Commander-in-Chief Obama

[UPDATE 3-24-09: President Barack Obama on the Federal Budget: Four Principles ]
[Speaking of Battles: The real authoritarian v. populist.
The Battle Over the A.I.G. Bonuses: Class War in the Media ]

I never really did follow up on viewing or reading the bottom link at my Off The Cliff post, but used it as an allegorical leap. But here is a good point someone found regarding the Buffet comment.
From which I snip the point:

"What is required is a commander in chief that's looked at like a commander in chief in a time of war," Buffett said.

Commander-in-Chief? Where have we heard that before?
My point was the economics of the War on Terror where I said:

The honesty of the new budget and accounting now includes the war on terror which was not on the books. So rather than declare, a win or lose the economy bifurcation, the new accounting must include the soft power ingredients which do not come free. I have not seen where this is said, but it should and probably has been or will be.

Now the bottom line is what is pre-emptive.And should be a uniter not a divider.

* and since what confused me about the Buffet report was his call for clarity, I have edited my grammar for that purpose here.

Who knew what when...

...is still unclear and contradictory.
(Update became too long and windy so I overlap here)

<< Correcting an Impression (1): still confusion(2). My own missing (3) link.

Apparently $30 Billion latest AIG potential for drawdown has been caught in this confusion and is potential leverage. Who knew what when is still unclear and contradictory. >>

(1) "Congress last month passed a bill that President Obama signed into law, allowing AIG to keep its bonuses. For days, no one would say who was responsible for the loophole that let that happen.

The $787 billion stimulus bill included a measure from Dodd to limit executive bonuses strictly. But slipped inside at the last minute was an exemption for bonuses agreed to "on or before February 11, 2009." That allowed AIG to go ahead with its controversial bonuses."

(2) "Although Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told congressional leaders on Tuesday that he learned of AIG's impending $160 million bonus payments to members of its troubled financial-products unit on March 10, sources tell TIME that the New York Federal Reserve informed Treasury staff that the payments were imminent on Feb. 28."

(3)"The federal government agreed Sunday night to provide an additional $30 billion in taxpayer money to the American International Group and loosen the terms of its huge loan to the insurer, which is preparing to report a $62 billion loss on Monday, the biggest quarterly loss in history, people involved in the discussions said."

<> Date of sources: (1)today 3-19 (2) yesterday 3-18 (3)Sunday 3-1-09 <>

Imagine the scenario that the market actually had the information clear. The above confusion occurred likely due to the compartmentalization* of information and actions needed to be taken over a weekend. I am still uncertain about the spurious charges of "hush money" in regards to the "retention" bonuses but it is difficult to expect too much transparency** in such market sensitive negotiations or even authoritarian (or mob rule) expectations for responsibility.***

* and filtering through various departments, committees and branches of the process, including the media
**this does not excuse the outrage over bonuses but the speed that was needed and
is in contrast to previous manipulations or administrations and telegraphing our blows.
***(not to mention "...rotisserie of meaning and values and what is being skewered or brings stock aid to mind.": see P.S. verse us alternatives )
[Yes I played with verses as opposed to stocks versus stockade mentality]

[Footnoted Outrage: Between the lines: Embedded and bottom line.
A.I.G. Using "Suicide Strategy" to Push Bonuses by: Matt Renner, t r u t h o u t | Report
Venality Bites by: Brian E. Gray, t r u t h o u t | Perspective A synergy of strategy and legality and antagonistic con fluency of Authoritarian and Mob Rule.]

Outgoing but divided

The irony that the most liberal Republican would lose to a Democrat with the name Whitehouse, Senator Lincoln Chafee anounced:
"The people have spoken all across America. They want the Democrats and Republicans to work together," he said. "I think the president now is going to have to talk to the Democrats. I think that’s going to be good for America."

Or possible good omen for Democrats as Vilsack anounces bid for White House.

I must note a distinction a caller brought out of Ed Shultz on the issue of "divided government". Although we understand that Democrats are needed in the House and Senate to balance the Republican in the White House, Ed meant that divided government to him means simply a Legislative, Judicial and Executive branch that "do their job"(I believe my words). In fact this is my paraphrase and extension, but I also add that my opinion for divided government is that Democrats represent the people and may still have more than one perspective.

When the first 100 hours and 100 days have passed there will still be hard work, because other perspectives can never be "wiped off the political landscape" as Jack Abramoff is believed to have said.

I believe Bush called the ideological war the calling of our time, it is only a snooze alarm. Perspectives must be listened to.

As Abraham Maslow is reported to have said: "Authoritarians must be converted or they must be excluded." While that may seem to apply to other categories, that would be Authoritarian. Where I was going is "War is(only) a last resort". That is my (D)evolution.