Obama to use executive orders to reverse Bush policies
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 3 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 8 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 2 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- ALT - Mie Prefecture - Yokkaichi City - June start
- NPO法人グローバル教育推進機構（GLAD), Mie
- Salary: ¥230,000 / Month For a full working month. Some months differ.
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
Order by Time Order by Popularity
70 Comments
Login to comment
0
USAFdude
An excellent first move! Congratulations, President Obama; congratulations America!
President Obama, you have the full support of all good Americans, sir.
0
OnTheRecord
USAFDude- Pah!!! The incompetent imbecile has no support from a true patriot such as my good self. Bush policies made us great, Obamna will destroy our freedoms and economy. USA R.I.P
Moderator: Please refrain from posting inflammatory comments like this. They lower the level of discussion and reflect badly on yourself.
0
SuperLib
No, wait! I'm a true patriot and a good American so everyone should listen to me!
0
Taka313
SuperLib,
Well I'm a true patriot, good American AND a snazzy dresser so everyone should listen to me. ;-)
I really hope President-elect Obama does move forward quickly to fully fund stem cell research. I think the benefits will far outweigh the costs on that one.
Taka
0
skipthesong
As I understand it, Bush has put more democrats as well as minorities in his administration than any other before him. There may be a lot of hold overs.
0
hereandthere
Change we can believe in!
drilling ban - great news, this will really help gas prices... the OPEC nations send their thanks. abortion support aid - good for population control in 3rd world countries, don't want all those people coming to the US... embryonic stem cell research - a way to make use of those abortions, as a poster said "the benefits will far outweigh the costs on that one"... unless of course you are the embryo/aborted fetus. more importantly military cuts which will allow all those kids being used for fodder to pursue a new line of work in the Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps...
these seem like a great way to get the US economy back on it right footing.
0
TellMeMoe
0
Sarge
"perhaps reversing Bush administration policies on stem cell research and domestic drilling for oil amd natural gas"
I told you this guy wants to destroy our oil industry.
Heck, might as well reverse Bush's tax cuts too.
0
smithinjapan
hereandthere: "...unless of course you are the embryo/aborted fetus."
In which case you simply end up in the trash can; problem solved, Republican-style!
Anyway, you can see already that Obama is having a positive fact, and that is mirrored by the petty comments by people against him simply because they are bitter about McCain/Palin and the Republican slaughter in the houses. What's more, the die-hards aren't even coming close and posting on here -- they simply can't. Most of them know that Bush's stem-cell stance was moronic and detrimental to progress in the US scientific field, and so Obama doing something they agree with is an utter shock to the system.... "B-b-b-b-b-b-b-but Obama's BAD!"
All I can say is, good move Obama. Finally the US can get out of the scientific Dark Ages and move on.
0
buttamimi
This will upset the 'drill baby, drill' crowd. Also, allowing stem cell research will upset Palin's 'evangelical creationist' group. What next? A ban on helicopter hunting?
0
hoserfella
Ha ha! Good to see Obama drag some Americans kicking and screaming into the 21st century!
0
skipthesong
I'll go with Obama on the stem cell all the way.
But to ban the drilling of oil, I guess my seat is a different perspective, but its the wrong approach if you want to free yourself to the controls of the oil producing economies.... I think I need to give details, but its the wrong approach.
However as I state the above, it was by no means something to decide an election on as we'll get by but oil companies, perhaps not American, will get even more wealthier and again, that makes me happy!!!
0
smithinjapan
So long as Obama dedicates sums of cash to RND in the field of alternative energy, I am not at all against the drilling. The drilling in arctic refuges, etc., would result only in a SHORT-TERM solution to oil problems, with the long term problems it creates cost FAR more to the environment, and American people. Good on Obama.
0
skipthesong
In which case you simply end up in the trash can; problem solved, Republican-style!"
you are joking about the trash can I hope
0
HonestDictator
Sorry Sarge, but Tax cuts (not to mention people avoiding taxes any way possible...) don't finance the government now do they? You can't possibly be thinking our government has been making money out of thin air now can you? As they say, the time has come to pay the piper.
