Obama i SAD (2008-2016)

[zonbirile]

ahuseino
poanta je u kupovini pod hipotekarnim kreditom,btw evo sada se predlaže da Bili mjenja Hilari na senatorskom mjestu.Pošto je izvorna tema izbor Obame za predsjednika i moja tvrdnja da je lutak igrača iz sjene,najbolje je to predočiti našim primjerom.To bi bilo otprilike ovako.
A.Izetbegović jedan mandat,pa Branković dva mandata( sa ili bez "Monike"),pa Bakir Izetbegović dva mandata,pa xy ,ali mu ministar vanjskih poslova Brankovićeva žena,ministri,Alispahić ,Radonjčić,Bičakčić,Čengić,Delić,Garib,Šaćirbegović,savjetnici omladinci O.Behmen,N.Šaćirbegović,a evo sada da se špekuliše da Branković zamjeni ženu na njenoj političkoj poziciji.Centralna banka BiH naravno da je u vlasništvu H.Selimovića,N.Imamovića ,Jusufranića,N.Čauševića,Alemka sa dugogodišnjim direktorom N.Keljmendijem.
Mislim da bi i u ovoj ludari to bilo previše ,samo u SAD,vama to nije-aferim.

Ne mislim da te vrijedjam, ali mi je, ne ovaj gore, ali tvoj slijedechi post malo previshe ogorchen, i arogantan. Mislim da previshe ovo sve pridajesh srcu. Tvoja konstatacija da vishe ne prichamo puno o Obami vjerovatno ima veze sa chinjenicom da su izbori (utakmica) gotovi; time i spekulacija na ishode u krachim vremenskim periodima. Ono sto sada mozemo spekulisati (i radimo to), su stvari za koje che se odgovarati na duzim vremenskim periodima... time i rjedje javljanje.

Apropo tvog posta gore citiranog... ponavljam, i pokushavam vam "objasniti", svi mi znamo da vishe/manje ista ili slichna klapa uvijek diktira... nista novo, eto i ti si to potvrdio sa primjerom Bosne (znachi geografski svestrano). Ovo na sta se vi zalite je tako nedokuchiv cilj, da nema poente ni diskutovati; nesto kao "I want peace in the world, genuinely good people for leaders, end world hunger and poverty "etc...- utopija; znachi stvari po meni vishe filozofske prirode / za filozofske diskusije. Pa nije dosho covjek da dize revolucije. Promjena moze samo biti postepena.

Ono chemu se mi nadamo od Obame je da je on eto malo MANJE dio te iste klape ("sloj" drustva, svugdje isti, koji prenosi povlastenost i vlast s koljena na koljeno), odnosno outsider koji che da "radi iznutra" koristechi insidere da postigne svoj cilj, i da che, htjeo ti to priznati ili ne, ipak donijeti neke promjene. Ja mislim da che biti znachajne, a ti ches se vremenom uvjeriti. 'Oche li to biti dovoljno? - Zavisi koga pitash, ali vjerovatno ne, tome ostaje da se nadamo.


Znam ja da kad bi te neko primorao da stavish pare na jedan od dva ishoda, ipak se ti ne bi kladio da neche biti promjene... al' eto, mozemo mi pucat' po svome.

... i kad kazesh "postavljen" za predsjednika od strane neke sive eminencije, vlade iz sjene, mi je ipak ispod nivoa vrijednog rasprave (ali se eto uporno vrachamo na to i RASPRAVLJAMO), jer NEVJEROVATNO, UZASNO, UZASNO, GROZNO pojednostavljuje svijet u kojem zivimo. Bilo bi smjeshno da nije zalosno.


Zonbi, iskreno odgovori, jeli ti mislish da je svijet (i USA) danas isti kao kakav je bio za Clintona? Da nema nikakve razlike?

