't been spent yet. Oh Goodie!!!
quote:
The list goes on, but at less than 10% business bailouts were not a significant part of the stimulus.

What stimulus? GW saved the financial institutions. It was never intended to be stimulus. You are mixing your presidents here.
quote:
For crying out loud, this is a plan for 300+M people, it's not going to show positive results over night.

Because its being spent incorrectly on buying out companies that haven't turned a profit in a decade, or that we have no idea where most of the money is going under BO? Lets be honest here, do you expect it ever to show a positive result?

It didn't take this long after WWII for things to show positive influence. There is NO positive influence at this point at all!!! I mean we just made it through what is usually the most product quarter of the year for almost every company and what did we get... Another 50,000 jobs lost.
quote:
That won't be cheap, but if it's capable of reclaiming money the way Obama says it should then the ESTIMATES of the plan's costs may be justified in a few years.
What does he know! He was a teacher of the constitution, not business theory. And what if he's wrong? Have you contemplated that? With the national debt at nearly 100% of GDP, there are no second chances!!!!!


By SandmanWN on 1/8/2010 10:01:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Another 50,000 jobs lost.

Self correction...
Another 85,000 jobs lost.


By amanojaku on 1/9/2010 8:47:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, only... I mean we are talking Trillions under BO. Whats Billions these days anyway?
Obama hasn't spent trillions of dollars on anything. The trillions you're complaining about is what some people ESTIMATE Obama's health care reform plan to cost over the long term IF PASSED. It has not even been passed, therefore no money has been spent.

You are ignorant of the details of the 2008 bailout. Of the $700B, $220 was set aside for small businesses, affordable housing, and private investments. That means the big bailouts took $356B of the allocated $480B, a whopping 74%. In four months. Most of the left over money came from the $220B that was NOT allocated to big business.

quote:
What stimulus? GW saved the financial institutions. It was never intended to be stimulus. You are mixing your presidents here.
You mixed your presidents. I was talking about Obama's $787B stimulus plan, known as American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Less than 10% of it was for corporations.
quote:
It didn't take this long after WWII for things to show positive influence.
Well, we aren't at the end of WWII. WWII was preceded by the Great Depression, so the economy was moving in a positive direction. A great deal of technical innovation went into fighting the war that resulted in the creation of the computer, advanced weapons and vehicles, and energy sources. With most of Europe in shambles and Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and South America still underdeveloped the US was the de facto king of the world. Most of the world relied on our assistance, and paid through the nose for it over the next four decades. We got lucky; if we had lost our economy might not have recovered until who knows how long.

We're still fighting our wars, both in Afghanistan and Iraq. There was nothing to gain in either war and everything to loose. And we're fighting against guerrillas and terrorists; few American companies are prepared to combat that type of enemy, much less profit from it. Go figure the economy hasn't benefited from either. But that's Obama's fault, because he started the wars and runs all businesses. *rolls eyes*
quote:
I mean we just made it through what is usually the most product quarter of the year for almost every company and what did we get... Another 50,000 jobs lost.
And that's Obama's fault if a company is run into the ground by mismanagement? On the one hand you say you don't want the guy bailing out companies, on the other hand you're blaming him for the jobs lost when even MORE would be lost without the bailouts. You can't have it both ways, so what do YOU suggest? Government jobs? It sounds to me like he's doing the best he can by providing financing, the same as Bush.
quote:
What does he know! He was a teacher of the constitution, not business theory. And what if he's wrong? Have you contemplated that? With the national debt at nearly 100% of GDP, there are no second chances!!!!!
That's why the guy, and everyone president before him, has advisers. It's not like Obama writes a plan on toilet paper in the john, then pushes it onto the public. And with groups like Congress, lobbyists, etc... there are plenty of people capable of stopping him before we go over the brink. And if you really want to get pissed at someone yell at Bush. The US debt as a percentage of GDP has gone up steadily since 2001, after eight years of decline. The decline was during Clinton's administration, while the increase was during Bush Jr.'s administration. I don't hear you busting BUSH'S balls over what he DID, but you have plenty of fire for Obama and what he has not yet done.


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By hmurchison on 1/8/2010 2:00:59 PM , Rating: 3
Reclaimer77

Nice rebuttal.

Classic "Appeal to Authority" logical fallacy. Next time try actually "thinking" in your response. Wait a minute ..you probably don't understand what I mean. Let me dumb it down for you.