Some things I agree with on Obama's watch, and others I don't.
0
Sarge
"Good to see Obama drag some Americans kicking and screaming into the 21st century!"
I'm afraid Obama's going to drag ALL Americans back into the 19th century.
Honest - Bush's tax cuts, by spurring the economy ( which did remarkably well through most of Bush's presidency ) probably created MORE revenue for the government. The problem is government SPENDING. I admit the Democrats are not alone in spending too much.
0
bebert
Two pretty weak changes. No mention of reversing all of those infringements on the Constitution that the lefties were (rightly) screaming bloody murder about. Why not eliminate the executive order all together, seeing as it's not in the Constitution? How about repealing the War Powers Act? Change. Here is the change you'll see - more encroachment by the state.
0
JoeBigs
Our Oil industry?
So how much of the oil we drill in the United States do you think we stay in our great country Sarge? He who drills it keeps it and does with it what ever they want.
Sarge your statements are really beginning to sound a bit,...Socialist.
Next you`ll be saying that the US Government should buy up the banks...Oh wait the our Government already did that....
Now your talking Sarge, I see you are changing your stance on that stupid tax. Great to know your joining us over here.
I can not wait until Obama does reverse the Bush Administrations executive orders. Most of Bush`s executive orders have eroded many civil liberties.
0
YangYong
Snap that bible belt in two. Concrete those poison holes. This President means business; the baby-boomers death rattle gets louder, their archaic grip on OUR future lighter. Praise be Go Mr Obama GO on and on and on!
0
smithinjapan
skipthesong: "you are joking about the trash can I hope"
I'm afraid not; at least not when it comes to the embryos created for people with difficulties conceiving. You see, when they undergo attempts at in-vetro fertilization I think the way it works is that various eggs are fertilized and the couple is allowed various attempts for the woman to have said eggs inserted and for them to 'take' to their new environment. If it works, the remaining fertilized eggs are kept in storage so long as the couple keeps paying, and then tossed when they don't.
Now, those aren't embryos, but if you follow the Christian logic that a 'human life begins at conception', it's the same thing to toss an embryo as it is a fertilized egg. As for abortions, you don't think they keep them on ice in case a mother-to-be changes her mind, do you? You bet your bottom dollar they go in the trash can... before being burned with the rest of the biohazard. Of course, the typical evangelical/Christian line is to outlaw abortion, but we all know how THAT works -- women doing it anyway and getting butchered, or mothers carrying a baby to term and literally tossing it in the dumpster or leaving it in a toilet.
The latter issue, abortion, is another issue. But, when it is carried out, the embryo/fetus/egg is indeed thrown away in the trash. No joke.
sarge: "I'm afraid Obama's going to drag ALL Americans back into the 19th century."
You've got to be kidding. Please tell us how, in particular, the policies of bush in banning stem-cell research (and even vetoeing a bill to allow it!) is more 21st century than undergoing such research. Come on, sarge... tell us how Obama is leading you guys back into the Stone Age by reversing bush's radical Christian views on the subject.
0
Everton2
I just hope that Obama moves to normalise relations with Cuba. The notion the we can isolate Cuba and change things there is idiotic. The more Americans that are allowed to visit and interact with the Cubans the more information and knowledge the people will have about freedom and democracy. In that scenario change will come from the bottom up, yes we can!
0
frontandcentre
Sarge, your comments demonstrate that you have zero understading on the financial crisis into which Bush has dragged America over the past 8 years. In Europe, socialist governments are normally the ones accused of "tax and spend" however in Bush's case he has done something even worse for the long term future of your country - he has cut taxes AND spent money like an old-school socialist, except instead of 'wasting' money (in your eyes) on such undeserving concepts as better education and universal minimum healthcare for Americans, the spending has been hundreds of billions of dollars to see Saddam hung and Saudi Arabia (home of most of the 9/11 terrrorists...) defended, and Iran strengthened. Plus many thousands of dead and seriously injured American troops. None of this can be said to have demonstrably made America safer at all.