prvo inputiraš,moju ogorčenost rezultatima izbora,jer ja nisam bio ni za protiv,samo sam ocrtavao uslove izbora i lepezu kandidata izabranih od strane moćnika i ponuđenih raji,na dalju obradu.Pa kvalitetna razlika,kod nas dvojice,i jeste u tome što tebi treba vrijeme fol da vidiš šta će biti-koja naiva,prvo se znalo da nema šta biti,jer i sam priznaješ da je u igri velika lova,moćnici, s druge strane izborom pomoćnika i komplet administarcije ti je rečeno šta će biti.Evo i poslije njega će opet biti isto,ne treba mi,nikakvo vrijeme opservacije.
Pa ja nisam revolucionwrnih ideja,niti sam to zastupao,a vrati se unazad pa pogledaj kakve ste gluposti o izborima pisali,sada reterirate,ali nemojte moje priče uzimati sebi i obrnuto.Glupost ti je i tvrdnja,Obama je malo manje dio te klape,isto kao kad bih ja tvrdio da je žena malo trudna.Žena je trudna,ili nije trudna,ne postoji veća,ili manja trudnoća.Isto je i Obama,ili si u kolu,pa češ biti,ili nisi.Halo,vidi kojim se trilionima dolara šamara,i to će povjeriti čovjeku koji je malo s nama.Smiješno.Pa normalno da je jednostavno,kao pijaca,šibicarenje.Samo čovjek koji ne zna,glorifikuje nepoznato,primjer Bosne sam ti pokazao da ti stvari učinim bliskim,tako je i tamo jednostavno do bola.Tako se dogodila i zadnja pljačka sa hipotekarnim kreditima,jednostavno do bola,sve drugo i druga objašnjenja su nebuloze.Uostalom svi oni tvrde da su budale,ali da žive od vas pametnih.
Pa nije pitanje šta ja mislim,nego šta je na sonu.Da se odmah razumijemo metodi,izbora i vladanja su isti ne od klintona,već od prvog Ruzvelta.Razlika je u bogatsvu-moći.Znaš svi ovi trilioni dolara što su u igri,su bili vješti finansijski inžinjering,ali isto tako doooobar dio je real estate sada prelazi njima,a i početna ulaganja su doooobro naplatili-
Uvce su ošišane,trebat će im vremena za oporavak,pa opet na šišanje.

[zonbirile]

ahuseino

prvo inputiraš,moju ogorčenost rezultatima izbora,jer ja nisam bio ni za protiv,samo sam ocrtavao uslove izbora i lepezu kandidata izabranih od strane moćnika i ponuđenih raji,na dalju obradu.Pa kvalitetna razlika,kod nas dvojice,i jeste u tome što tebi treba vrijeme fol da vidiš šta će biti-koja naiva,prvo se znalo da nema šta biti,jer i sam priznaješ da je u igri velika lova,moćnici, s druge strane izborom pomoćnika i komplet administarcije ti je rečeno šta će biti.Evo i poslije njega će opet biti isto,ne treba mi,nikakvo vrijeme opservacije.
Pa ja nisam revolucionwrnih ideja,niti sam to zastupao,a vrati se unazad pa pogledaj kakve ste gluposti o izborima pisali,sada reterirate,ali nemojte moje priče uzimati sebi i obrnuto.Glupost ti je i tvrdnja,Obama je malo manje dio te klape,isto kao kad bih ja tvrdio da je žena malo trudna.Žena je trudna,ili nije trudna,ne postoji veća,ili manja trudnoća.Isto je i Obama,ili si u kolu,pa češ biti,ili nisi.Halo,vidi kojim se trilionima dolara šamara,i to će povjeriti čovjeku koji je malo s nama.Smiješno.Pa normalno da je jednostavno,kao pijaca,šibicarenje.Samo čovjek koji ne zna,glorifikuje nepoznato,primjer Bosne sam ti pokazao da ti stvari učinim bliskim,tako je i tamo jednostavno do bola.Tako se dogodila i zadnja pljačka sa hipotekarnim kreditima,jednostavno do bola,sve drugo i druga objašnjenja su nebuloze.Uostalom svi oni tvrde da su budale,ali da žive od vas pametnih.
Pa nije pitanje šta ja mislim,nego šta je na sonu.Da se odmah razumijemo metodi,izbora i vladanja su isti ne od klintona,već od prvog Ruzvelta.Razlika je u bogatsvu-moći.Znaš svi ovi trilioni dolara što su u igri,su bili vješti finansijski inžinjering,ali isto tako doooobar dio je real estate sada prelazi njima,a i početna ulaganja su doooobro naplatili-
Uvce su ošišane,trebat će im vremena za oporavak,pa opet na šišanje.

[omar little]

Evo neshto zanimljivo za procitati. Stiglitz-a sam citala (i citam) sto zbog njega samoga sto zbog cinjenice da je jedan od rijetkih ekonomista (i to onih visokog kalibra) koji nije odbacio ideje i koncepte John Maynard Keynes-a u svom dugogodisnjem radu. Kao sto i nije objerucke prihvatio Miltona kao Boga, shaha i sultana ekonomske teorije. Iskreno receno, brine me manjak referenci i zelje da se iskoriste i uzmu u razmatranje principi Keynisian economics u danasnjoj situaciji ili pri kreiranju planova i politike za buducnost. Osnovni princip njegove teorije se, naravno, koristi (gov't spending i stimulacija agregatne potraznje) ali se, ne bas balansirano, ostali koraci (post recesija) ne koriste niti spominju.