Shapiro being a CEO or a President doesn't make his comments any more valid than yours or mine unless his statement can be supported well enough with logical reasoning.

Stating that Obama is hampering innovation by enforcing antitrust laws is pure conjecture and poor conjecture at that.


By Reclaimer77 on 1/8/2010 11:10:44 PM , Rating: 1
He's not an authority figure unless you happen to be working under him.

The people who proclaim everything Obama does is right are the ones operating under that premise. The "Cult of personality" crowd as well.


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By AEvangel on 1/8/10, Rating: 0
RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By Reclaimer77 on 1/8/10, Rating: -1
RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By amanojaku on 1/8/2010 2:05:11 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Like it or not this Administration, in it's FIRST YEAR, set national records in spending, debt, and government intervention into the private sector.
That kind of makes sense, seeing as how $700+ billion dollars was set aside to save these companies from failing. Oh, and since that money was set aside BEFORE Obama was in office he would have gotten into a lot of hot water if he refused to hand out those funds. Especially if refusing to rescue the companies caused the Second Depression.


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By Ammohunt on 1/8/2010 3:12:52 PM , Rating: 4
Reserving funs to offer businesses loans for them to stay solvent != to nationalizing them whcih was Obamas approach not the prior administration.

This is capitalism GM should have been left to FAIL so other companies with better business sense like Ford or Toyota could come in and fill any vacuum left by GM.


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By amanojaku on 1/8/2010 3:36:35 PM , Rating: 2
GM wasn't nationalized. It was financially backed by the government to keep it from failing. GM employs nearly 250M people worldwide; the impact of letting them go during a recession would definitely lead to a depression, and would even stop a booming economy. Unfortunately, an organization the size of GM doesn't have many options for funding other than a government. You can spout capitalist ideals all you want, but if you were one of the 250M loosing your job because the government didn't help out you'd be pissed, especially if it meant no job prospects for the next 10 years. The outlook is THAT bad in some places, with folks simply moving in with family to make ends meet.

Providing funding is not the same as providing stability, however, and the government, like any lender, is presenting terms to ensure economic viability. If the government was nationalizing companies it would simply take them over without. The government is giving these companies a choice: take my money under my terms, or go find your funding elsewhere.

By the way, the government's involvement with GM revolved mostly around liquidation of assets in accordance with section 363 of the bankruptcy code. Once GM pays off its loans, or dies trying, it regains full control of its company. Needless to say, these aren't normal failures and the measure taken aren't normal as a result.


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By wookie1 on 1/8/2010 9:19:31 PM , Rating: 4
THe GM and Chrysler takeovers were simply paybacks to the union for support in the election. That's why the senior bondholders got shafted when the company was given to unions.


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By Ammohunt on 1/10/2010 8:58:10 AM , Rating: 2
The government owning a 51% share of a company is the Governement Nationalizing the company. it is no different that what Hugo Chavez did to the oil industry in Venezuela.

Either way you have a very screwed up view of what the role of governemnt should be. Proping up failed business models in my opinion is not one of them.


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By rcc on 1/11/2010 2:17:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
GM employs nearly 250M people worldwide;


I hope they abbreviate differently in your part of the world, cuz in mine you are off by 3 orders of magnitude.


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By vapore0n on 1/8/2010 3:51:22 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that GM got too big to fail. Just try and think how bad the US would be if such company went under.
Not only GM but its suppliers would go under.

Ford and Toyota would have a really hard time filling in a space when no one has any money to buy their products.


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By omnicronx on 1/8/2010 3:58:54 PM , Rating: 3
Do yo really think Bush would have let GM fail had it gone bankrupt a year earlier?

Republican or Democrat, one way or another, GM would have been bailed out.

While I agree these companies should have been left to fail, there surely would have been backlash before the industry rebounded(which could have taken a while), and in the world of politics where only the here and the now counts, you are kidding yourself if you think action would have not been taken.

You would be shooting your party let alone yourself in the foot for doing so..


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By KCjoker on 1/8/2010 7:15:37 PM , Rating: 2
Difference is this Bush gave LOANS while Obama gave bail outs.


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By rdawise on 1/8/2010 9:32:31 PM , Rating: 1
For those with very short term memoryrs (coughKCjokercough) the bailout talks started DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. What he said is true neither Bush or Obama would have let the companies simply fail without some measure.


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By Reclaimer77 on 1/8/2010 9:36:41 PM , Rating: 2
The banks already tried to pay the money back, Obama said "no you can't, you first have to pass our STRESS TEST ".