And you honestly wonder why everyone is delighted about Obama coming in? I know you will be first to start whining, though, when he reverses tax cuts, or reduces government spending as an unavoidable consequence of Bush's stupidity.
0
smithinjapan
Everton: Agreed. Change comes through dialogue and understanding at the grassroots level; not from threats, sanctions, and/or war. The proof is in plenty of places, and now a whole lot of them are coming around thanks to Obama. Cuba can also be another of those places that stops being stubborn as a result of defiance, and changes policies through face-saving dialogue. You don't need a hard-line to get good results. The embargo is foolish.
0
sailwind
Two thoughts.
Embroynic stem cell research should be allowed but let's not kid ourselves. There are huge ethical questions to consider and I'm not talking about abortion or Christian ethics. This research could also lead to some very disturbing and profound impacts in the future. Designer kids maybe if you can manipulate the genetic code in stem cells for starters?
Not saying don't go ahead but let's not think there isn't some profound implications involved here when we are dealing with the very stuff of lifes building blocks.
As far as not drilling....That is what the heck I'll be blunt, STUPID.
We know how to drill with minimal impact to environment. That one is dumb.
0
adaydream
george bush went crazy reversing Bill Clinton's policies. Turn about is fair play.
Barack Obama won the power to reverse policy. If John McCain had been elected, he could keep all of them.
Too bad. < :-)
0
fatloser
Bloomberg says New York needs money and he's planning to raise taxes and tax shoppers 5 cents a plastic bag to raise money and save the enviornment. Transport workers get 99% or 99.5% health coverage in addition to high salaries. It is easier for Bloomberg to tax the working class than to battle the labor unions. Obama will do the same. He'll save GM and Ford and shovel billions into union coffers..for the sake of the enviornment and the country. He's not about race at all. He's about the entitled class and the working class. Have you read about The Long Island Railroad disability scandal? That ought to give people an idea of America under Obama and his handlers.
0
CavemanLawyer
Actually, all have an impact. You just have to know which one to use when. But obviously our stance toward Cuba has not accomplished anything of value besides keeping Soviet missles out, but that was 40 years ago! --Cirroc
0
skipthesong
smith: never really bother much to think about that. I am all for stem cell research and I also think its going to be a great area to drop a lot of cash into, I see big money making potential in it. However, I still wish people, particularly young girls have sex a bit more responsible. Its gotta be a hard decision, even though its frequent.
But, I want to hit you on one thing: "tell us how Obama is leading you guys back into the Stone Age by reversing bush's radical Christian views on the subject." YOu have been quite supportive of Islamic regimes/ways for the better part of the time knowing you. You do know that abortions don't happen in those places don't you? I even knew a girl in college whose sister was literally killed by her father for doing such a thing and of course he took off back to Pakistan where he won't be charged for anything. If Obama wants us to warm us to places like that, I'd like to know how you feel about that.
0
skipthesong
Everton: I hope you weren't taking a swipe at me. You are talking about freedoms that were once in place and making chummy with the person responsible for taking freedoms away. From the bottom up? Well, I got a few people in my family who love to sit down with you and listen to how you explain this to them and why didn't they get all these great things you say Castro is supposed give out.
Its like asking South Africans sitting down with Botha as far as we are concerned. You are becoming just one of the reason I didn't want Obama. Not him, but people like you.
0
CavemanLawyer
Amen to that realization Sarge. I wonder if anyone paused long enough while disagreeing with you on everything else to realize you are essentially right about that.
But I would say it is now not only spending, but what we spent that we did not have. We are deep in debt, and budget cuts are not going to work unless you suggest shutting down the government for something on the order of like ten years. But that won't work as America will collapse in the meantime.
Taxes must go up, especially on the rich. Spending must go down, oh yeah. Even burning those candles at both ends will not get us out of the mess soon. And in the meantime we also have to maintain confidence in our financial stability or it just gets worse. --Cirroc
0
skipthesong
Cuba can also be another of those places that stops being stubborn as a result of defiance, and changes policies through face-saving dialogue. You don't need a hard-line to get good results. The embargo is foolish."
But Smith, its because of that embargo that has let Castro and his crew to get rich.. I thought you wanted that? I am confused?
0
norinrad21
America playing catch up to the rest of the world
0
Nessie
Much as I favor reversing Bush policies that he took extra-contitutionally, reversing those over-reaches by using the same extra-constitutional metohds is hypocritical.
Obama should have his reversals proposed as a bill in Congress, which is the proper venue for legislation. Enough already with the executive orders. They're a threat to democracy and they make a mockery of Congress.
0
CavemanLawyer
Build a strawman like that and people start to think it was their own idea. It wasn't. Precious few have any love for Castro. Plus we have no choice but to accept all the things you say about yourselves because we have no proof either way.
Castro and his brother are simple realities. You have to deal with reality. If you do not, I guarantee a man like Castro will get power and men just like him will replace him.
The more contact we have with Cuba the better. We may have to go through men like Castro, even politely, to do that. Suck in your pride and stow your ideas of quick vengeance. When one course does not work, try another. What have you got to lose? Look to the future rather than the past. But if you want to live in the past, Obama and everyone else is going to leave you behind. Your choice.
0
smithinjapan
skip: Nice FIRST reply to the posts above.
"However, I still wish people, particularly young girls have sex a bit more responsible."
Agreed, though I think it's equally up to both the male and female party to educate themselves (and society to educate them!) and use protection, etc. Since that's an ideal, however, and doesn't include rape cases, etc., until the current education system changes and attitudes (particularly uptight religious ones) about sexuality change, you're still going to have a high number of unwanted pregnancies, their terminations. Irregardless you're also going to continue to see a high number of couples seeking fertility treatment.
As to the, "YOu have been quite supportive of Islamic regimes/ways for the better part of the time knowing you", I will clarify things for you. I have not said I supported Islam, but I have vehemently fought against discrimination TOWARDS it, particularly when said criticism is simply subjective, bias, and not well thought out, or when it's simply groundless complaints/anger directed at a religion by people who are ignorant of it. I am all for LEARNING about it, and have said there are elements of Islam and the people who follow it that are beautiful (as is the case for ALL religions), but I haven't anywhere said I support Islam out and out. There's a big difference between whole-heartedly supporting/going against something and arguing with its critics/followers. For example, my not supporting bush's illegal invasion of Iraq in no way whatsoever meant I was supporting Saddam Hussein's rule, despite what team-bush wanted you to think.
As for getting 'warm and chummy' with countries where people can be stoned to death for not blackening their windows properly and being subsequently seen from a passerby, or where you can get 'rightfully' killed for abortion or what have you, again you're splitting things into simple black and white by saying you either have to attack and destroy them, or you are their best friend. You do not need to sit down and share a Cuban cigar with Castro to get the regime to lighten up and change things, but there is certainly a middle ground between becoming best friends and trying to start ANOTHER war -- and that middle ground is called DIALOGUE. Obama expressing a willingness to talk to Iran = he supports terrorism is another example of how idiotic the 'us vs. them' logic is, and how pervasive the bush regime's mentality has become for the weak-minded.
And, ummm... nowhere did I say that I wanted Castro to be rich and continue his ways, either, though I have spoken outright against the embargo on plenty of occasions, as well as people saying, "Castro deserves death" (being that I am against the death penalty and the idea that people 'deserve' to die for what they've done, etc.), but that's as far as I've gone.
0
SushiSake3
"perhaps reversing Bush administration policies on stem cell research and domestic drilling for oil and natural gas."
I'm nowhere near up to speed on the stem cell research so can't comment on that one.
Re: the oil and natural gas - the way I see it, Obama wants to get serious about creating a green economy - the technology is all out there now so there's really no excuses for further delay.
Drilling for oil is without a doubt a solution, but it's a short term one that will only make the ominous threat of climate change worse.
It's very much like mccain's proposed 'gas tax holiday,' which also fell flat - sounds good in the short term, it will definitely garner support, but it WILL create larger problems in the long term.
This oil/gas move by Obama looks like he is thinking long term, which I believe is a good move.
I strongly believe climate change is the preeminant threat facing Humankind at the present time - nothing else comes close - not a financial meltdown, a dirty bomb going off in New York - climate change will have far worse impacts and it needs to be dealt with, so I'm hoping to see Obama move quickly to act on the issue.
osu , but can't
0
memyselfI
Everybody can't drink from the same straw. People have different ideologies and beliefs. Democracy works for only some countries. Cuban people really wanted to change the system they would have revolted years ago. I support stem cell research on diseases only. Not making a person "Super Human " or " designer baby " !!! Who knows stem cell research can save the world or destroy the human race. But at least we should try to research it to cure AIDS and other diseases.
0
SushiSake3
SmithinJapan - "You do not need to sit down and share a Cuban cigar with Castro to get the regime to lighten up and change things, but there is certainly a middle ground between becoming best friends and trying to start ANOTHER war -- and that middle ground is called DIALOGUE. Obama expressing a willingness to talk to Iran = he supports terrorism is another example of how idiotic the 'us vs. them' logic is, and how pervasive the bush regime's mentality has become for the weak-minded."
Very insightful comments. Thanks for posting them.
0
Nessie
Bingo, Bebert. You hit it on the head. It's disheartening to see Obama, who taught the Constitution, treating the Constition so cavillierly.
0
skipthesong
caveman: Build a strawman like that and people start to think it was their own idea. It wasn't. Precious few have any love for Castro. Plus we have no choice but to accept all the things you say about yourselves because we have no proof either way." I don't know what you mean by that.
Castro and his brother are simple realities. You have to deal with reality." Well, well, so nice to know that a great % of the population has to give up all hopes of reclaiming anything that was once theirs, give up an any political prisinors being freed, nope, we just have to suck it up....... I'd like to see you speak the same for many others.
If you do not, I guarantee a man like Castro will get power and men just like him will replace him." That's my whole point. Any replacement to Castro is by Castro. The left on this board have given him a carte blanche, even given him kingly power and rights.
The more contact we have with Cuba the better."
We may have to go through men like Castro, even politely, to do that. Suck in your pride and stow your ideas of quick vengeance." My friend, I really don't have the vengeance you speak of, I was not born there nor did I escape from there. Grind your teeth because I happen to like the idea of being born in the US.
When one course does not work, try another. What have you got to lose? Look to the future rather than the past. But if you want to live in the past, Obama and everyone else is going to leave you behind. Your choice." I stopped given money to the many groups who have a goal of toppling Castro from outside Cuba.
0
CavemanLawyer
Funny how people are so quick to defend drilling for oil in protected areas, but so slow to even bring up changing their gas guzzling ways.
Any of you out there ever heard of public transportation??? Trolleys used to be very common even in small towns in America. That was until the oil, rubber, and car companies bought and dismantled them so people would buy more of their products. Bring back the public transportation. That will help loads.
Next, ban things like Humvees unless people have like 8 kids to bus around. Somebody is going to whine about freedom when I say that. But in the next breath, from the driver's seat of their Humvee no less, they will tell us how foreign oil supports oppressive regimes! No, its more like Humvee drivers support oppressive regimes. We might need our oil even worse someday, and that is part of the reason why we are keeping it. So don't bother with the assertion that we could be oil independent. Just deal with the here and now and stop wasting gas. Find some other way to pad your fragile ego rather than a big car.
0
smithinjapan
Nessie: "Bingo, Bebert. You hit it on the head. It's disheartening to see Obama, who taught the Constitution, treating the Constition so cavillierly."
Is it? Well, then, if you are for eliminating the executive powers of the President, I hope to heck that includes the Veto power. Lest we forget, Obama is talking about, at least in the case of stem cell research, reversing something bush vetoed for his PERSONAL beliefs (and which 90% of the American public, or a similar percentage, approves of). Now THAT is being cavalier if anything. Using similar 'powers' to reverse something so that it reflects the majority of the public view? well... that's the lesser of the two aforementioned evils, if they are that at all.
In the case of drilling for oil, I believe that was rushed through as a measure to deal with prices of oil when they topped $100 a barrel, for which the price has significantly declined (and not at all in part due to the agreement to drill). Drilling, and sushi and I have both said this, is only putting a band-aid over a geyser of a wound, and will not solve any long term problems of oil-dependency. This is a personal opinion, but as I said before, so long as Obama pledges to put more money into the development of realistic alternatives, there is ZERO reason why drilling should be increased. In fact, I think it should be DECREASED, and 100% should be focussed on hydrogen fuel cells and making mass production cheaper, building service stations, converting public transportation to hydrogen, etc. The idea that drilling is a good thing is moronic, at best.
Bush had all these executive powers the whole way through; and yet most of the sudden complaints that they are 'not in the constitution' I think you can see arising from people who are upset at the propositions Obama is making, not that he is using said powers. If it were bush vetoing something, the same people might very well be cheering him on.
0
skipthesong
Funny how people are so quick to defend drilling for oil in protected areas, but so slow to even bring up changing their gas guzzling ways." change it, change it, please change it. In fact, if this post changes anyone's mind, I'll cut you in!
Drill more or change it, either way is good for me, so will someone please make a decision soon?
Any of you out there ever heard of public transportation???" Every public transportation device, vehicle maker are great investments.
Ban the humvees, even if they have 8 kids (btw, no one has eight kids except for the religious right, so its really moot.)
0
sailwind
Where is he going to get the cash? You can only tax the rich so much.
0
SushiSake3
smithinjapan - "If it were bush vetoing something, the same people might very well be cheering him on."
Hammer. Nail. Bullseye.
0
skipthesong
smitty, sorry, I got you wrong on that. I just see a lot of Muslims = good, Christians = bad crap and I just want to say both = bad for me.
Hey, times are changing. I think why people are going up in arms over talk to Castro and Iran thing are is that it was tried with Hitler (no, I am not saying they are, the situation is). You can't expect the people like my mom or others in that community to be happy about it. I don't see Obama wishing to talk to David Duke, so he either talks to all or talks to none. (no, its only an example)
0
smithinjapan
sailwind: "Where is he going to get the cash? You can only tax the rich so much."
Where do drilling teams, contracts for rigs, and payment for staff, etc. get their money? Where is the money going to come from to pay for all the drilling when the drilling's not going to pay off for years? It's going to come from the government coffers. Put that same money into production of already available green tech. and you've got your alternative and nearly free (comparatively speaking) energy source. Bang.
0
smithinjapan
skip: No worries, amigo. That's what talking about this kind of thing is for, in part, clearing up any misunderstandings and/or ill-will (regardless of which side it comes from, if not both). You see? talking, even on the smallest level, works well.
I agree with you on the all-or-none thing as well. Of COURSE some people aren't going to like it, and it is extremely unfair for some, but if it prevents further wars/harm and results in progress, well... I don't know what to say for people like your Mom or others hurt by Castro's regime, but it's better now than never (patching things up, I mean). These things are NEVER easy for many, but they are necessary in cases where peace is the result of a more open approach to crises, and where ignorance has blocked progress. All should be treated the same initially, how they react after that will determine how each is treated from that point.
0
SushiSake3
Sailwind - "Where is he going to get the cash? You can only tax the rich so much."
Getting out of Iraq would save a whole pile of cash.
At the current rate of spending, pulling out of Iraq a year ahead of schedule would likely save between $130-260 billion.
How's that for a start?
0
SushiSake3
Sailwind - "Where is he going to get the cash? You can only tax the rich so much."
Sailwind, perhaps a more appropriate question would be - "Why have you supported GWB policies that have bled America's finances dry and that have led you to ask 'Where is he going to get the cash? You can only tax the rich so much.'"???
0
sailwind
HOUSTON (AP) - Carrizo Oil & Gas Inc. and Avista Capital Partners said Tuesday they have formed a joint venture to buy and develop land in the energy-rich Marcellus shale region.
Each company will contribute up to $150 million in cash and properties for the joint venture, which controls about 155,000 acres in the region.
The Marcellus area — located in the Appalachians — is estimated to hold trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. On Monday a leading geologist said the area could yield seven times as much natural gas as he earlier estimated, meaning it could meet the entire nation's natural gas needs for at least 14 years.
Exploration and production in the region became financially feasible earlier this year as prices for natural gas rose above $10 per 1,000 cubic feet. Prices have since fallen below that mark.
Carrizo will operate the properties, and Avista will fund 100 percent of the joint venture's next $71.5 million in expenditures, which is expected to be spent over the next eight to 12 months.
The companies will share costs after those funds are depleted.
Shares of Carrizo closed Monday at $21.08 and have traded between $15.01 and $76.30 in the past 52 weeks.
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=AP&date=20081104&id=9348035
Investors....Smith not Uncle Sugar. Of course after they get taxed even more on their capitol gains they may not want to invest in companies like Carrizo after all. To the great benefit of us all. Too bad Utah will now be off-limits to companies willing to risk the effort and provide a return to their stockholders, creating real wealth and jobs in the area.
No free lunch Smith, never is.
0
Helter_Skelter
The Iraq war, in fact the entire military budget, is only a fraction of the amount of money the government spends on social welfare programs. Huge amounts of cash could be saved on many of these antiquated, wasteful, and unnecessary social programs, some of which do more harm than good. We could start with....
Oh, wait a minute. We have socialist president. Never mind.
0
smithinjapan
Helter_Skelter: Ummm... Military Spending is NOT 'social welfare'.
0
cleo
Smitty -
I think you misunderestimate Helter Skelter. What he is saying is that trying to give people temporarily on their uppers a bit of a hand up does more harm than dropping bombs on people with swarthy complexions and at the same time getting thousands of tax payers killed or injured and permanently out of the labour market.
0
SushiSake3
Cleo - "I think you misunderestimate Helter Skelter"
I think you are undermisrepresenting your native language.
Sometimes, it really does take 2 to tango :-)
0
cleo
I didn't understand it, either. XO
0
skipthesong
since the subject of drilling has been coming a lot today and its relevence to the new admin, please bear in mind that everyone knows we need to move away from oil for the most part, but much of what can be done is still very far off. Additionally, how to make money from it is very far off as well.
Now, smitty has said drilling up there would only be a band aid, but look at it from a different view - if we can move as caveman states, personal transportation to another source, this would free up a lot of what is used in trucks, planes (which is soooooo far away from even thinking about moving) and many other necessities such as generators, etc... and still get hat needed oil from within the states, it would be very profitable, keep/create jobs, and move much better. If we don't drill we are only kill another countries' environment.
0
Everton2
oil is old technology
0
smithinjapan
Skipthesong: Moving personal transportation away from oil is not 'a different viewpoint'; it still fits into conserving resources, and obviously if you're going to move away from oil you're going to have to use something to replace it, which is going to be an alternative source of energy. That's still reduction, and that would be a good thing for all parties. I still think though that a complete move away from oil is ultimately the best thing, and will benefit everyone and the environment more. What's more, if you only move personal transportation, when the personal consumers are suddenly ahead in tech., etc., you're going to have everyone else behind.
Cleo: I didn't catch much on that either... hahaha. Nice tough, though.
0
romulus3
The most successful thing that Bush will ever do is to help a smooth transfer of power but I believe that to be well beyond his meager capabilities. I cannot wait for Obama to Veto a few things.
0
goodDonkey
The problem executive orders solve is that much of the law is administrative law. Bureaucracies must have rules just to conduct business. Congress would never have the time to pass legislation guiding every aspect of every agency of the U.S. There is often latitude on various policies. An executive must make some decisions.
Having said that there must be considerable balance in decision making. I also think the President should exercise restraint because he is not the same as an executive in a corporation. In government a separate entity is making the rules; in business it is the same entity making the rules and carrying them out. I think that the President should pretty much act as the Supreme Court does in trying to determine the original intention of the law when a law applies. Unfortunately an overwhelming portion of administrative rules and guidelines have no overriding law.
If the executive branch does not perform this responsibility then you can either tie up the courts with minuscule decision making or Congress could form a web of arbitrators to conduct this function. This presents the problem of undoing the rules, regulations or guidelines Congress never specifically addressed in a law, that was then established by the arbitrators. It would end up going back to Congress and then we would be dealing with small issues instead of large issues.
We need strong courts to stop a President from overstepping the boundaries of legislation that was passed. I think it is the role of an Executive to conduct the business of the nation. Most of the court decisions are based on whether an administrative act was capricious or arbitrary. I have no hard fast commitment to my comments. I just think democracy is very messy and I wounder what we would replace executive orders with.
Executive orders pale in comparison to signing statements that defy any part of the bill being signed. That to me is a blatant abuse of power and the Supreme Court needs to rule on some of these matters. Congress makes the laws not the President. It is enough that the President executes the law.
0
Nessie
Of course it doesn't, as that power is clearly specified as constitutional.
0
JoiceRojo
Yeah, but it is not only because the abortion thing, fathers kill their daughters if they leave their husbands...
As Sci-Fi this may sound it is incredibly possible. I realized that when hypoallergenic cats started to be sold over the internet...
As for the research itself, I'm not still clear what it is my position about that, I'm pro scientific development, but also I have a strong hold of "ethics" from my catholic upbringing. I'd rather they research on umbilical cords and placenta rather the embryos... but as i'm not a biologyst I cannot give further opinion
0
Helter_Skelter
Cleo
Heh. Where'd you pick up this adolescent view of American government social programs?
0
adaydream
Helter_Skelter - Oh, wait a minute. We have socialist president. Never mind.
But it's not socialism when the banks are bailed out.
We have socialist president.
But it's not spcialism when the biggest insurance companies, auto builders and investment houses are bailed out.
It's onlt socialism when poor folk are helped.
Please tell me how much is spent on social programs VS department of defense costs? < :-)
0
adaydream
smithinjapan at 04:30 PM JST - 10th November Helter_Skelter: Ummm... Military Spending is NOT 'social welfare'.
Oh sure it is. The rich aren't going in the military. It's for the middle class, poor and homeless that are filling most of the ranks of the forces. So by having a military, it's giving away alms to homeless folk to protect the rich.
Tell us Helter_Skelter all about these social programs.
$1,000,000,000,000.00 to prop up the financial houses isn't socialism, it's their dues that we own them. < :-)
0
CavemanLawyer
I second this request. Anyone with such a strong opinion on simple numbers MUST have a source.
And here is a source for your viewing pleasure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listofcountriesbymilitary_expenditures
According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute figures the U.S. spends 547 BILLION dollars on the military, 45 percent of the WORLD TOTAL, while number 2, Britain, spends only 60 billion, just 5 percent of the world total, and even dreaded China is about the same as Britian. Naturally the rest spend even less.
I think somebody needs to tell the U.S. that the Cold War is over.
0
skipthesong
Military Spending is NOT 'social welfare'." It is when just because you are married you get more money, where as in the real world and much more dangerous occupations don't get any extra money. Look at those spouses and their kids on the bases in Kanagawa like Zama, Atsugi.. they got pools, gyms, kids centers, schools for kids, that and that that most small towns don't.
Why is the US spending such an amount as Caveman points out? Well, how many civilians you got there getting paid a lot more than what a soldier was once doing? I don't want to hear about freeing that person up to go to combat, he/she never would have in most cases.
The mlitary needs to be disected and put back together completely different.
0
adaydream
You think it's hard to get recruits now, start taking away these benefits you complain about and see the numbers of recruits drop. You'll see even less. Then they'd have to have another draft. Now that would make me happy. < :-)
Back to top