THE WORLD FROM WASHINGTON
Michael Hirsh
Chasing Stiglitz

Obama's economic team is missing the one guy who's been right all along.


OK, enough with the Obamamania already. I have a major bone to pick with our all-praised president-elect. Where, Mr. Obama, is Joseph Stiglitz? Most pundits have pretty much gone ga-ga over your economic team: The brilliant Larry Summers as head of your National Economic Council. The judicious Tim Geithner as Treasury secretary. The august Paul Volcker as chair of the newly formed Economic Recovery Advisory Board. But lost amid the cascades of ticker tape is the fact that, astonishingly, you didn't hire the one expert who's been right about the financial crisis all along—and whose Nobel Prize-winning ideas will probably be most central to fixing the global economy.

This is not speculation. A source close to Stiglitz told me Thursday that the Columbia University economist has been left out in the cold, even though he was expecting at least an offer. (Stiglitz, traveling in Brazil, could not be reached.) Especially since Stiglitz supported Obama long before most of the others named to his cabinet (at a time when Summers was a key advisor to Hillary Clinton). "Who knows why? Obama has been choosing center-right people," said the source, an associate of Stiglitz's who would speak only on condition of anonymity. She went on to say that Stiglitz's long-time enmity with Summers—whose ideas, Obama said last week, "will be the foundation of all my economic policies"—may be a factor. "Larry's had it in for Joe for decades," she said.

No surprise there. Stiglitz, more than anyone on the Washington scene, was the biggest fly in the ointment of "free-market fundamentalism" pressed on the world in the '90s by Summers, Geithner and their mentor, former Treasury secretary Robert Rubin—advice that has now contributed to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. It's not just that Stiglitz's Nobel-winning work, building on John Maynard Keynes's insights, uncovered profound fallacies in the Reagan-era idea that markets, especially in finance, can always correct themselves (good call, Nobel committee). In his writings and speeches since serving as chairman of Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors and then chief economist of the World Bank, Stiglitz has been the leading voice opposed to the mindless liberalization of capital flows that brought us to where we are today.

In a spate of books, essays and speeches klix from the early '90s, Stiglitz denounced Rubin's support for repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial from investment banking for precisely the reasons we are now witnessing on Wall Street: new "full-service" banks would seek to hype companies that their stock-market side underwrote and issue loans to them even if they were not credit-worthy. "The ideas behind Glass-Steagall went back even further [than the 1929 crash] to Teddy Roosevelt and his efforts to break up the big trusts," he wrote presciently in "The Roaring Nineties" (2003). "When enterprises become too big, and interconnections too tight, there is a risk that the quality of economic decisions deteriorates, and the 'too big to fail' problem rears its ugly head." Unfortunately, Stiglitz wrote, his worries "were quickly shunted aside"' by the Clinton Treasury team. Earlier, in his book "Globalization and its Discontents" (2002), Stiglitz became the most prominent voice in Washington to say plainly that free-market absolutism, which began with the Reagan revolution and continued under Clinton (who upon being elected declared the era of "big government" was over), was ill-founded theoretically and disastrous practically. "In 1997 the IMF decided to change its charter to push capital market liberalization," he wrote. "And I said, where is the evidence this is going to be good for developing countries? Why haven't you produced some research showing it was going to be good? They said: we don't need research; we know it's true. They didn't say it in precisely those words, but clearly they took it as religion."

As far back as 1990, Stiglitz argued in a paper (it can be found on The Economist's Voice Web site at http://www.bppress.com) against securitizing mortgages and selling them because "when banks retained the mortgages which they issued, they had greater incentives to screen loan applicants." He asked, again with startling prescience: "Has securitization been a result of more efficient transactions technologies, or an unfounded reduction in concern about the importance of screening loan applicants?" None other than Milton Friedman, the founding father of the free-market era, told me in an interview before he died that Stiglitz also had been more correct than everyone else about how to transform Russia into a market economy when he argued that institution-building and creating regulatory authorities were an important preliminary step. "In the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union, I kept being asked what the Russians should do," Friedman told me in 2002. "I said, 'Privatize, privatize, privatize. I was wrong. Joe was right. What we want is privatization, and the rule of law."

The son of a schoolteacher mother and insurance-salesman father, Stiglitz grew up in one of the grittiest industrial cities in American—Gary, Indiana—and was shaped by the social inequality and labor strikes he observed there. (Yeah, he's a liberal; am I wrong in suggesting, in the wake of this disaster, that we can use the L word as something other than an epithet again?) In 2001, Stiglitz shared the Nobel Prize for Economics for pioneering work in which he argued that financial markets especially are prone to act on imperfect information, leading to unnecessary panics, manias and bubbles and necessitating government intervention.

Like Keynes himself, who fought successfully to block "hot money" at the postwar Bretton Woods conference in 1944, Stiglitz understood the problem of international capital flows like few others of his era. As his longtime collaborator Bruce Greenwald—another Columbia professor who, by the way, is a conservative Republican—puts it: "You need radical global reform" to correct chronic imbalances in capital flows, all of which Stiglitz has laid out in his book, "Making Globalization Work." "There's no chance these guys are going to do what's necessary," with the possible exception of Summers, says Greenwald. And without those additional steps, he warns, the fiscal stimulus that the Obama administration is now putting its hopes on won't avert the devastating recession to come. "Unemployment is going to go to 6½ percent, then to ten percent by the end of 2010. When it goes to 14 percent by 2012, Obama and the Democrats are going to be toast." (Neither the Obama transition team nor Summers immediately responded to a request for comment.)

Keynes is dead, but we still have Joe Stiglitz. And so the question is: what is he doing in New York? Sure, I know the rap on Stiglitz: while he's personally a gentleman, he's too often "off the reservation," won't stay on the message, and doesn't play well with others—especially Summers. (Summers is said to have pressured former World Bank president Jim Wolfensohn to fire Stiglitz in the '90s; he left under pressure in late 1999.) Unquestionably, Stiglitz has occasionally gone overboard in his criticisms, such as when he suggested, outrageously, that the eminent economist Stanley Fischer—a former senior IMF official who taught both Summers and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke at MIT—had pushed for capital-markets liberalization in the '90s so he could secure a fat job at Citigroup afterwards. But Obama has made a point of declaring that he wants dissonant voices in his administration. So why not Joe Stiglitz?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/172092

[zonbirile]

omar litlle

tvoj tekst samo pokazuje da je bilo ljudi koji su shvatili ekonomska kretanja i bili protiv nekih stvari,a u principu potvrđuju pravilo ,da vladaju drugi.

[hik--meta]

spengali husinog jarana blagojevicha.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081209/ap_ ... tion_probe

[zonbirile]

ma dobro,čovjek malo više učinio Husi,poenta je u Obami ne u Blagojeviću.Igraju ljudi svoju igru,šatori niču ko pečurke ,prava Božična idila.

[walkabout]

golman Husso nestizhe ni da postavi zhivi zid

and now, "New Year resolution"...

you talk d talk
and
you walk d walk

[_veleposlanik]

FINANCIAL TIMES

And now for a world government
By Gideon Rachman

Published: December 8 2008 19:13 | Last updated: December 8 2008 19:13


I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. I have never seen black helicopters hovering in the sky above Montana. But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.

A “world government” would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.

So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking that it might.

First, it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: there is global warming, a global financial crisis and a “global war on terror”. moja nota: sve troje lazne i/ili vjestacki kreirane

Second, it could be done. The transport and communications revolutions have shrunk the world so that, as Geoffrey Blainey, an eminent Australian historian, has written: “For the first time in human history, world government of some sort is now possible.” Mr Blainey foresees an attempt to form a world government at some point in the next two centuries, which is an unusually long time horizon for the average newspaper column.

But – the third point – a change in the political atmosphere suggests that “global governance” could come much sooner than that. The financial crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty.

Barack Obama, America’s president-in-waiting, does not share the Bush administration’s disdain for international agreements and treaties. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, he argued that: “When the world’s sole superpower willingly restrains its power and abides by internationally agreed-upon standards of conduct, it sends a message that these are rules worth following.” The importance that Mr Obama attaches to the UN is shown by the fact that he has appointed Susan Rice, one of his closest aides, as America’s ambassador to the UN, and given her a seat in the cabinet.

A taste of the ideas doing the rounds in Obama circles is offered by a recent report from the Managing Global Insecurity project, whose small US advisory group includes John Podesta, the man heading Mr Obama’s transition team and Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution, from which Ms Rice has just emerged.

The MGI report argues for the creation of a UN high commissioner for counter-terrorist activity, a legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force. Once countries had pledged troops to this reserve army, the UN would have first call upon them.

These are the kind of ideas that get people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland. Aware of the political sensitivity of its ideas, the MGI report opts for soothing language. It emphasises the need for American leadership and uses the term, “responsible sovereignty” – when calling for international co-operation – rather than the more radical-sounding phrase favoured in Europe, “shared sovereignty”. It also talks about “global governance” rather than world government.

But some European thinkers think that they recognise what is going on. Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, argues that: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.” As far as he is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon. Mr Attali believes that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law”.

So, it seems, everything is in place. For the first time since homo sapiens began to doodle on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a means to make serious steps towards a world government.

But let us not get carried away. While it seems feasible that some sort of world government might emerge over the next century, any push for “global governance” in the here and now will be a painful, slow process.

There are good and bad reasons for this. The bad reason is a lack of will and determination on the part of national, political leaders who – while they might like to talk about “a planet in peril” – are ultimately still much more focused on their next election, at home.

But this “problem” also hints at a more welcome reason why making progress on global governance will be slow sledding. Even in the EU – the heartland of law-based international government – the idea remains unpopular. The EU has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for “ever closer union” have been referred to the voters. In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians – and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters. International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic.

The world’s most pressing political problems may indeed be international in nature, but the average citizen’s political identity remains stubbornly local. Until somebody cracks this problem, that plan for world government may have to stay locked away in a safe at the UN.

................

[zonbirile]

pa kako se gura,moglo bi biti bolna.Pošto je sve planetarno,i želja igrača iz sjene je takva,moglo bi ubrzo biti.

[walkabout]

najnovije...
konacno pronasli u Iraku...

Shoes of Mass Destruction...

[ahuseino]

Ma i on bio americhki spijun... cuj fulio sa 5 metara

Mora da je bio nesposoban za vojske.


Kud ga ne spuca u tintaru praznu, i iz prve i iz druge.

[_veleposlanik]

Ma i on bio americhki spijun... cuj fulio sa 5 metara

Mora da je bio nesposoban za vojske.


Kud ga ne spuca u tintaru praznu, i iz prve i iz druge.

zanimljivo, ovdje se teoretichari, praktichari, kashikari....... svi skupa slazemo
dabogda nas duh harmonije sve obasjao... makar odredjeni period... (i postigli dogovor makar o osnovnim pojmovima kao "dobar" i "zao"... )

[zonbirile]

pa slažemo se na razini pojavnog,cirkusa na presici.

[jeza u ledja]

Zeleni Obama

Advocates for Action on Global Warming Chosen as Obama's Top Science Advisers

By Juliet Eilperin and Joel Achenbach
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, December 19, 2008; Page A06


President-elect Barack Obama has selected two of the nation's most prominent scientific advocates for a vigorous response to climate change to serve in his administration's top ranks, according to sources, sending the strongest signal yet that he will reverse Bush administration policies on energy and global warming.

The appointments of Harvard University physicist John Holdren as presidential science adviser and Oregon State University marine biologist Jane Lubchenco as head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which will be announced tomorrow, dismayed conservatives but heartened environmentalists and researchers.

Like Energy Secretary-designate Steven Chu, who directs the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Holdren and Lubchenco have argued repeatedly for a mandatory limit on greenhouse gas emissions to avert catastrophic climate change. In 2007, as chairman of the board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Holdren oversaw approval of the board's first statement on global warming, which said: "It is time to muster the political will for concerted action."

In October, Lubchenco told the Associated Press that she believed public attitudes on climate change were shifting, adding: "The Bush administration has not been respectful of the science. But I think that's not true of Republicans in general. I know it's not."

The Bush administration's political appointees have edited government documents to delete scientific findings and to block scientists' recommendations on issues involving climate change, endangered species, contaminants in drinking water and air pollution.

"The Bush administration has been the most remarkably anti-science administration that I've seen in my adult lifetime," Nobel laureate David Baltimore, former president of the California Institute of Technology, said in an interview. "And I do think that there will be a sea change in the Obama administration with the respect shown for the findings of science as well as the process of science."

But Bush's science adviser, John H. Marburger III, challenged that assessment. "There are stupid and foolish things that have been perpetrated by employees of the federal government in the executive branch, but it doesn't mean that the president is anti-science," he said. "The president is getting blamed for every little thing that happens that people don't like in the administration."

Marburger added that because of the president's opposition to federal funding of embryonic stem cell research and mandatory curbs on greenhouse gas emissions: "It was easy [for opponents] to infer that he was negative toward science. . . . The president respects science; he likes science."

Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, predicted that Obama's latest nominees would work with a Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and a Commerce Secretary Bill Richardson to change how government addresses global warming.

"You can see the elements coming together," Meyer said. "It means you've got people in key places across the administration that get the urgency of the climate issue and get the need for aggressive policy to move climate solutions forward, both in the U.S. and internationally."

But Holdren's reported selection inspired no joy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market advocacy group that denounces global warming "alarmists" and opposes many environmental laws. Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at CEI, said, "I think he's a very bad choice. His views are extreme, they're not based in fact, and he's a ranter."

Of the overall Obama team, Ebell said, "They will pursue an anti-energy agenda that is designed to constrict energy supplies and raise energy prices."

Lubchenco did not draw the same level of criticism from conservative groups as Holdren yesterday, but she represents just as radical a departure for NOAA, which oversees marine issues as well as much of the government's climate work. While NOAA has traditionally favored commercial fishing interests in policy disputes, Lubchenco has consistently called for conservation measures to safeguard ocean ecosystems in the face of industry opposition.

Joshua S. Reichert, managing director of the Pew Environment group, said NOAA officials have too often set aside scientific considerations when deciding how much fish to extract from the sea. "For too many years, politics has played a greater role in fisheries management than science," he said. "This appointment carries with it the hope that this may soon change."

Holdren and Lubchenco have pushed other scientists to play a more active policy role. Holdren has attended international climate talks and helped coordinate a statement on the subject from scientific academies around the world. Lubchenco founded the Aldo Leopold Leadership Program to teach mid-career scientists how to participate in public policy debates.

Andrew Rosenberg, who was deputy director of NOAA's Marine Fisheries Service under President Bill Clinton and is professor of natural resources and the environment at the University of New Hampshire, said that by selecting Lubchenco -- someone who is a respected researcher and an active player in national policy discussions -- "it's saying that science agencies have a role in policy."

[hik--meta]

change... super.

jel huso vec ugovorio tacan datum kad ce sjesti u cetri oka sa castrom i sa ahmedinedzadom, ili se ceka inauguracija?

[jeza u ledja]

polako, sve ce doci na svoje.

[_veleposlanik]

polako, sve ce doci na svoje.

ne bih da kvarim temu, samo cu, ako moze, da se malo nasmijesim

a to zeleni Obama............
Mr green Obama

zar stvarno jos ljudi ima tu neku nadu

[zonbirile]

evo,da nebude da je Obama,ali kongres usvojio odlazak još 20-30 vojnika tokom 2009g u Afganistan.Da se raja ne dosjete,ovo je u Bušovom mandatu,a on će u januaru oštro biti protiv toga.Ja cirkusa ,ljudi božji,neka nama "našega" Obame.

[jeza u ledja]

evo,da nebude da je Obama,ali kongres usvojio odlazak još 20-30 vojnika tokom 2009g u Afganistan.Da se raja ne dosjete,ovo je u Bušovom mandatu,a on će u januaru oštro biti protiv toga.Ja cirkusa ,ljudi božji,neka nama "našega" Obame.

Sta bolan?

[Sandzaklija1]

Koje misljenje obama ima o bosni?da li ce unistiti "RS"?

A mozda bombarduje Peking ili Moskvu?

bilo bi i to super,a jos bolje da bombarduje "republiku srpsku".

[Kinder]

Koje misljenje obama ima o bosni?da li ce unistiti "RS"?

A mozda bombarduje Peking ili Moskvu?

bilo bi i to super,a jos bolje da bombarduje "republiku srpsku".

vjerovatno će prvo tući rafineriju u Brodu

[walkabout]

svi predsjednikovi ljudi...

-----------------------------------

Anne Davies in Washington
January 9, 2009

FLANKED by his father, former president George H. Bush, and former president Bill Clinton, with Jimmy Carter a little to one side, the younger Bush seemed to bounce on his toes, like a sportsman awaiting a curved ball. Beside him, Barack Obama seemed almost languid.

"We want you to succeed," Mr Bush told his successor before lunch with the three other living presidents in the Oval Office on Wednesday.

"We care deeply about this country. And to the extent we can, we look forward to sharing our experiences with you."

As the clock ticks down to the handover of power in the US on January 20, the gathering of the living leaders of the world's only superpower, who together have 24 years of presidential experience, underscored the responsibility Mr Obama will soon have.

It was the first time since 1981 that such a gathering has taken place. Mr Obama asked for the lunch, and President Bush readily agreed to play host.

"All the gentlemen here understand the pressures and possibilities of this office," Mr Obama said in his public comments. "For me to have the opportunity to get the advice, good counsel and fellowship of these individuals is extraordinary and I'm very grateful."

Each president had their own crises - some foreseeable, some not. George Bush senior had the Gulf War; Mr Carter, the hostage crisis in Iran and an energy crisis; Mr Clinton had to deal with Bosnia, the rise of terrorism and a crisis or two of his own making.

But whether Mr Obama, a man who thrives on listening to experts before tackling a problem, got the advice he was seeking to help him through the first few months of what promises to be a difficult presidency is not clear.

Mr Obama's office issued a short statement saying the meeting was "constructive" and covered questions of how to manage the office as well as the critical issues facing the country.

Uppermost for Mr Obama, however, is the US economy, which is facing a downturn unprecedented in post-war years.

A new report from the Congressional Budget Office, released on Wednesday, forecast the US economy would shrink by 2.2 per cent in 2009 and that Mr Obama would inherit a federal budget deficit of $US1.2 trillion ($1.7 trillion) or 8.3 per cent of GDP - even before he begins his big fiscal stimulus plan. Last year's deficit was $US455 billion.

There will be further pressures on the budget in 2010 as unemployment exceeds 9 per cent before the economy begins a weak recovery, the report said.

At a news conference earlier in the day, Mr Obama announced plans for a chief performance officer, who will be in charge of finding efficiencies within government and tackling spending because, he warned, there was "red ink as far as the eye can see". The person given the job is McKinsey executive and former Treasury official, Nancy Killefer.

But in the short term Mr Obama is going to spend up big. He gave his first estimate of the total amount of the stimulus package expected to emerge from negotiations between his team and Capitol Hill, saying it is likely to hover around $US775 billion over two years. That is about $US400 billion less than economists have said might be needed to jolt the economy but at the top of the range that Obama aides have discussed publicly. "We're going to have to jump-start this economy," Mr Obama said. "That's going to cost some money."

[walkabout]

izgleda da su ga poceli vuc' za rukave ...

-------------------------------------------------

Obama facing delay in Guantanamo closure plan
Anne Davies, Washington correspondent
January 12, 2009 - 6:36AM


President-elect Barack Obama has been froced to delay his plans to close Guantanamo Bay.


President-elect Barack Obama has softened his pledge to close the US's controversial prison at Guantanamo Bay within the first 100 days of his administration, saying it is proving a more complex task than he had first thought.

"I think it's going to take some time and our legal teams are working in consultation with our national security apparatus as we speak to help design exactly what we need to do," Mr Obama said in an in an interview on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos - his first since arriving in Washington.

"It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realise," the president-elect explained.

"Part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication.

"And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it's true. And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo-American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn't result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up."

But president-elect Obama said unequivocally that Guantanamo would close.

"I don't want to be ambiguous about this. We are going to close Guantanamo and we are going to make sure that the procedures we set up are ones that abide by our Constitution. That is not only the right thing to do but it actually has to be part of our broader national security strategy because we will send a message to the world that we are serious about our values."

President George W Bush has also said that he wants to close Guantanamo Bay, but so far has been unable to make satisfactory arrangements for the 250 inmates who remain in the US's main detention centre for alleged terrorists.

Some of the problems stem from concerns about bringing suspects back onto US soil which would potentially bring them within the US justice system and greatly expand their rights of appeal.

Some evidence, collected using enhanced interrogation methods, might also be illegal.

There are also complications with repatriating some detainees who are not likely to be tried for terrorist offences because countries are refusing to accept them back or they may face death in their home countries.

It was recently revealed that the US had asked Australia to take some of the inmates, but the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has declined to assist.

Mr Obama said that he was not ruling out prosecuting Bush administration officials - some civil rights advocates want CIA officials and even vice-president Cheney tried for torturing prisoners - by appointing a special prosecutor or commission to independently investigate abuses of power and illegal activity.

But he said he would prefer to look forward rather than backward in keeping the US safe against terrorist threats.

[walkabout]

evo josh...

--------------

Obama calls for patience, sacrifice

January 12, 2009 - 7:37AM

US President-elect Barack Obama said reviving the US economy will require scaling back on his campaign promises and personal sacrifice from all Americans.

``I want to be realistic here, not everything that we talked about during the campaign are we going to be able to do on the pace we had hoped,'' Obama said in an interview on ABC's ``This Week'' program broadcast. ``Everybody's going to have to give.''

Obama also said in the interview recorded yesterday that he wants stricter guidelines and greater transparency in spending the remaining $US350 billion ($495 billion) in the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Obama takes office Jan. 20 and is pressing Congress to act quickly on a two-year economic stimulus plan of about $US775 billion that includes new government spending and tax cuts. As part of his campaign to build support from lawmakers and the public, Obama has been speaking about the economy every day over the past week, warning of a deeper and more prolonged recession without government action.

Though some Democrats have resisted elements of Obama's plan, recent economic data have helped him make his point. The Labor Department reported Jan. 9 that the US lost almost 2.6 million jobs in 2008 and that the unemployment rate jumped to 7.2% in December, the highest level in almost 16 years. The losses were widespread, with manufacturers, builders, retailers and temporary-help agencies axing positions.

Indicators

``Whether it's retail sales, manufacturing, all of the indicators show that we are in the worst recession since the Great Depression,'' Obama said on ABC. The result is that all Americans will feel the effects of efforts to put the economy back on track, he said.

``Everybody's going to have to have some skin in the game,'' he said.

Companies including Boeing Co., the world's second-largest commercial-plane maker, CSX Corp., the third- largest US railroad, and General Dynamics Corp., the second-largest shipbuilder for the US Navy, announced job cuts last week.

The Standard and Poor's 500 Index has lost 37% in the past 12 months and the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 33%.

The last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, faced a similar predicament. In the face of a deepening budget deficit, Clinton during his transition scaled back his spending plans and abandoned a campaign pledge to enact a middle-class tax cut.

Report on plan

Obama yesterday released a report by his economic advisers that forecasts his two-year stimulus proposal would generate as many as 4 million jobs, higher than his previous estimates, the biggest portion of them in construction, manufacturing and retail.

The plan would also result in the US gross domestic product increasing by 3.7% more by the end of 2010 than it would without the stimulus, according to a study compiled by Obama's economic advisers. The study gives a forecast based on a package of spending and tax cuts totaling ``slightly over'' the $US775 billion that has been discussed by the transition team with members of Congress.

Even with the GDP improvement forecast in the report, the unemployment rate is forecast to be about 7%, according to its authors Christina Romer, the president-elect's pick to head the White House Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, economic policy director for Vice President-elect Joe Biden.

Construction jobs

The single biggest job gains would be in construction, according to the report, with 678,000 created by the fourth quarter of 2010. Another 604,000 jobs would be created or saved in the retail sector and 408,000 in manufacturing.

Most of the jobs created by government spending on infrastructure, education, health and energy would come in 2010 and 2011 because of the time it would take to carry out programs in those areas, the report said.

The Congressional Budget Office forecast that the recession and government outlays for bailouts will push the budget deficit to at least $US1.18 trillion this fiscal year. Obama said Jan. 6 that he expects similar shortfalls ``for years to come.''

Some congressional Democrats have criticized the portion of the plan devoted to tax cuts, while Republicans have voiced concern about the size of the proposal and its effect on the deficit.

Bailout plan

Part of the increase in the deficit estimate stems from the $US700 billion financial market's bailout plan approved by Congress last year.

Obama said that he is ``disappointed with how the whole TARP process has unfolded,'' including insufficient oversight. He also said not enough has been done to help those facing home foreclosures.

Obama said he intends to ``lay out very specifically'' ways that he would spend the next $US350 billion. ``We can regain the confidence of both Congress and the American people that this is not just money that is being given to banks without any strings attached and nobody knows what happens, but rather that it is targeted very specifically at getting credit flowing again to businesses and families.''

He declined to say whether he wants President George W. Bush to request from Congress access to the second half of the money before Inauguration Day.

Among the campaign promises that may be delayed is his vow to quickly close the prison camp at the US Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

``It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize,'' Obama said, adding that he still plans to shut down the facility, used to detain enemy combatants suspected of being terrorists.

Foreign policy

On foreign policy, Obama again declined to be drawn into a substantive discussion of the new violence between the Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Israel. Pressed on his silence on the issue, Obama said the escalating conflict ``makes me much more determined to try to break a deadlock that has gone on for decades.''

He said he is putting together a team that will ensure his administration is ``immediately engaged'' in the Middle East peace process right after he's sworn in.

``The politics of it are hard. And the reason it's so important for the United States to be engaged and involved immediately, not waiting until the end of their term, is because working through the politics of this requires a third party that everybody has confidence wants to see a fair and just outcome.''

Obama said Iran ``is going to be one of our biggest challenges,'' and said some form of engagement with Tehran was ``the place to start.''

While his administration will be willing to talk, there will have to be ``clarity about what our bottom lines are,'' he said, without giving details.

Bloomberg News

[zonbirile]

treba se samo vratiti par stranica unazad,pa vidjeti čovjeka okovanog u zvijezde.Čudno sada nema ni jeze,omar litle ,hjuston,i kompanije.Na temi o Izraelskoj agresiji napadaju sve i svakog,Obamu ne spominju,a čovjek radi posao za koji je izabran-da jebe cijeli svijet u interesu krupnog kapitala,globalista,masona-kako god ih zvali znamo ko su.