Most of that 700 billion has been paid back, and the rest of it will soon.

The problem is you are associating a one time loan with the type of massive government beauracracy that Obama is putting into place. Which YEAR AFTER YEAR will cause higher spending, bigger deficits, and which will continue to fail and cost the taxpayers more money.

This is a HUGE difference.

I'm not defending Bush at all. He broke trust with us Conservatives time and time again. But you are living in a dream world, an absolute FANTASY, if you are even comparing the spending and debt caused of those two Presidents.

I really don't think some of you understand, or care, or are educated and informed enough to see what path Obama is taking us down. Massive wealth redistribution and massive spending and deficits of a scale we've never seen before. These are facts. Even the most biased economists are painting a very grim financial future to say the least.

Oh and did I mention unemployment ?


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By thurston on 1/9/2010 12:28:16 AM , Rating: 3
You are totally missing the big picture. How can you actually believe that the shitstorm that we have today is all Obama's fault? You should be just as pissed off at W and any other politician as you are with Obama, they are all to blame. Try some independent thought, stop regurgitate whatever Rush or Glenn tell you to think. Don't let yourself be fooled by the propaganda machines, the ones on the Right or the Left.


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By Reclaimer77 on 1/9/2010 1:30:30 AM , Rating: 2
You can't keep bringing up the past, like you guys love to do, and claim to see the "big picture"

The big picture is where we are heading, not where we have been. It's been two years since Bush, and frankly I'm sick and tired of hearing about him. The time for using him as an excuse and a human shield for your socialist agenda is OVER. People aren't buying it anymore.


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By stubeck on 1/9/2010 8:16:14 AM , Rating: 2
Its been less than a year since Bush left office, not two years.


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By zombiexl on 1/9/2010 11:31:03 AM , Rating: 2
This whole thread cracks me up. Lets look at some things we all know.

Obama has been president for almost a year (technically he started on his policies after he was elected, so slightly more than a year). He continues to blame his inherited economy. *Note* While he was in the senate the Dem's controlled congress, for those unaware congress holds the purse strings.

Bush was president for less than 8 months on sept 11, 2001 and he took a lot of crap for it. He never once blamed Clinton for the attack.

Bush completely turned into a socialist in his second term. Appointing a few judges was the only conservative thing he did.

Obama has raised taxes on tobacco more than all combined taxes since they began taxing tobacco. I don't smoke, chew, etc I just don't like BS taxes no matter who they affect.

I haven't seen one tax cut for real working people. I see a bunch of handouts for underachievers, but not much else. These could be considered a pay back for votes considering the welfare, ssi, public housing crowd voted for Obama in huge percentages.

Most people don't see a big picture they look to what can I do know.

Almost every time I hear an Obama sound bite he blames Bush. He accepted the job (some say he even bought it through the union's), and fought to win the position.

The day he took office it was HIS responsibility. It really concerns me that he wont man up and take responsibility. In any other job he would have been fired. I've never heard a CEO saying that he inherited a bad company and spending them into oblivion to fix the deficit.


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By Reclaimer77 on 1/9/2010 1:32:45 PM , Rating: 2
Not only did Bush never blame others, but he hardly if ever defended himself from even the most wacko accusations. Because the office of the President of the United States is supposed to be above such things. And if Nixon taught us anything, it's that a Republican President is committing suicide if he goes against the media. Fortunately for Obama he doesn't have that problem. The media, aside from Fox, appears to be all too willing to go along with this sham and never ask hard questions or point anything out.

quote:
Obama has raised taxes on tobacco more than all combined taxes since they began taxing tobacco. I don't smoke, chew, etc I just don't like BS taxes no matter who they affect.


The amount of taxes gained from tobacco tax is so large that the government is literally dependent on them to run. One wonders who they will come after next once they make smoking illegal. Also in a country that sucks in exporting as much as we do, tobacco is our single largest export. Stop killing the tobacco industry for goodness sakes, I say.

quote:
I haven't seen one tax cut for real working people.


And you wont. In Obama's eyes, real working people are fat cats who stepped on others to achieve whatever lifestyle they have gained. We have to take money from them and give to others.

quote:
These could be considered a pay back for votes considering the welfare, ssi, public housing crowd voted for Obama in huge percentages.


Don't forget the millions given to Acorn from the stimulus bill. Nothing stimulates the economy more than funding people so they can commit more voter fraud and help hookers file their taxes legally.


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By MrPoletski on 1/13/2010 7:12:24 AM , Rating: 2
You're insane. You're not even worth debating with, just worthy of being told you're a nutjob.


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By thurston on 1/9/2010 3:11:34 PM , Rating: 1
You are such a total shithead. Do you not realize that I am saying both parties suck? The big picture is not where we are heading we are already here. Obama and W and Clinton and H and Reagan they all fucking suck you shit for brains retard.


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By AEvangel on 1/8/10, Rating: 0
RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By Reclaimer77 on 1/8/2010 9:40:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because...your accusations of the current administration really does nothing to solve the problem.


No accusation was made. What I said was an absolute fact.


By Reclaimer77 on 1/8/2010 9:43:53 PM , Rating: 2
More facts
Barack Obama’s budget deficit in October was greater than George Bush’s budget deficit for all of 2007.

Obama tripled the national deficit his first year in office and he’s off to a record-setting start in fiscal year 2010.

quote:
“It is important though to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession,”


Quote : Barrack Obama


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By Samus on 1/8/10, Rating: -1
RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By Kurz on 1/8/2010 5:32:49 PM , Rating: 1
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-v...

Heh... I wonder if you really still believe that after going to that link.
Washington post also did the same story.


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By xmichaelx on 1/8/2010 2:08:05 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
All the socialistic policies for the last 80 years have done is make this country less productive

You mean socialist policies like rural electrification? Yes, that greatly hampered U.S. productivity. lol!

Learn, then think, then speak.


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By bhieb on 1/8/2010 3:36:18 PM , Rating: 3
Tell me about it, my grandfather does not do much in rural North Dakota since he got TV. Just sits there collecting government money for not farming his land.

Just kidding btw obviously rural electricity was a good idea, but that does not make them all a good idea.


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By mcnabney on 1/8/2010 4:59:17 PM , Rating: 2
GI Bill - pretty much the foundation of the largest middle class expansion ever.

Bitch about Social Security all you want, but it keeps the grandparents out of your house. Also, it is one of the most efficient programs in the world. A true model. Strange, I know. And no, it isn't a retirement plan. It is a social contract.

Medicare, which is single-payer healthcare lite.

EPA and Clean Air/Water. You are mostly too young to remember the environmental problems of the 70's. Trust me, we live in a virtual paradise now.

Some things only government can solve. They sometimes do a good job too.


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By Kurz on 1/8/2010 5:36:21 PM , Rating: 4
Social Security is probably what will bankrupt us.
When all the Baby boomers go into Retirement who is going to pick up the Tab?

What happen to working for your life and saving personally for Retirement. I put away 5% of my paycheck to my 401k.
People need to stop living off the teet that is the US Government. Its just going to end horribly.


By hashish2020 on 1/8/2010 6:50:51 PM , Rating: 2
"When all the Baby boomers go into Retirement who is going to pick up the Tab?"

Skilled immigrants, the same people who have saved the American economy since WWII


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By mcnabney on 1/8/2010 7:04:14 PM , Rating: 1
You are showing your ignorance.

If absolutely nothing is done Social Security will continue to function, but only pay out as little as 80% of scheduled benefits. Once the Boomers die, it will balance out again.

This wouldn't have even happened if Congress hadn't decided to use SS money for other things, like providing a lifelong stipend to people who have gotten a doctor to declare them disabled.

And SS isn't retirement. You should be saving for that. SS is SECURITY which will keep you alive if you lose all your money in the market by listening to the 'experts'.


By PhatoseAlpha on 1/9/2010 3:08:56 AM , Rating: 2
Ah, so personal financially incompetence is deserving of government money, but permanent disabling injury or disease is not.

Curious priorities you have there.


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By AEvangel on 1/8/10, Rating: 0
RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By AEvangel on 1/8/10, Rating: 0
RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By Hiawa23 on 1/8/2010 2:48:17 PM , Rating: 2
Well, who did he blame last year & the year before that & the year before that...


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By MCNEIL1986 on 1/8/10, Rating: -1
RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By wookie1 on 1/8/2010 9:23:48 PM , Rating: 2
If it sucks so bad, how could they possibly crush the smaller and better companies? How are there not multiple vendors vying for marketshare? Isn't AMD/ATI starting to really gain some momentum? Logic fail.

Why do you feel that Cisco isn't innovating enough? How much would be enough? Perhaps innovating wasn't their business plan? Is Cisco's purpose to innovate, or to maximize value for their shareholders?


"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki